@theluddite perhaps useful: https://scholar.social/@olivia/115315373231397050

From @olivia: "Critical Artificial Intelligence Literacy for Psychologists."

https://osf.io/dkrgj_v1

If you want AI put in the context of the replication crisis, with a healthy dose of reminders about how and why we should do science in the first place, then this is for you!

RE: https://assemblag.es/@theluddite/116969515594972858

I'll be at 4s to talk about this project. Message me if you're also going to be there and want to meet up!

There was also this piece in the Conversation in Jan: https://theconversation.com/when-science-discourages-correction-how-publishers-profit-from-mistakes-272657

And one of the authors of yet another Matters Arising
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05865-4 (that took 'merely' 10mo) wrote elseweb https://bsky.app/profile/mattrich.bsky.social/post/3mt2trgb36s2k:
"In my experience, Nature wants to make Matters Arising as frustrating as possible to publish to cover their own asses. They limit scope, give the original authors excessive leeway for response, etc."
"TBH, they were likely successful in convincing me to never do it again"
😩

RE: https://assemblag.es/@theluddite/116596730867036754

Because of our own experience with trying to publish a Matters Arising in Nature, I've been following the journey of others along this arduous path with ̶m̶o̶r̶b̶i̶d̶ ̶f̶a̶s̶c̶i̶n̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ considerable interest. Still, I somehow missed that the Matters Arising article by @theluddite finally got published last November. It took 1y and 3mo after acceptance to finally appear.

As promised, we now share some details why it took 32 months to get this Matters Arising published, and, since many asked, share some comments on the reply to our critique. All details can be found in this small FAQ vincentholst.github.io/the_curious_.... Below is a summary 🧵

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:ev7zpgforjac77zrsbdp4zxm/post/3msxg77pnmk2r

The Curious Case of the Declin...

RE: https://scholar.social/@SylviaFysica/111931021802748814

This preprint? After 32 months (!) since submission it is now published in Nature.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10787-y It's paywalled, but this sharing link might work https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10787-y.epdf?sharing_token=nPdxl5mKZ07ej-oDn-sGm9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OBbTn2Gz1HH6FgBSXxphytUKGFeZb3PiQz8MdWQVlMumncNB8NIAI7TJ9kD5KiRhaDFaf3r7FW9zLE_mcAMx9XFdbgVYuLw43bNotfvLqdPvBVrS2QQdNpMoHXMX8xP6o%3D

First author summarizes our results in a thread elseweb:
https://xcancel.com/vincent_holst93/status/2087593096926130298#m

The candidate backed by the party establishment outspends an insurgent 8-to-1 and ekes out a 0.4 percentage point victory--and that's a "stunning victory" that "shows the limits of the left."

The US began to impose a blockade on Cuba in 1960 to “decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.” Rather than recognize such factors in Cuban suffering, many voices in the corporate media have embraced the political and economic equivalent of flat Earthism.

https://fair.org/home/press-opinion-treats-us-devastation-of-cuba-as-reason-for-more-devastation/

https://medium.com/regarding-wikipedia/the-wikimedia-foundation-hired-the-union-busters-its-own-encyclopedia-warned-about-42b7142a5cd1 👀

> I have a core take away I must repeat: just because somebody claims to be anti AI does not mean they are not doing entryism. Sadly, that is (in isolation) entirely consistent with entryism. Yes, these people lie about their beliefs.

I repeat this quote from Marx[:]

"[A]ll science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided. (Marx, 1894, p. 592)"

https://olivia.science/entryism

5/n

Let this be a lesson to misinformation scholarship on the conceptual limitations of their frameworks. Here we see actual "bias" at work, but a more complex version outside the simple left/right they love to use, and which mostly concerns individual interests.

Media Bias/Fact Check updated their about page to include some cherry-picked results from our study. They show our count of its popularity without including a link to the source, presumably because our study is critical. They do this immediately after linking to studies that use and praise MBFC.

In other words, the misinformation dataset guy spun our study and didn't bother to cite their source.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/

RE: https://social.wikiworkersunited.org/@wwu/116999804756018498

«When the Foundation rejected our request for voluntary recognition this week, they immediately sent out to employees and the public statements couched in classic union-busting rhetoric, rhetoric undoubtedly provided by outrageously expensive union-avoidance law firms. This insulting and wasteful use of Foundation resources is both an insult to Foundation employees and to the Free Knowledge Movement as a whole.»

Keep in mind what your donations also fund, next time the begging banners come up

In the Fall of 2025 #MIT announced it would it was closing two campus libraries in June 2026 due to budget deficits. Yet MIT is now spending $3M on #AI powered cameras to track students faces and gait, with timing that raises eyebrows. What happens when you deploy high tech surveillance against a student population known for their hacking skills? We're about to find out. When knowledge is defunded to expand monitoring, expect resistance. We’ll break your scripts #Privacy https://futurism.com/future-society/mit-surveillance-ai-cameras-monitoring-library

And the better part of the soul is likely to be that which trusts to measure and calculation?

@jessamyn damn they are dropping bars

"We argue that MBFC's data is not neutral or accurate, but a computationally legible account of hegemony, a specious dataset for uncritical research that mistakes the familiarity of the concepts it quantifies with accuracy."

"Stop using Media Bias/Fact Check in research" an article by some friends of mine up on Arxiv

https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.12108

One of the peer reviewers who rejected this paper put it best, so we will give them the last word on this thread:

>The authors' comments about the MBFC scores reflecting the "common idea of the liberal media" miss the Okkam's [sic] Razor solution that this is in fact the distribution of bias of media outlets.

We go through the history of MBFC's frameworks, arguing that they have their roots in a conservative political project to discredit the press. MBFC then quantifies this propaganda campaign as data and, aided by the work of misinformation scholars, it is inserted back into discourse as scientific fact. MBFC's data is a computationally legible account of hegemony, a specious dataset for uncritical research that mistakes the familiarity of the concepts it quantifies with accuracy.