Joe Bak-Coleman
@jbakcoleman.bsky.social
Research Scientist at the University of Washington based in Brooklyn. Also: SFI External Applied Fellow, Harvard BKC affiliate. Collective Behavior, Statistics, etc..
It all looks independent! So independent, in fact, that the authors defending the collaboration with Meta affirmatively declare no competing interests. Even when a core argument they're making is that they were great about declaring competing interests...
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
November 19, 2025 at 1:57 PM
It all looks independent! So independent, in fact, that the authors defending the collaboration with Meta affirmatively declare no competing interests. Even when a core argument they're making is that they were great about declaring competing interests...
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
It all looks like rigor but its design bias. From the jump, Meta's got big papers with likely goose-eggs in the pipeline. You're not paying the academics involved for this (but see below), so you can claim independence. Of course, they're all getting a lifetime of papers in top journals.
November 19, 2025 at 1:57 PM
It all looks like rigor but its design bias. From the jump, Meta's got big papers with likely goose-eggs in the pipeline. You're not paying the academics involved for this (but see below), so you can claim independence. Of course, they're all getting a lifetime of papers in top journals.
Let's take what (imo) is the focal question of the whole collaboration: Could it shift the vote? The work suggests a ~2.5% shift, enough to swing an election. Non-significant after multiple comparisons corrections. What do these multiple comparison corrections encode?
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
November 19, 2025 at 1:57 PM
Let's take what (imo) is the focal question of the whole collaboration: Could it shift the vote? The work suggests a ~2.5% shift, enough to swing an election. Non-significant after multiple comparisons corrections. What do these multiple comparison corrections encode?
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
Post Malört ergo propter malört
November 15, 2025 at 5:37 AM
Post Malört ergo propter malört
Daily dose of Fred
November 12, 2025 at 3:02 AM
Daily dose of Fred
Little guy got a clean bill of health.
November 8, 2025 at 5:53 PM
Little guy got a clean bill of health.
November 5, 2025 at 1:15 AM
I think that view is common. Here’s the center for open sciences take on why you need to preregister. It distinguishes your work as confirmatory which they assert a lot about.
www.cos.io/initiatives/...
www.cos.io/initiatives/...
November 2, 2025 at 8:31 PM
I think that view is common. Here’s the center for open sciences take on why you need to preregister. It distinguishes your work as confirmatory which they assert a lot about.
www.cos.io/initiatives/...
www.cos.io/initiatives/...
Meet Fred! You’ll be seeing more of him….
November 1, 2025 at 6:27 PM
Meet Fred! You’ll be seeing more of him….
October 29, 2025 at 10:02 PM
Assessing impact in this way and allocating funding is pretty: “yo dog I heard you like cumulative advantage in science so I added cumulative advantage to cumulative advantage”
October 29, 2025 at 12:56 PM
Assessing impact in this way and allocating funding is pretty: “yo dog I heard you like cumulative advantage in science so I added cumulative advantage to cumulative advantage”
It’s weird right? The old “but we make money on doing it anyway” loophole.
October 24, 2025 at 1:44 AM
It’s weird right? The old “but we make money on doing it anyway” loophole.
Solutions like open science, preregistration and registered reports fall apart in this space because much of the research isn't p-hacked... it's design biased.
For example, the thresholds industry studies use for significance when espousing benefits tend to be looser than identifying harm.
For example, the thresholds industry studies use for significance when espousing benefits tend to be looser than identifying harm.
October 24, 2025 at 12:12 AM
Solutions like open science, preregistration and registered reports fall apart in this space because much of the research isn't p-hacked... it's design biased.
For example, the thresholds industry studies use for significance when espousing benefits tend to be looser than identifying harm.
For example, the thresholds industry studies use for significance when espousing benefits tend to be looser than identifying harm.
They similarly tend to selectively fund and support research that aligns with their interests. We have no shortage of industry funded studies on labeling misinformation---but how often have they given independent access to into what they show users?
October 24, 2025 at 12:12 AM
They similarly tend to selectively fund and support research that aligns with their interests. We have no shortage of industry funded studies on labeling misinformation---but how often have they given independent access to into what they show users?
