This article is bullshit. Enjoy the downvote
This article is bullshit. Enjoy the downvote
Now they have to make one for the Washington Post.
Now they have to make one for the Washington Post.
You mean for the MSM?
Oy Vey! You can’t let the goyim know! Shut it down!
You mean for the MSM?
Oy Vey! You can’t let the goyim know! Shut it down!
"science"
"science"
It is actually science, although mostly statistics. If the input is bad, the output is. The science here is getting a true/false correlation significantly over 50% from a short input like a tweet. They probably used Trump for publicity and because there is publicly available true/false data for all his tweets. But that's what data scientists do.
It is actually science, although mostly statistics. If the input is bad, the output is. The science here is getting a true/false correlation significantly over 50% from a short input like a tweet. They probably used Trump for publicity and because there is publicly available true/false data for all his tweets. But that's what data scientists do.
Yeah ok, I see your point there. But publicly available true/false data being probably from Poynter/Politifact or somesuch, I just don't put much stock in something like that. Like you said, bad input bad output. I hadn't considered that tacking Trump onto it might get them more funding for their research, but it makes sense.
Yeah ok, I see your point there. But publicly available true/false data being probably from Poynter/Politifact or somesuch, I just don't put much stock in something like that. Like you said, bad input bad output. I hadn't considered that tacking Trump onto it might get them more funding for their research, but it makes sense.
publicly available true/false data being probably from Poynter/Politifact or somesuch, I just don't put much stock in something like that.
It's not about if the fact checking is biased. It would be interesting to see a study on how twitter linguistics influence fact checkers though.
BTW:
Using tweets fact-checked by an independent third party (Washington Post)
> publicly available true/false data being probably from Poynter/Politifact or somesuch, I just don't put much stock in something like that.
It's not about if the fact checking is biased. It would be interesting to see a study on how twitter linguistics influence fact checkers though.
BTW:
> Using tweets fact-checked by an
independent third party (Washington Post)
(post is archived)