Apparently, June is the month I write a blog post about the “Journal of Cultural Evolution” (or whatever will be its name) project, so I will keep the tradition alive. All begun for me five years ago (!), and, hopefully, we are getting closer to some tangible result.
Last week – April 25 – Facebook posted the 2018 first-quarter data on revenues and users (here the original post from Facebook.) The perhaps unexpected take-home message is that, in spite of the Cambridge Analytica data scandal, everything seems to go well with the social media. In particular, monthly users continued to grow at the expected rate (see the graph below – original here).
If you read this blog, or if you follow my activity on Twitter, you may know that I have a fairly relaxed attitude towards the “dangers” of the digital world. The great majority of supposed perils correspond more or less to what happens in our offline lives, and – in our offline lives too – we tend to be vulnerable to external influences only up to a certain point (here an excellent paper argumenting that we are not as gullible as we think – in fact, as we think others are). I wrote about the digital spread of fake news mirroring the traditional spread of rumours (according to BuzzFeed, the fake news that generated more engagement on Facebook in 2017 is titled “Babysitter transported to hospital after inserting a baby in her vagina”), about the inconsistencies of the “post-truth” narrative, or about the exaggeration of the digital echo-chambers danger (I would probably write differently today these two, rather old, posts).
Few thoughts on an important paper that just appeared in Science, The spread of true and false news online. The paper received (and will receive) justified attention: it is massive (“~126,000 rumor cascades spread by ~3 million people more than 4.5 million times” in a long temporal window – from 2006 to 2017), it includes several detailed analyses (the authors did not only check basic metrics such as speed and size of diffusion, but they measured things like structural virality; the proportion of political versus non-political news; the role of bots; they run a sentiment analysis of the tweets, etc.), and it has a straightforward (and I guess welcome to many) take-home message: “fake” news are more successfull than “true” news in social media, at least in Twitter (*).
As my current (and last) postdoc contract is going to finish, I am actively looking for a job. Yesterday, while in line to board a plane, I saw a tweet signalling three positions in digital humanities at London’s King’s College. While I do not exactly fit with the area (not that there are many areas I fit exactly with), a good amount of my research is of interest to digital humanities (for example, here or here), and I had few positive interactions with other practitioners. So, I clicked on one of the links proposed (you can try this, it is the same for all).