> Researchers have documented an explosion of hate and misinformation on Twitter since the Tesla billionaire took over in October 2022
That's great, now where are the receipts? Anytime I ever hear about "misinformation on Twitter" it's always just that blanket statement that were supposed to believe.
How reinstated accounts are posting antisemitic content(hate)
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/threads-hate-how-twitters...
A surge in QAnon content which coincides with Musk's takeover(misinformation)
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/qanon-resurgent-twitter
The Center for Countering Digital Hate(CCDH) has reports on
How Anti-LGBTQ narratives have risen 119% after Musk bought Twitter(hate)
https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Toxic-Twi...
More information in other reports are available at both https://www.adl.org/resources/search/research-analysis?keywo... and https://counterhate.com/research/?_sf_s=twitter
I'm not exactly interested in discussing what exactly constitutes an "explosion" or what's "hateful" or "misinformation," but those are fine starting points for garnering more receipts as you put it.
I live near the war, am aware of the propaganda from both sides, and now when I search for Ukraine the misinformation/Russophile volume is off the previous charts.
Al Jazeera is a news journal, not a science journal, usually news journal don’t publish sources in the same way as science journals do. If you are lucky, and the news is about one study in particular, they might link to the study, but most of the time they simply publish the story and it is up to the reader to seek out more details.
Perhaps it is not ideal, but this way the writers of Al Jazeera can focus on their most obvious target audience—people who just want the story—while the more curious among us can find the sources and share on these forums.
But again, they already have the sources. They know exactly what reference they are using for facts they bring up. The extra work involved is Ctrl-C + Ctrl-V.
The exact same argument could be said about scientific papers. The benefit of the community is that they will do the detective work of finding the references. I don’t know about you, but I would see this as a serious step backward.
Business documents also have to back up their statements. Even 15 year olds in school are expected to include references.
Let’s look at what they do include links for: > In another analysis, prominent climatologist Katharine Hayhoe monitored responses to a tweet on climate change that she published twice, as an experiment, on separate dates before and after Musk’s takeover.
The italics are mine and they are a hyperlink in the article. Reading that sentence I, and I suspect many others, would expect the hyperlink to take us to something related to Katharine Hayhoe‘a work. But it doesn’t. It takes us to [1], which is talking about Musk making himself the sole director. That link is basically irrelevant as a reference for that paragraph.
[1]: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/11/1/elon-musk-fires-...
But if you are interested, here is the tweet in question: https://twitter.com/KHayhoe/status/1640915926152298497
In journalism it is often more important to find sources which back each other up, rather then finding original research. In this case the journalist interviews a few scientists that all tell a similar story. I think the journalist here is simply doing what they have been trained to do.
They also used to be written on actual paper which doesn’t support hyperlinking, but the Internet thankfully does.