[Phil_Latio]

Yeah, the endorsement was mentioned - while the assassination attempt was not.

Here is a quote from that study:

> In Phase Two, comparing Republican-leaning and Democrat-leaning accounts, we again observed an engagement shift around the same date, affecting all metrics

It's so obvious that an assassination attempt on a republican candidate will boost republican engagement MORE than democrats. It's just as obvious that a corona virus outbreak in close proximity to a laboratory which works on corona viruses, escaped very likely from that lab. Common sense. Also for weeks after the event, of course republicans continued to be more riled up about it.

This is not science. If the claim is that Musk tuned the algorithms at that special date, you have to prove it by other means, other than engagement being boosted at that day and weeks to follow.

[hansihe]

The study analyzed two separate things:

* Change in engagement for posts by Elon Musk

* Change in engagement for republican content

It seems to me that when taken together, these two make a fair case that there was a change in algorithm on the given date?

Besides, the study you are claiming "is not science" did not even make strong claims as to there being an algorithm change. The study made an analysis, and concluded that they might point towards there being an algorithmic change.

Additionally, as you say "If the claim is that Musk tuned the algorithms at that special date, you have to prove it by other means". What other means exactly? We have no data to go on except observations of what happens on the platform. From the information we have it seems like everything points towards this being the case.

The case for manipulation happening furthered even more by Elon Musk repeatedly showing he is full of shit, and has no qualms lying and totally making stuff up. (see his repeated lies about Autopilot, his lie about being world class at video games, his lies about DOGE cuts, etc).

Before dismissing these findings, ask yourself honestly: would you apply the same rigorous standards of proof if the algorithmic changes benefited different political figures or viewpoints?

[Phil_Latio]

> would you apply the same rigorous standards of proof if the algorithmic changes benefited different political figures or viewpoints?

That's the whole point I'm basically making: I think this is an obviously bogus study, but one side will happely take the conclusions as granted because it falls in line with an agenda or narrative - furthering the divisions in society. Which by the way doesn't mean that the other side doesn't spew garbage as well.

But in these specific case, where it's so obvious... We can go on with corona virus lab like I mentioned. In these cases, where the common sense is "turned off" in some people, I really wonder what's going on and speak up. It's absurd.

> The study made an analysis, and concluded that they might point towards there being an algorithmic change.

Yes but you can't do that for the reasons I mentioned. But still doing it and then another study referencing that crap, shows to me that science is not at play here.

> From the information we have it seems like everything points towards this being the case.

Well if Greta Thunberg at the height of her popularity fell from a wind mill, someone could've made the claim Twitter is suddenly boosting a certain group of accounts. The CEO of Twitter even wrote condolences, something is up here!! Sorry, but this garbage.

> What other means exactly? We have no data to go on except observations of what happens on the platform.

Yes that's an issue, but that's not my problem?! If the circumstances do not allow for a proper study, you don't make it. I would look whether the boost in republican engagement came down again. If it stayed on the same level (maybe til today?!), I would agree, something is very fishy. Maybe there is a study that did that already? I don't know.

> The case for manipulation happening furthered even more by Elon Musk repeatedly showing he is full of shit, and has no qualms lying and totally making stuff up.

But this is not a science approach you can enrich a crappy study with. You can surely have that opinion - I have no problem with that. That's an opinion without proof, which I have too on certain topics. But then producing bogus studies to try to turn this opinion into some sort of fact where people point to as "proof" is what makes me upset. It doesn't help the cause, only causes division, because the people pointing think they have science on their side, instead of just having a opinion.

[hansihe]

Your dismissal of this research shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific analysis works.

The study analyzed two separate phenomena - changes in engagement for Musk's posts AND changes in engagement for Republican content - occurring simultaneously. When taken together, these patterns strongly suggest algorithmic changes, not just organic user behavior from the assassination attempt.

Saying "you can't do that for the reasons I mentioned" is just wrong. Studies absolutely can point toward likely explanations without 100% certainty - that's literally how science progresses. The researchers used appropriate cautious language because they understand scientific rigor, not because their analysis is "crap."

Your argument that "if circumstances don't allow for a proper study, you don't make it" would eliminate most scientific advancement. Should we have abandoned Alzheimer's research because perfect data wasn't available? Obviously not.

What's truly absurd here is your selective skepticism. You demand impossibly high standards of proof for findings you dislike while accepting "common sense" explanations that align with your preconceptions.

Before dismissing research as "garbage" that "causes division," maybe consider whether your reaction is based on methodological concerns or simply that the evidence contradicts your preferred narrative about Musk. Your eagerness to defend him while offering nothing but personal opinion suggests it's the latter.

[Phil_Latio]

> The study analyzed two separate phenomena - changes in engagement for Musk's posts AND changes in engagement for Republican content - occurring simultaneously

And in which political bubble is Musk popular? It's not seperate phenomena. What do you expect? That let's say republican engagement organically increases (as I claim), but Musks engagement stays the same, even though he made many statements regarding the assassination attempt and got people riled up because of his endorsement? This is ridiculous, sorry.

> Should we have abandoned Alzheimer's research because perfect data wasn't available? Obviously not.

The study authors should've been well aware of the above. They didn't care and did it anyway, because they knew fully well that people will not care, because it fits a certain narrative.

> Your eagerness to defend him

Okay I think we can stop it here then. You think I write in defense of Musk. I think you are completely oblivious to common sense. The truth is probably not that black and white though.

Nice day