If a model is useful, I’d like to see it being used (outside academia, where there’s minimal penalty for complexity and a high emphasis on novelty).
If models like these are widely adopted at social media companies or news agencies, it’s fair to say OP’s take isn’t valid. Otherwise they may have a point.
You can’t predict what an individual will do, but work like this kills many inaccurate ideological positions that we inherited.
There’s a paper from 2016 that shows how posts saturate/cascade through conspiracy communities and that it has distinct cascade dynamics. This wasn’t a model, it was a description of observed behavior.
Or take some relatively recent work from Harvard, which suggests that while our capacity to create misinformation has increased in both quantity and quality, its consumption rate seems to be stable.
It doesn't, which is part of the point the OP is making. And now my point, it's ok that these pseudo-scientific "revelations" don't kill those "inaccurate ideological positions", because that's the whole point of human free will, there's no "accurate ideological position" when it comes to the day-to-day life, or to societal life in general.
I retired ideological beliefs in favor of reality when I went and found the data and research.
Stating “it doesn’t”, does not convert an opinion into fact.
That said, I suspect you haven’t read the paper and are arguing from the headline.
My intuition is that you will find the research complimentary to your ideas, and not in opposition.
You're correct on that, as I find that applying the word "science", or "research", or "paper", to the day-to-day life, like to news article in this case, is not science per se, and unfortunately I don't have time to lose on drivel that paints itself as science (but which it is not science, as I mentioned above).