Interesting Read

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
The article is from CMU, not a news outlet. Their methodology didn't go looking for a specific narrative. They looked for bot activity and analyzed the content of the most influential and most active bots. This was one of their findings. Are you suggesting they found evidence of "stay-at-home" bot activity and are not reporting it? If so, what's your rationale. Even more importantly, if they had found it, that would be further indication that bot activity has increased to sow more division in the population.

You shouldn't be looking at this through a political lens. It's a national security issue.
Yes, I could see it was from Carnegie-Mellon. However.... I've found that academic institutions occasionally/sometimes/often have an agenda.

As far the "most influential," "active" (etc.) I noticed the release didn't define what exactly that means. It certainly sounds impressive, but once one gets past the "wow" of the statement there's not much there. Actually, there's not anything there..., without the other side being addressed.

I'm not saying the release says they found evidence of "stay at home" bots, I'm saying they didn't even address that side of the question beyond hinting at it toward the beginning of the release. As far as looking at the story through a political lens I think this comment is better directed to the authors of the release as they made it (intentionally or otherwise) political by failing to note the other side of the coin. In other words, this release carries a very distinct and not at all subtle message that "reopening" is being championed by bots and therefore those who champion reopening are equally mindless. Perhaps, I grant, the problem could be me....

Yes, CMU is very reputable, but it - to my mind - did itself no favors in the presentation of this story. Almost as if the authors were so insulated that they didn't realize (or see it as important to note) that perhaps there was another side of the story that needed to be addressed in at least the most minimal of fashion?

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
No need for the dig. Regardless, I would have had the exact same response to this "posted by Fox," regurgitated article as the one you originally cited.

But that's only if I had been satisfied by the Fox post. But I wouldn't have been satisfied with it and would suggest to anyone who asks not to settle for regurgitation (be it left-leaning or right-leaning or neutral). My recommendation: always try to go to the original source.

Bottom line, I don't care if Fox or Bing or Google or MSNBC or CNN posted it. What matters is the original reporting (i.e., primary sources, so to speak).

In the end, my opinion of the article stands.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

gemma_rae

Well-Known Member
Yes, I could see it was from Carnegie-Mellon. However.... I've found that academic institutions occasionally/sometimes/often have an agenda.

As far the "most influential," "active" (etc.) I noticed the release didn't define what exactly that means. It certainly sounds impressive, but once one gets past the "wow" of the statement there's not much there. Actually, there's not anything there..., without the other side being addressed.

I'm not saying the release says they found evidence of "stay at home" bots, I'm saying they didn't even address that side of the question beyond hinting at it toward the beginning of the release. As far as looking at the story through a political lens I think this comment is better directed to the authors of the release as they made it (intentionally or otherwise) political by failing to note the other side of the coin. In other words, this release carries a very distinct and not at all subtle message that "reopening" is being championed by bots and therefore those who champion reopening are equally mindless. Perhaps, I grant, the problem could be me....

Yes, CMU is very reputable, but it - to my mind - did itself no favors in the presentation of this story. Almost as if the authors were so insulated that they didn't realize (or see it as important to note) that perhaps there was another side of the story that needed to be addressed in at least the most minimal of fashion?

--- End of line (MCP)
No, the problem is NOT you Yoop. Quite the contrary, you are the one that is most kind and give this "poster" the benefit of the doubt that there is a possibility they may not be the agent provocateur that they are.

I hope one day I may be as wise and patient as you.:notworthy

I've lost hope that I could ever be as kind.
 

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
No, a bot would sound more intelligent.

BUT you do understand the meaning of "may be"??

Means they have no proof, they are talking out their ass, and will tell you what you want to hear so you can repeat it ad nauseam.. to prove to the world how great an independent thinker you are.
Tsk, tsk, titsbob. "may be" does not equate to "no proof". Many people have problems with statistical reasoning. In this case, "may be" means there's a statistical likelihood given the validity of the model they used. At least you're defending me against being a bot. I thank you for that.

P.S. I'm still waiting for your reply to my takedown of your misunderstanding of IQ. Shouldn't be too difficult to find the flaws in the reasoning of woman with the IQ of an 8 year old. LOL.
 

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
Yes, I could see it was from Carnegie-Mellon. However.... I've found that academic institutions occasionally/sometimes/often have an agenda.

As far the "most influential," "active" (etc.) I noticed the release didn't define what exactly that means. It certainly sounds impressive, but once one gets past the "wow" of the statement there's not much there. Actually, there's not anything there..., without the other side being addressed.

