52
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by iie@hexbear.net to c/news@hexbear.net

The twitter thread is referenced in this excellent article by the same journalist, Alan MacLeod, which I posted here yesterday, but I think it deserves its own post.

Thread reader: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1818050593468072023.html

If you don't feel like clicking a link, here are the tweets transcribed, with some links added:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

What's the rebuttal to the argument that the numbers are too clean and looks to be from percentages to votes, not vice versa?

[-] iie@hexbear.net 1 points 3 months ago

Can you link to the argument?

[-] iie@hexbear.net 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

To talk about this argument we need to know where the numbers are from.

This author appears to have gotten them from a screenshot someone sent him

P.S. I haven't checked any of these numbers myself. I'm assuming the screenshots that Zambrano sent are the real thing. If he's scamming me here I'm gonna be really angry!

We need to see that screenshot and investigate where its numbers are from

In the meantime, there is a possible benign explanation, but it's only speculation:

P.P.S. Commenter Ryan points out that you could also explain this data pattern as a result of sloppy post-processing, if votes were counted correctly, then reported to the nearest percentage point, and then some intermediary mistakenly multiplied the (rounded) percentages by the total vote and reported that. I have no idea; you'd want to know where those particular numbers were coming from.

I'm suspicious because I haven't seen many people talking about this. You'd think there would be a feeding frenzy... or maybe there is and I'm just out of the loop

this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
52 points (100.0% liked)

news

23574 readers
797 users here now

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS