> "The study was centered around a Twitter field experiment in which a research team offered polite corrections, complete with links to solid evidence, in replies to flagrantly false tweets about politics."
Aside from accounting for the unstated biases of their identification of "false tweets", what about offering falsehoods to correct tweets?
That is, might the real conclusion be "Users post more in general when other users post conflicting views"? Or is this not the case?
Aside from accounting for the unstated biases of their identification of "false tweets", what about offering falsehoods to correct tweets?
That is, might the real conclusion be "Users post more in general when other users post conflicting views"? Or is this not the case?