Wudi@feddit.uk to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-221 days agoTikTok’s algorithm systematically skewed to the right during the 2024 US elections, study findswww.nature.comexternal-linkmessage-square32fedilinkarrow-up1404
arrow-up1404external-linkTikTok’s algorithm systematically skewed to the right during the 2024 US elections, study findswww.nature.comWudi@feddit.uk to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-221 days agomessage-square32fedilink
minus-squaregivesomefucks@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up17·21 days agoWhy would you post a pay walled study? It doesn’t even show the abstract, this post is pointless except to people who only read headlines and never understand anything…
minus-squareCompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up17·edit-221 days agoWhat I can read of the posted link states it’s a summary of this open access article. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10447-1
minus-squarevegeta@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up9·21 days agoI guess they only read the headline
minus-squaregivesomefucks@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up9·edit-221 days agoRight… And if OP had linked that, it would have made sense. Instead they linked a pay walled summary of something that people could actually read. Which was pointless. Edit: Likely due to OP “headline shopping”… The one people can actual read would have had to be titled: Systematic partisan content skews in TikTok during the 2024 US elections OP wanted something that looked like an academic study but had a editorialized headline… And if you want that, you can’t link real studies, the best you can do is summaries, which are published like a study but isn’t abstudy
minus-squareripcord@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·21 days agoDude are you just addicted to being outraged about things, or…?
minus-squarevegeta@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·21 days agohttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10447-1
Why would you post a pay walled study?
It doesn’t even show the abstract, this post is pointless except to people who only read headlines and never understand anything…
What I can read of the posted link states it’s a summary of this open access article.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10447-1
I guess they only read the headline
Right…
And if OP had linked that, it would have made sense.
Instead they linked a pay walled summary of something that people could actually read. Which was pointless.
Edit:
Likely due to OP “headline shopping”…
The one people can actual read would have had to be titled:
OP wanted something that looked like an academic study but had a editorialized headline…
And if you want that, you can’t link real studies, the best you can do is summaries, which are published like a study but isn’t abstudy
Dude are you just addicted to being outraged about things, or…?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10447-1