🧵 I've seen this alarmist @nature piece making the rounds on Twitter and while a simple "𝗻𝗼" goes a long way, let me explain why we should be careful with stories like these, esp. with the #USElections2020 coming up. 1/6
A recent study stated that "bots generated spikes of conversations around real-world political events". And while the general data is being shared, neither are the Botometer scores nor the accounts that have been manually validated. 3/6

https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/11431
While it is unclear why the authors have decided not to share the accounts, @FlorianGallwitz has been tracking so-called "social bots" for a while and, as far as I know, has yet to find one. 4/6
This is a problem. Not because bots don't exist but rather because both academics as well as journalists regularly overstate their relevance. As @kreissdaniel and @shannimcg just highlighted: alarmism is misplaced. For misinformation as well as bots. 6/6 https://slate.com/technology/2020/10/misinformation-social-media-election-research-fear.html
Postscriptum: I think studying misinfo as well as bots is highly important and relevant. I teach a class on misinfo and run the Misinfo Working Group at @BKCHarvard. But alarmism doesn't help anyone.
You can follow @JonasKaiser.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.