Read on Twitter
This MIT Tech Review article from May is making the rounds again. It was based on a press release from CMU with no study to back it up. It is baseless, in my opinion. This NYT article interviews both me and the CMU researcher in question: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/16/science/social-media-bots-kazemi.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/1... https://twitter.com/histoftech/status/1299980291902189569">https://twitter.com/histoftec...
I tried to see if the bot study was published since then. It was not. But Carley at CMU has co-authored several papers on COVID and social media, and one of these papers claims the 50% bots thing. You know what it cites? The media coverage of Carley& #39;s press release with no paper!
Here& #39;s the paper I& #39;m talking about and the citation chain. I can& #39;t believe that researchers are allowed to get away this kind of stuff at an institution like CMU.
Like seriously, I feel literally fucking crazy when I actually read some of these papers on social media disinformation and follow the citations
How much of academic research is people going "wow I hope nobody closely reads this paper"? Like... what even IS peer review at this point in history? Is all knowledge production a scam? I& #39;d like to think it isn& #39;t! I can& #39;t say for sure that it isn& #39;t!!!
Btw here is a link to the PDF of the Memon & Carley paper that cites Carley& #39;s earlier press release https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.00791.pdf">https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008....
Link to an older thread (which links to more of my threads, etc) about the CMU press release cited in the original MIT Tech Review article at the top of *this* thread https://twitter.com/tinysubversions/status/1268220365790015488">https://twitter.com/tinysubve...
