Today in #DetectingDeception is the false comparison. I've seen this graphic a few places on social media and I don't know if it's authentic, but for this discussion, that doesn't really matter. Here's why something like this would have issues.

2/ When you look at information, there are a few relevant questions you might ask:

Is it true?

Is it in context?

Is it relevant?
3/ I started by looking at the source. There IS a Major Cities Chiefs Association, and they did produce a report on last summer's protests you can find on their website. https://t.co/2bXLmIN9qi
4/ I didn't see on their site or their Twitter feed any numbers about last week. If the graphic is real, I would hope the source for those numbers was at least said on air. (That doesn't help me now, and is a reason to make your graphics complete #TeachJMC)
5/ Are the elements of the graphic in context? Here's where I start to have problems. Looking at the original report, it states that there were around 8700 protests noted over a roughly 2-month period. If that's the left column, the right is 1 day.
6/ Comparing numbers from 8700 events to numbers from 1 event is a false comparison. It seems to be used to set up an appeal to hypocrisy - an accusation of sweeping damage from last summer under the rug while being outraged by "less" damage in the capitol.
7/ Remember that in appeals to hypocrisy, you are ignoring the fact that two things can both be bad. Injured officers are bad, regardless of context. Deaths in civil violence are bad, regardless of context. And even a hypocrite could be right the second time.
8/ Final question: is the comparison relevant. Maybe, but not for the reason you think. In the MCCA full report, there's this phrase. "... in most cases, the acts were perpetrated by individuals or small groups that infiltrated the larger protests. https://t.co/ww7GhixOY5
9/ I know, without good evidence, misinformation is claiming that antifa actually did the damage and violence bit last week. This has been debunked multiple times. The MCCA report is talking about things like this: https://t.co/wYhY9q6HYZ
10/ The relevance, then, would seem to be that the extremists who tried to take the capitol have opportunistically used protests before.
11/ Using numbers and graphics can make false comparisons look compelling, when really they are deceptive. Going back to the original sources can help you in #DetectingDeception
12/ And a reminder that if you want to get better at finding the problems with things public figures say, I wrote an inexpensive little book that teaches you how. Check it out, if you like! https://t.co/xHQSqY43A6

More from Society

Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause


I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.

I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views

I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.

I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
@danielashby @AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd I'll bite. Let's try to keep it factual. There's a reasonable basis to some aspects of this question, that it might be possible to agree on. Then there are other, more variable, elements which depend on external factors such as transport and energy policy. /1

@AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd First up, we know reasonably well how much energy it takes to propel a high-speed train along the HS2 route. We can translate that into effective CO2 generated by making some assumptions about how green the electricity grid is. /2

@AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd Secondly, we have a reasonable grasp of how much CO2 is going to be generated by building HS2 - there are standard methods of working this out, based on the amount of steel, concrete, earthmoving, machine-fuelling etc required. /3

@AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd Thirdly, we can estimate how much CO2 is generated by cutting down trees, and how much is captured by planting new trees. We can also estimate how much CO2 is needed to keep the railway running and generated by maintaining the track /4

@AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd We know how much CO2 is saved by moving goods by freight train on the lines freed up by moving the express trains on to HS2, rather than by truck. /5

You May Also Like

The YouTube algorithm that I helped build in 2011 still recommends the flat earth theory by the *hundreds of millions*. This investigation by @RawStory shows some of the real-life consequences of this badly designed AI.


This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/


A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/

https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/

https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/