crzypt wrote:It's an interesting idea but once I looked at the sample size I was a lot less impressed
395 tweets total spread out over a country with a population of roughly 320 million
Most reputable estimates of eligible voters run somewhere around 200 million
The only thing that could possibly be of any real significance is the geographic distribution, and even that is suspect. This could easily be more a measure of "where do the Really dumb racists live" than anything else. The vast majority of the out-and-out racists in my "liberal" state probably know better than to post their views on social media for all the world to see, but that sure doesn't mean they don't exist
go to the floating sheep site. their process is impressive. http://www.floatingsheep.org/
Reagrding the sample size and the geocoding, they say this:
What about the sample size? 395 doesn’t seem like that many?
The 395 tweets mentioned are the number of geocoded tweets referencing the given keywords from November 1 until November 7 at approximately 4:00 pm EST. This is NOT a sample, but the total population of geocoded tweets that matched our search criteria as outlined in the post. Geocoded tweets make up a tiny fraction of overall Twitter activity (could be as large as 5% or as small as less than 1%), so the actual number of tweets referencing these keywords is likely much, much larger, though we are not sure as to this number.
That said, we don't know what the geographical distribution of non-geocoded tweets is. However, given that many geocoded tweets are the product of GPS-enabled smart phones, it is likely that geocoded tweets tend to come from wealthier locations. All things being equal, this means that the geocoded data likely underrepresents relatively poorer and more rural locations. Should this actually be the case, the location quotients for Mississippi and Alabama would actually be even higher than our initial study showed, but the exact nature of this phenomena is unknown.
This is for Annot:
Why didn’t you map references to hateful comments towards Mitt Romney?
First, the motivation for this posting was the observations posted on the Jezebel blog linked in our original post, noting the uptick in racist tweets following President Obama’s re-election. Second, we focus on racist language directed at President Obama because racism directed at black Americans is not only historically more significant, but because it also highlights the persistence of explicitly racist attitudes in what some have (fallaciously) termed ‘post-racial America’. Third, we did check for both the number of tweets referencing Mitt Romney containing some racially charged terms, as well as the number of derogatory comments about white people. Depending on the terminology used, the results show that there are 7-15x the amount hateful tweets direct towards President Obama than Mitt Romney.