Selective Causal Focus: Research produced and funded by tech companies often either frames problems as user-driven, or solutions as the obligation of users (E.g. community notes). Distracting us from their design, business model, interface, and other causes steering us away from their profit model
October 24, 2025 at 12:12 AM
Selective Causal Focus: Research produced and funded by tech companies often either frames problems as user-driven, or solutions as the obligation of users (E.g. community notes). Distracting us from their design, business model, interface, and other causes steering us away from their profit model
For example, Facebook scientists have published routinely in scientific journals yet never (to our knowledge) unambiguously disclosed harm from their platforms. Instead, they espouse benefits.
These findings get published even as they bury internal evidence of harm
www.reuters.com/sustainabili...
These findings get published even as they bury internal evidence of harm
www.reuters.com/sustainabili...
October 24, 2025 at 12:12 AM
For example, Facebook scientists have published routinely in scientific journals yet never (to our knowledge) unambiguously disclosed harm from their platforms. Instead, they espouse benefits.
These findings get published even as they bury internal evidence of harm
www.reuters.com/sustainabili...
These findings get published even as they bury internal evidence of harm
www.reuters.com/sustainabili...
Science has faced these challenges before. However, many think manipulation happens through corruption of scientists. Instead, we highlighted a broader range of mechanisms:
-Burying Internal research
-Selectively publishing
-Design bias
-Selective funding and access.
-Burying Internal research
-Selectively publishing
-Design bias
-Selective funding and access.
October 24, 2025 at 12:12 AM
Science has faced these challenges before. However, many think manipulation happens through corruption of scientists. Instead, we highlighted a broader range of mechanisms:
-Burying Internal research
-Selectively publishing
-Design bias
-Selective funding and access.
-Burying Internal research
-Selectively publishing
-Design bias
-Selective funding and access.
I’m drinking the gorgeous coffee and it occurred to me that my grinder is a decent metaphor for multiverse analyses and theory.
It has a bunch of letters and numbers, which we’ll pretend correspond to predictors we can include in a model. Coffee are the data. Hypothesis: the coffee is good.
It has a bunch of letters and numbers, which we’ll pretend correspond to predictors we can include in a model. Coffee are the data. Hypothesis: the coffee is good.
October 23, 2025 at 9:20 AM
I’m drinking the gorgeous coffee and it occurred to me that my grinder is a decent metaphor for multiverse analyses and theory.
It has a bunch of letters and numbers, which we’ll pretend correspond to predictors we can include in a model. Coffee are the data. Hypothesis: the coffee is good.
It has a bunch of letters and numbers, which we’ll pretend correspond to predictors we can include in a model. Coffee are the data. Hypothesis: the coffee is good.
Per the documentation, it seems they're following up on these risks internally to better understand their downstream effects.
If they're earnestly trying to understand what's going on... why not let independent scientists have a look?
If they're earnestly trying to understand what's going on... why not let independent scientists have a look?
October 20, 2025 at 1:26 PM
Per the documentation, it seems they're following up on these risks internally to better understand their downstream effects.
If they're earnestly trying to understand what's going on... why not let independent scientists have a look?
If they're earnestly trying to understand what's going on... why not let independent scientists have a look?
Specifically, teens with body images issues are exposed to three times more eating-disorder adjacent content than those without. Nearly a quarter of their feeds are various forms of harmful content---which their mechanisms for detecting fail to detect.
October 20, 2025 at 1:23 PM
Specifically, teens with body images issues are exposed to three times more eating-disorder adjacent content than those without. Nearly a quarter of their feeds are various forms of harmful content---which their mechanisms for detecting fail to detect.
Sey’s price transparency is the coolest thing. $17.61 a kg at the farm gate in on the high end for Ecuador, and the price they’re charging feels not had given $32/kg green to the roaster.
October 19, 2025 at 12:13 PM
Sey’s price transparency is the coolest thing. $17.61 a kg at the farm gate in on the high end for Ecuador, and the price they’re charging feels not had given $32/kg green to the roaster.
This hoverfly on our mums accidentally got a little renaissance energy.
October 18, 2025 at 6:21 PM
This hoverfly on our mums accidentally got a little renaissance energy.
Inspired by pizza my wife and I ate, relayed to the brilliant @willsantino.bsky.social
October 15, 2025 at 8:35 PM
Inspired by pizza my wife and I ate, relayed to the brilliant @willsantino.bsky.social