News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Analysis of 200M tweets discussing coronavirus suggests 45%-60% come from bots. Parent comment

Re:Analysis of 200M tweets discussing coronavirus suggests 4... by throwaway_pdp09 on Saturday May 30, 2020 @01:09PM (#23362693)
Why the ranting shouts of 'bullshit' and claims of 'political axe-grinding'? Posts like this, that rarely have any facts with them, just suggest someone's angry at something they don't like. They don't tell me anything except someone's temperature is rising.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Analysis of 200M tweets discussing coronavirus suggests 4... by scottlocklin on Saturday May 30, 2020 @02:10PM (#23363246)
The "ranting shouts" are justified because, like the whole "weapons of mass destruction" pile of bullshit, touted by mostly the same goddamned weasels -there is zero evidence for their assertions, and ample evidence that they're lying: again.

If you google my name, unlike your "throwaway" anon name making assertions, irony of ironies, you will see I am a real human being, fully qualified to check into data science type assertions like this (and in fact; I have). Which is a lot more than "you" can say.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Analysis of 200M tweets discussing coronavirus suggests 4... by throwaway_pdp09 on Saturday May 30, 2020 @02:21PM (#23363344)
There are literally no claims in your original post that can be verified.

It's all subjective anger and whatnot. What am I or anyone supposed to take away from that?

> ample evidence that they're lying: again

Ok, what evidence. And don't tell me to google it or I can find it if I want to. You claim, you cite.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Analysis of 200M tweets discussing coronavirus suggests 4... by MrTuna_Man on Saturday May 30, 2020 @08:53PM (#23366245)
> There are literally no claims in your original post that can be verified.

> You claim, you cite.

If a claim cannot be verified, it is not a claim per se: it's an opinion.

[ Parent | on HN ]