Important read @EmmaLBriant, calling out many significant methodological flaws w/ the Oxford Internet Institute’s (almost entirely non-peer reviewed) Computational Propaganda project.

It’s not just her — its controversy within the OII is an open secret. https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-the-grim-consequences-of-a-misleading-study-on-disinformation/

From what I hear, people very critical in private don’t criticise publicly because they’re worried about personal political repercussions within academia (particularly but not only bc they are junior). For senior academics to do that, I find extremely disappointing.

Journalists trust the University of Oxford in part because of the unspoken expectation that when it puts out findings, they’re rigorous & peer reviewed. Peer rev is no panacea but let’s be clear: shouting about research without it burns through reputation earned by others’ labour

also: a counterpoint to @EmmaLBriant’s critique is that the slow increase of language and translation over the course of the project’s reports gives a false sense of the problem increasing within the global media (which may, as she says, be irrelevant to issues in the ground)

in which the Divisional Court calls statistical evidence submitted by this project about the decisive influence of Facebook ads on the EU referendum “palpable nonsense” https://twitter.com/paulfscott/status/1362492645977845766