These findings are shallow and naive, 2016 is ages ago in current times. The transformer innovation that has accelerated generative AI wasn't even published yet (2017). Why do you think the US senate is moving to bann TikTok?
If you like systems thinking, add in the factual numbers of covid and climate change denial. Plus the critical reasoning skills, sustained attention and reading comprehension of youth.
Zoom out to see more clearly.
Here's a nice analysis, though it won't subdue (grounded) concern:
No. They are narrow and precise findings, which is the oeuvre of computational social scientists who wrote the research, specifically tackling the assessments of the way we measure the impact of misinformation.
There are a set of wider questions which you allude to but honestly out of scope of a single paper in Nature.
You raise a clear systems-problem yet refuse to acknowledge the influence of the systems in which the problem, misinformation, is embedded. Both your understanding of science and systems fall short. You're way behind times, your view on the frequency and impact of misinformation are myopic - leading you to draw laughably invalid conclusions. Already in 2020, the consensus of world leading experts was: "misinformation is the biggest threat worldwide". Clearly they are biased, yet they rightly identified an impactful lever. Misinformation influences voting, sustainable behavior, social behavior and health behavior. These are undeniable scientific facts. It doesn't even require a lot of reasoning skills to understand the interconnectedness of such blatantly obvious numbers. Do more research on your blogpost, you missed the mark on this one.
Great piece. Will read Nature article soon. The methodology outlined has many applications.
These findings are shallow and naive, 2016 is ages ago in current times. The transformer innovation that has accelerated generative AI wasn't even published yet (2017). Why do you think the US senate is moving to bann TikTok?
If you like systems thinking, add in the factual numbers of covid and climate change denial. Plus the critical reasoning skills, sustained attention and reading comprehension of youth.
Zoom out to see more clearly.
Here's a nice analysis, though it won't subdue (grounded) concern:
https://open.substack.com/pub/noahpinion/p/how-liberal-democracy-might-lose?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=a5c61
No. They are narrow and precise findings, which is the oeuvre of computational social scientists who wrote the research, specifically tackling the assessments of the way we measure the impact of misinformation.
There are a set of wider questions which you allude to but honestly out of scope of a single paper in Nature.
You raise a clear systems-problem yet refuse to acknowledge the influence of the systems in which the problem, misinformation, is embedded. Both your understanding of science and systems fall short. You're way behind times, your view on the frequency and impact of misinformation are myopic - leading you to draw laughably invalid conclusions. Already in 2020, the consensus of world leading experts was: "misinformation is the biggest threat worldwide". Clearly they are biased, yet they rightly identified an impactful lever. Misinformation influences voting, sustainable behavior, social behavior and health behavior. These are undeniable scientific facts. It doesn't even require a lot of reasoning skills to understand the interconnectedness of such blatantly obvious numbers. Do more research on your blogpost, you missed the mark on this one.