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.
There’s factual analysis of incorrect or incomplete data though.
If you only went to a bunch of far left accounts and looked at all their replies to people calling them Nazis, then those people reply calling them names too, you’ll form a very different “factual analysis” than if you went to a cute puppies twitter account and analyse the replies in there.
Not all studies are legit, unbiased, or factual. People need to move away from the idea that a study being done means the results are true. You can pay to get a study done that will give you a “factual analysis” that says the earth is flat.
That’s not incorrect, but at best you get grounds to audit the data and publish a more complete picture, not just handwave away their data as inherently worthless.
If they refuse to publish the data (in a way that preserves privacy of users but otherwise is sufficient to evaluate the methodology and legitimacy), then you second guess. But tossing it out without that (especially when it’s very clearly in line with all the other ways to look at the site) isn’t justified.
A quick look at the report is all you need to see how badly they bungled (intentionally possibly) the research. Right from the first line of page 1 you can see it’s not unbiased or factual.
Firstly, they’re classifying the term “grooming” as hate speech. That’s not factual.
Secondly, they say this further down on page 1:
So now they’re taking the volume of discourse including the people defending the so called hate speech and using that to fuel the “increase in hate speech” figures. They’re counting 1 person saying “you’re a groomer” and then 10 people saying “they’re not a groomer” as 11 counts of “hate speech” for this “research”. I don’t think I really need to explain why that is wrong, do I?
On Page 3 they then go on to talk about 5 specific accounts that they clearly don’t like and classify as “hate speech accounts”, and then “guesstimate” how much revenue that has brought in to Twitter. They make the conclusion:
But really what they mean is “more views = more money from ads”. Well duh, this is how ads work.
The entire research is essentially “we have declared that the term “groomer” is hate speech, so anything associated with any account that has ever had the word groomer mentioned in a tweet or reply since musk took over is amplifying hate speech”.
That’s it. That’s the entire research. They declared something as hate speech, found 5 popular accounts where that word was mentioned in a tweet, and then they went to town just manipulating data to get the conclusion that they wanted to get.
I couldn’t agree more, I’m glad you said this. See, I personally think all conservatives (presumably such as yourself, but if you’re not, you’re obviously close enough) are pedophilic sexual predators by nature, which is why they so readily jump to the false conclusion that everyone wants to fuck kids all the time. Normally I wouldn’t say this because when I’ve said so in the past, conservatives have been real mad about it and viewed it as hateful to be associated with something so repulsive merely by way of having a certain political identity, but it’s nice to be in a safe space you’ve created that allows for me to share this decidedly non-hateful speech targeted at conservatives (and you!) that expresses my complete and utter contempt for you and your gross, clearly unsafe way with children. I mean, you willingly force them into churches (a.k.a ‘rape factories’) all the time. Tells you all you need to know about any conservative. You’re obviously complicit.
This doesn’t even warrant a reply it’s that sad.
It’s a very apt demonstration of “non-hateful” hate-speech.