I'm not saying the release says they found evidence of "stay at home" bots, I'm saying they didn't even address that side of the question beyond hinting at it toward the beginning of the release. As far as looking at the story through a political lens I think this comment is better directed to the authors of the release as they made it (intentionally or otherwise) political by failing to note the other side of the coin. In other words, this release carries a very distinct and not at all subtle message that "reopening" is being championed by bots and therefore those who champion reopening are equally mindless. Perhaps, I grant, the problem could be me....

Yes, CMU is very reputable, but it - to my mind - did itself no favors in the presentation of this story. Almost as if the authors were so insulated that they didn't realize (or see it as important to note) that perhaps there was another side of the story that needed to be addressed in at least the most minimal of fashion?

--- End of line (MCP)
The analysis was done to identify bot behavior. When bot behavior was identified, the content was THEN analyzed. Some of that content included discussions about "reopening America". They didn't go looking for that, they went looking for bots! If you look for bots and that's what you find, then that's what you find. What other side are you talking about? What did you want them to do? Analyze the data set for the "stay-at-home" bots - even though they clearly didn't appear in the analysis of the most influential and active bots - just to appease your need to "address both sides"? They didn't do that because that wasn't the research question, BECAUSE THIS STUDY ISN'T POLITICAL! This comes out of the School of Computer Science at CMU. I went to CMU. Many of my good friends were CS majors there and some are current researchers associated with partners of the school. Please read more about how these types of data analyses are done, because you're clearly misunderstanding the methodology and results.

I'm curious, what would have satisfied you? What could they have written that would have addressed the other side?


In other words, this release carries a very distinct and not at all subtle message that "reopening" is being championed by bots and therefore those who champion reopening are equally mindless. Perhaps, I grant, the problem could be me....
It's not saying that at all. You're reading into it. It's just talking about a significant and currently relevant result, which in NO WAY undermines the argument to reopen America. As I said in a previous post, it's a national security issue.
 
Last edited:

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
I'm curious, what would have satisfied you?
"The purpose of this study was to look at bot-related activity as pertains to 'reopening America.' We also plan to do a future look at bot-related activity as pertains to 'safer to stay in lock-down.' Once we have taken a look at both sides of the issue we plan to do a final analysis where we compare and contrast both sides."

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
(a) No, the problem is NOT you Yoop. Quite the contrary, you are the one that is most kind and give this "poster" the benefit of the doubt that there is a possibility they may not be the agent provocateur that they are.

(b) I hope one day I may be as wise and patient as you.:notworthy

(c) I've lost hope that I could ever be as kind.
(a) For the sake of the other person I try to not immediately assume intent or mind-read. More importantly, though, I try to give the benefit of the doubt b/c otherwise it would eat me up. I just can't do caustic anymore. Not saying others shouldn't, only that I shouldn't. Not always successful, though. 😕

(b) You give me too much credit. But "thank you," nonetheless! ;)

(c) Never give up (hope)! 👍

--- End of line (MCP)
 

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
Because Yooper knows his stuff.
I'm sure he does...BUT...the article states "To analyze bot activity around the pandemic, CMU researchers since January have collected more than 200 million tweets discussing coronavirus or COVID-19." It does not state what he is asserting.

I will listen to Yoop.
That's fine, but don't forget to think for yourself, too. Can YOU tell me where in the article it states that purpose was to look at bot activity "as it pertains to 'reopening America'?

No. You can't.

I am asking for evidence and you will find a way to evade. You will say I'm twisting things, or dismiss me as non-military, or un-American. You will make a joke, or a sarcastic comment, or insult me. Or you will simply go away. What you won't do is actually provide any evidence or engage with the argument, and it will make you feel good to do so.
 

Louise

Active Member
PREMO Member
I'm sure he does...BUT...the article states "To analyze bot activity around the pandemic, CMU researchers since January have collected more than 200 million tweets discussing coronavirus or COVID-19." It does not state what he is asserting.



That's fine, but don't forget to think for yourself, too. Can YOU tell me where in the article it states that purpose was to look at bot activity "as it pertains to 'reopening America'?

No. You can't.

