/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11405371
>Conversely, tweets that could be categorized as online activism to support action on the climate crisis featured very few bots, at about 5% prevalence. The findings “suggest that bots are not just prevalent, but disproportionately so in topics that were supportive of Trump’s announcement or skeptical of climate science and action”, the analysis states.

>Thomas Marlow, a PhD candidate at Brown who led the study, said the research came about as he and his colleagues are “always kind of wondering why there’s persistent levels of denial about something that the science is more or less settled on”.

>The researchers examined 6.5m tweets posted in the days leading up to and the month after Trump announced the US exit from the Paris accords on 1 June 2017. The tweets were sorted into topic category, with an Indiana University tool called Botometer used to estimate the probability the user behind the tweet is a bot.

>Stephen Lewandowsky
Marlow said he was surprised that bots were responsible for a quarter of climate tweets on an average day. “I was like, ‘Wow that seems really high,’” he said.

>The consistent drumbeat of bot activity around climate topics is highlighted by the day of Trump’s announcement, when a huge spike in general interest in the topic saw the bot proportion drop by about half to 13%. Tweets by suspected bots did increase from hundreds a day to more than 25,000 a day during the days around the announcement but it wasn’t enough to prevent a fall in proportional share.

>Trump has consistently spread misinformation about the climate crisis, most famously calling it “bullshit” and a “hoax”, although more recently the US president has said he accepts the science that the world is heating up. Nevertheless, his administration has dismantled any major policy aimed at cutting planet-warming gases, including car emissions standards and restrictions on coal-fired power plants.

>>11405374
>>11405371
>The Brown University study wasn’t able to identify any individuals or groups behind the battalion of Twitter bots, nor ascertain the level of influence they have had around the often fraught climate debate.

>However, a number of suspected bots that have consistently disparaged climate science and activists have large numbers of followers on Twitter. One that ranks highly on the Botometer score, @sh_irredeemable, wrote “Get lost Greta!” in December, in reference to the Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg.

>This was followed by a tweet that doubted the world will reach a 9-billion population due to “#climatechange lunacy stopping progress”. The account has nearly 16,000 followers.

>Another suspected bot, @petefrt, has nearly 52,000 followers and has repeatedly rejected climate science. “Get real, CNN: ‘Climate Change’ dogma is religion, not science,” the account posted in August. Another tweet from November called for the Paris agreement to be ditched in order to “reject a future built by globalists and European eco-mandarins”.

>Twitter accounts spreading falsehoods about the climate crisis are also able to use the promoted tweets option available to those willing to pay for extra visibility. Twitter bans a number of things from its promoted tweets, including political content and tobacco advertising, but allows any sort of content, true or otherwise, on the climate crisis.

>Research on internet blogs published last year found that climate misinformation is often spread due to readers’ perception of how widely this opinion is shared by other readers.

>Stephan Lewandowsky, an academic at the University of Bristol who co-authored the research, said he was “not at all surprised” at the Brown University study due to his own interactions with climate-related messages on Twitter.

>>11405371
Really jogs the noggin

>>11405371
you're one of the top fucking clowns
congrats

>>11405404
>t. literal NPC

>>11405379
>>11405374
>>11405371
>Bots aren't pervasive on Twitter
>Bots clearly back only one political viewpoint
Everybody has bots. Corporations use them for marketing. Various political and activist groups use them for advocacy, and to change public opinion.

And anyone who gets their news or ideas from Twitter is an idiot. It's literally designed for short, superficial statements.

>>11405482
>Everybody has bots.
wrong. Disney and msm and globalists have them. Good guys don't.
When BvS came out a swarm of bots came shitting on it.
When Captain Marvel (Carol Manvers one) came out a swarm of bots praised it.
This pretty much says for itself.

>>11405533
>Disney and msm and globalists
you forgot the oil cartels

>people whose opinions I disagree with are bots
>ergo, we don't have to listen to them
really activates the ol' almonds

>>11405533
The real world doesn't usually fit into a "good guys vs. bad guys" dynamic. And whatever your favorite social cause is, there are probably bots out there to support you.

>When BvS came out a swarm of bots came shitting on it.
Even if I accept your generalization that the bots were all bashing BvS, they were probably still trying to get people to see the movie. Attention itself is valuable.

When Joker came out, CNN (which is owned by the same people that made Joker) spent a ton of time freaking out about the male/incel/terrorist Joker menace. It was a pretty transparent attempt to market the movie via controversy.

>>11405708
Are deniertards illiterate?

>>11405727
nope, just paid

>>11405482
This
>>11405533
Patently wrong, piggot

>>11405719
>The real world doesn't usually fit into a "good guys vs. bad guys" dynamic
no no no no
There is good and there is evil.


>Even if I accept your generalization that the bots were all bashing BvS, they were probably still trying to get people to see the movie. Attention itself is valuable.
nope

>When Joker came out, CNN (which is owned by the same people that made Joker) spent a ton of time freaking out about the male/incel/terrorist Joker menace. It was a pretty transparent attempt to market the movie via controversy.
No, that was attempt to , as we see in a long game (by the way Sandy Hook was "predicted" in Dark Knight Rises) an attempt to derail conversation of staged shootings.

>>11405739
no, I AM correct.

>>11405549
>oil cartels
no

>>11405813
>the fact that good and evil exists, implies that every person, movement, or institution is split into "good" and "evil"
Truly, a stupid thought.

>No, that was attempt to ... derail conversation of staged shootings
Right. Because we should assume when a major corporation does something that makes them a lot of money, they're being driven by illuminati motivations, rather than profit.

