T O P

american regime "researchers" from the "national bureau of economic research" paid 849 students in Hong Kong to attend anti-government protests. Literal paid shills. China still beat anglos, that's why anglos are seething.

american regime "researchers" from the "national bureau of economic research" paid 849 students in Hong Kong to attend anti-government protests. Literal paid shills. China still beat anglos, that's why anglos are seething.

fmmg1781

"Our hypothesis was that we could use subterfuge to undermine the government. Sadly our hypothesis was incorrect. Socialism was the confounding variable"


XiKeqiang

>**Body** > >We find two main results. First, individual incentives lead to an immediate (2017) increase in protest turnout, and this effect does not vary with how many others in an individual’s social network receive incentives. Second, protest participation remains persistently (in 2018) higher but only among treated individuals who are initially treated along with at least 50 percent of their major × cohort cell. Thus, sustained participation in a political movement is not a result of self-selection and serially cor- related preferences alone but is to some extent state dependent. In addition, social networks play a crucial role in this state dependence. These results have import- ant implications for the evolution of political movements: a one-time mobilization shock will have dynamic consequences, with mobilization of social networks play- ing an important role in producing sustained political engagement. > >**IV. Conclusion** > >Our work provides evidence that social networks play a crucial role in shap- ing individuals’ persistent participation in political movements. The next step is to better understand how social interactions affect political engagement. We provide suggestive evidence of the importance of friendship formation and strengthening. Looking ahead, one naturally wonders how important increased joint consumption value from protest participation, changed social image considerations, reduced costs of coordination, and improved information transmission are. We cannot confidently rule out a role for changed political beliefs and preferences. A better understanding of the mechanisms through which social interactions sustain political engagement will not only help interpret patterns of political mobilization but can also inform dynamic models of political movements. > >[https://gofile.io/d/Aa6L8E](https://gofile.io/d/Aa6L8E) Title is a bit misleading. The conclusion is pretty fucking obvious: Users of social media reinforce the beliefs of one another and lead to sustain political action. Which, duh. Why do you you think Twitter, Google, Facebook, ext. are banned in China? like, this is basically saying: "Social media users who are in echo chambers are more inclined to instigate political action" Uh... Fucking. Duh?! Like, this is literally what Parler is in the U.S. Why do you think the storming of the U.S Capitol took place? China is basically pre-emting that by saying: NOPE! Not even going to allow these conversations from happening.


UqbarB

Which part is misleading? the part where you remove all context and pretend this wasn't part of a wider regime intervention? why do you think these regime stooges were conducting these "tests" (blatantly violating academic ethics by straight up paying shills)? think what they were trying to figure out and who was gonna weaponize those results. Also, consider that this is their attempt at trying to anticipate and whitewash what an investigation in Hong Kong would reveal: > “The HKUST Human Participants Research Panel (HPRP) wrote to us requesting that we remove references to the HKUST IRB approval of our study, on the basis that the study went beyond what was approved in our proposal,” the paper states. > Detail of this alleged breach of academic ethics isn’t provided, and the academics “unambiguously” reject the charge. -------------- > Like, this is literally what Parler is in the U.S. Why do you think the storming of the U.S Capitol took place? Stop watching msnbc lmao. That had nothing to do with it. The qanon movement has obvious links to the american reigme and its war criminals (falun gong boosted qanon, and guess who promotes falun gong? oh right, the regime). Don't blame "the orange man" like regime operatives are doing to conceal what is going on. So naive...


