A nonprofit organization that researches links between social media, hate and extremism has been threatened with a lawsuit by X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.

A nonprofit organization that researches links between social media, hate and extremism has been threatened with a lawsuit by X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.

    • Whirlybird
      1·
      11 months ago

      Literally page 1 there says all you need to know about what this “research” was out to prove. The very first line:

      1. Tweets mentioning the hateful ‘grooming’ narrative have jumped 119% under Musk

      They’re declaring that the word “grooming” is “hate speech”. It’s not.

      More just on page 1:

      In 2022 before Musk took over, there were an average of 3,011 such tweets per day. This jumped 119% to 6,596 in the four months after his takeover. Note that this analysis captures the volume of discourse around the ‘groomer’ narrative, which includes tweets defending the LGBTQ+ community as well as those leveling the slurs.

      So they’re saying that the overall discourse including those defending against the “slurs” is what has increased, not just actual “hate speech”.

      Still on page 1:

      In particular, they spiked around the following events:

      Ah, so they spiked because of events happening in the world that talk about the thing that is being discussed. Who would have guessed? It’s almost like things that are currently happening get discussed on social media.

      On page 3 they then go on to this:

      1. Just five Twitter accounts driving the ‘grooming’ narrative generate up to $6.4m per year for Twitter in ad revenue

      So as I suggested, they’ve cherry picked specific accounts with high engagement and use of terms that they decided are hate speech and are using those to show how bad twitter is for hate speech lol.

      Sorry but this “research” is ridiculous. It’s the very definition of having a conclusion you want and then working backwards to try and confirm it no matter how.

      • AnonTwo@kbin.social
        1·
        11 months ago

        Hey, you skipped over the word “narrative” Mr. “I’m gonna call this cherrypicking”

      • Rottcodd@kbin.social
        11·
        11 months ago

        It’s the very definition of having a conclusion you want and then working backwards to try and confirm it no matter how.

        I love unintentional irony.

          • AnonTwo@kbin.social
            1·
            11 months ago

            The irony is that you misread the article, quoted parts while still misreading the article, allowing everyone to see that you misread the article

            Then made an argument that only works provided nobody else noticed you misread the article

            Which would be a form of cherrypicking.

            Because you have stepped over that it’s “Grooming Narrative” and not “Grooming” every single post since that one. The conversation is the hate speech, not the specific word.

            • Whirlybird
              1·
              11 months ago

              I didn’t misread the article though, so your entire premise falls apart.

              The conversation is the hate speech, not the specific word.

              Like I said, they didn’t check “the narrative”. They did searches finding combinations of words. To this study, a tweet saying “LGBT people stand against grooming kids!” would count as a “hate speech” post 🤣. If 100 people retweeted that, it counts as 101 “hate speech” occurrences.

              You don’t see the issues with that?