>>11405862
they all connected, "holly" wood, paedophiles, Mossad.
I mean did you even saw Epstein case? It's when they SHOVE it in your face and you are still like this

>>11406016
OK, schizo.

Social media bots should be illegal.

>>11406040
>>11406170
>>11400228
>>11406075
>>11403999
Samefag?

Why is there one guy running around, and calling everybody a schizo on this board?

>>11406194
Literal schizo post

FYI I am one of those comments, nothing else.

>>11406221
And now you're lying, too?

>>11406226
s c h i z o i d a l

>>11406228
>>11406221
Holy fuck. This isn't the first time somebody has noticed it. This is an anonymous board, and you've managed to identify yourself by constant, over-the-top use of a less-than-common insult.

It's almost like a tripcode.

>>/sci/?ghost=yes&task=search&search_text=schizo&offset=0

>>11406241
*ting ting ting*
*ahem*
FUCK SCHIZOS

>>11406241
/sci/ needs IDs

>>11405371
paris climate accords where pretty much just for show
a lot of countries just said shit like "we will decrease the rate we are increasing the rate of our CO2 emmisions"

>>11406241
>>11406276
samefag

>>11406221
Which one?

>>11406300
Yeah. What's your point? I quoted my own post, to show they were related.

>>11406302

>>11406075

>>11406306
>I quoted my own post
No you didn't, schizo.

>>11406309
I don't know if it's you, or not, but somebody is spamming the word "schizo". There have been 8 one-line posts in the past twenty-five minutes, several with very similar phrasing.

I'm guessing it's either a bot, or a crazy person.

>>11406318
>>11406310
Oooh, now it's 9.

>>11406318
I'm >>11406040 and none of those other posts are me. Dumb paranoid schizo.

>>11406310
Fine, "I replied to my own post". Do you care?

>>11406318
>being this schizo

>>11406325
Either you're the schizo spammer, or not. In which case

1) You are not - and somebody else is spamming it.

2) You are the schizo poster - and you seem to be triggered.

>>11406351
3) multiple people call you schizo because you're a schizo

>>11406351
Can you please stop spamming the word "schizo"? thanks

>>11406356
>>11406355
I'm not the one spamming it.

>>11406355
Also, mostly, they're saying it to other people.

>>11406194 was the first time I got called it.

>>11406325
>>11406040
Question: was this older post you?

>Question for all the other Christian /sci/entists out there, the more I think about this the more it drives me mad. Before the mods get their panties in a twist, this isn’t a “religion vs science” thread, this is a religion + science thread, but anyone with an understanding of Abrahamism and/or quantum mechanics is welcome to contribute regardless of piety. Let’s assume God is real and the Bible is accurate, and let’s also assume that the many-worlds interpretation is real and we have parallel timelines/universes. If so;
>if all universes are governed by one God, is there one Heaven as well shared by all realities
>if so, would it be possible to encounter alternate versions of yourself
>or are there infinite Heavens separated like the universes with one God presiding over all of them
>if there are infinite Heavens, are there infinite Lucifers that fell from them as well
>Emanuel Swedenborg theorized that there is one Heaven but split into thirds
>And if we stick to the Christian point of view, how would Jesus factor into all of this? Basically the entire historical community agrees that Jesus of Nazareth is a real person and is documented to have existed, and if He is the son of a loving God it stands to reason that He wouldn’t just save some realities and not others, making Him a multiversal constant. Therefore,
>do the timelines diverge after the death of Jesus Christ, or are the events leading up to His crucifixion different in some realities
>do other universes have entirely different Bibles
400 years ago we’d get backhanded by the Pope for saying the Earth revolves around the sun, imagine being a theologian then and trying to explain to the clergy you think there’s a chance there’s infinite Devils.

>>11405371
Who wants to bet that Indiana University's "Botometer" uses political preference as a heuristic

>>11405708
tweets posted by bots created the impression there was a high level of climate change denial.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51595285

>>11405482
>drumpfie ignoring facts for his beliefs as usual

>>11405371
>>11405374
>>11405379
>Thomas Marlow, a PhD candidate at Brown who led the study, said the research came about as he and his colleagues are “always kind of wondering why there’s persistent levels of denial about something that the science is more or less settled on”

I can't believe scientists can be this fucking ridiculous

>>11405371
Imagine thinking you're smart and not figuring out that Climate Change™ is just branding for endless new taxes on the plebs.

>>11410749
>not figuring out that Climate Change:tm: is just branding for endless new taxes on the plebs.
It's not though. Retard.
https://youtu.be/ugwqXKHLrGk

>>11405371
Who cares about Twitter though? It's an intellectual and social wasteland.

>>11409066
>REEEEE SCIENTISTS SAID SOMETHING I DON'T LIKE REEEEEEE

>>11406395
No, paranoid schizo.

>>11405371
Will they actually list the names of the accounts?

Because any retard can make an article like this.

I
Still
Remember
Wikileaks
Pointing
Out
Communist
Bots
With First Name Last Name adult models as profile pictures shitting up #

>>11410794
What evdn is the point of this video you stupid fucking faggot. I am supposed to just watch a 25 minute video of some retard cherry picking?

>>11410855
>cherry picking
What was cherry picked?

>>11406821
>The study does not find evidence that automated accounts currently have a liberal or conservative “political bias” in their overall link-sharing behavior. This emerges from an analysis of the subset of news sites that contain politically oriented material. Suspected bots share roughly 41% of links to political sites shared primarily by liberals and 44% of links to political sites shared primarily by conservatives – a difference that is not statistically significant.

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/04/09/bots-in-the-twittersphere/