> After tussling with these complexities, my students and I ended up with nothing publishable because we realized that there’s no good way for external researchers to quantitatively study radicalization.
So did he start a twitter thread calling out all those articles about youtube radicalization as "not even wrong"?
> That’s the note on which I’d like to end: a plea to consider that the available quantitative methods can’t answer everything. And I want to thank the journalists who’ve been doing the next best thing — telling the stories of people led down a rabbit hole by YouTube’s algorithm.
The "next best thing" is cherry-picking data, I see. Is telling the stories of immigrant-committed crimes [1] also the "next best thing", or would his opinion change in that case?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/22/trumps...