I am asking for evidence and you will find a way to evade. You will say I'm twisting things, or dismiss me as non-military, or un-American. You will make a joke, or a sarcastic comment, or insult me. Or you will simply go away. What you won't do is actually provide any evidence or engage with the argument, and it will make you feel good to do so.
I knew a long time ago that social media would be a yuge problem. I think I was the last person on Earth to get a microwave. As far as sarcastic, you have to have humor to get through the life of it all. I don’t think I have insulted you. If I did, please post it. Thanks. I always think for myself, but thanks for thinking of me. :)
 

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
I knew a long time ago that social media would be a yuge problem. I think I was the last person on Earth to get a microwave. As far as sarcastic, you have to have humor to get through the life of it all. I don’t think I have insulted you. If I did, please post it. Thanks. I always think for myself, but thanks for thinking of me. :)
That's fine, but don't forget to think for yourself, too. Can YOU tell me where in the article it states that purpose was to look at bot activity "as it pertains to 'reopening America'?
What you won't do is actually provide any evidence or engage with the argument, and it will make you feel good to do so.
Viola! I'm clairvoyant.
 

kom526

They call me ... Sarcasmo
"Researchers say" all kinds of things that turn out to be bullshit. Then AP/Reuters picks it up and distributes it to all the news outlets, who print/repeat it verbatim.

I go by what I personally experience, opinions of people I personally know and what I personally see. That's typically dead on and not subject to the manipulation "researchers" and "reporters".

You progs can certainly believe whatever you want - those articles are written specifically for you, so you might as well enjoy them.
Researchers say:

2 weeks to flatten the curve
Masks don't work
Wear your masks
The virus stays alive for up to 3 days on hard surfaces
The virus dies quickly on hard surfaces
We must stay locked down
If we stay locked down too long we'll do irreparable harm

I can't even with reporters, especially with Acosta, Haberman, and that Jiang chick.
 

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
I'm sure he does...BUT...the article states "To analyze bot activity around the pandemic, CMU researchers since January have collected more than 200 million tweets discussing coronavirus or COVID-19." It does not state what he is asserting. No critical thinking skills, eh? Can't put 2 and 2 together? Why are you even going to comment if you're not going to even attempt thinking for yourself?

Can YOU tell me where in the article it states that purpose was to look at bot activity "as it pertains to 'reopening America'?

No. You can't.
I'm sure he does...BUT...the article states "To analyze bot activity around the pandemic, CMU researchers since January have collected more than 200 million tweets discussing coronavirus or COVID-19."
JFC!!! You REALLY are retarded, aren't you?
Use some gotdam critical thinking skills for once in your pathetic life!!

You even QUOTED where in the article it states that purpose... what a friggin idiot!!
 

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
I see Sapidus is continuing to play Pedantic Word Games Asking Passive Aggressive Questions, playing gotcha games
I see Sappy THINKS he's playing gotcha games...
And the only one he keeps tripping up is himself
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
BUT THAT WASN'T THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY! WHY DO YOU KEEP ASSERTING THAT!?
BECAUSE THAT'S MY PROBLEM WITH THE STUDY! THEY CHOSE TO ONLY LOOK AT ONE HALF OF THE ISSUE!

I don't disagree with your point that this is what the study did. My disagreement with the study is that it wasn't a "total picture" look and the study (or study release) erred by not making any disclaimers as to why not. This is how research is done: you state what you are going to study and then you state why you chose not to study other relevant issues. What you don't do is fail to do this and that's my problem with the release,

--- End of line (MCP)
 

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
JFC!!! You REALLY are retarded, aren't you?
Use some gotdam critical thinking skills for once in your pathetic life!!

You even QUOTED where in the article it states that purpose... what a friggin idiot!!
Mmmm...let's see who's the retarded one. I made a picture for you so you can understand.

148439



From the CMU article: "To analyze bot activity around the pandemic, CMU researchers since January have collected more than 200 million tweets discussing coronavirus or COVID-19."

From the CMU article: "A subset of tweets about 'reopening America' reference conspiracy theories, such as hospitals filled with mannequins or the coronavirus being linked to 5G towers."

From the NPR article: "Among the misinformation disseminated by bot accounts: tweeted conspiracy theories about hospitals being filled with mannequins or tweets that connected the spread of coronavirus to 5G wireless towers."

The purpose of the study was to find the BIG circle. Yoooper is claiming the purpose was the find the SMALL CIRCLES IN THE RECTANGLE. The two of you are confusing the purpose of analysis with the findings of analysis. If I'm mistaken - because I'm retarded - please cite the text and tell me where it says otherwise.

But you won't. You'll evade engaging with the conversation.
 
Last edited:
Top