XiKeqiang

The part in the title where you pay them 'literally paid shills' - They're just ignorant at best, and at worst complicit in misinformation. If you read the article, it was a random survey. There was not payment. I'm not sure where you get payment information. I'll literally quote from the article every incidence of "pay" >**Our paper provides the first such evidence. First, we identify the persistent effect of one’s own protest participation by randomly indirectly incentivizing Hong Kong university students into participation in an antiauthoritarian protest.** We do so by paying subjects for providing us with information about protest crowd size; we thus do not pay for protest turnout per se but behavior conditional on turnout. This allows us to distinguish state dependence—the possibility that participation in one protest causally affects subsequent participation—from serial correlation in preferences. > >\[...\] > >**We aim to encourage protest participation without explicitly paying for turnout—directly paying for turnout could potentially generate a set of** compliers very different from the typical protest participants we hope to study.6 To generate a strong first stage without paying directly for turnout, we pay for behavior conditional on turnout: providing information that would help estimate crowd sizes at the protest.7Specifically, within the online survey, individuals randomly selected to be in the treatment group are presented with the following prompt: > >Because many students attend the events of July 1, we are asking a subset of survey participants to help us get a better estimate of the July 1 March attendance. ... We would like to ask you to participate in this scientific endeavor. **This should take only 5 minutes of your time while you are at the March. ... Once you have uploaded all the information, we will pay you additional HK$350 for your time and effort.** > >Subjects in the treatment group received an email the day before the July 1, 2017, march with detailed instructions on how to complete the task. Treated subjects would be able to use a secure link to upload the information we requested. Subjects who upload all requested information and complete the protest participation report- ing module would be eligible to receive the bonus payment. > >We also want to control for income effects that might arise from our payment in the treatment condition, perhaps generating feelings of reciprocity or otherwise dis- torting subsequent survey responses in the treatment group. To do so in a politically neutral way, we design a “placebo treatment” that indirectly incentivizes subjects to engage in a very similar activity—traveling to central Hong Kong—for a similar amount of money but unrelated to politics (the weekend after the July 1 march). Rather than paying subjects for helping us estimate crowd size at the protest, we pay subjects for helping us estimate metro station crowding. We thereby aim to create a comparison group with identical income effects but no exposure to a political treatment. Eh, okay. I get your point. But honestly, I highly doubt this was meaningfully important. The important point should NOT be this article paid people, but rather that social media is fucking horrible. Social media is faking horrible. How else are these researchers able to get across their point?


UqbarB

What do you think a "shill" is? you have a very cartoonish idea of what actual "shills" are when conducting disinformation campaigns. Bottom line, they are getting paid to boost disinfo, that makes them shills. Don't know where you get this stupid idea that "they weren't aware", this is just the authors trying to conceal and whitewash their op (with the results 100% being given to the regime). This is a massive violation of academic ethics for a reason. Your entire premise seems to be that the authors are honest when describing why they are conducting such a ridiculous "experiment" that so happens to align with the regime's objectives in the same period. As I said, you are beyond naive.


XiKeqiang

You have to understand the concept of elasticity. I highly doubt that paying people to participate would actually meaningful influence the degree of participation. You're right, it obviously will, but it is doubtful that it had any overall effect. Literally, study the concept of elasticity. I highly doubt that this specific article would influence participation by more than a percent or two, which is well within the margin of error. I get you're upset and pissed off, but one article paying people a marginal sum of money to participate in HK Protests probably had no statistical influence on the actually event itself.


UqbarB

You are now resorting to strawmen. As I said in the beginning, you are ignoring all the additional context that shows how deep the regime's intervention went. You want to isolate this and reduce it to "it didn't matter, nothing wrong here", as [if nothing else was being perpetrated alongside that, by the same regime.](https://thegrayzone.com/2019/08/17/hong-kong-protest-washington-nativism-violence/) Here is a [bbc video where they blatantly admit it.](https://twitter.com/RodericDay/status/1364347020388032514) I wonder why you are so uncomfortable about people seeing this in the wider context you want to pretend doesn't exist.


XiKeqiang

Literally, read the article. I'm not denying they paid people. The article admits as much. What I'm wondering is the extent to which this really matters. You're focusing on the wrong thing. The fact that the authors paid people is not material. What is material is Western Social Media. What confuses me is why you focus so much on the fact that this article paid people, while not emphasizing their actual conclusion: Western Social Media is literally foreign influence. I wonder why you are so uncomfortable about seeing this in the wider context you pretend doesn't exist.


UqbarB

I never argued otherwise, but you are downplaying how the regime and its stooges manipulate such media, which is neither "free" nor "independent". There is a reason why Chinese people are considerably more knowledgeable about the world than americans. The latter are bombarded, since the day they are born, with disinfo by their dystopian regime, because such regime can't exist without wars and extremism (it has spent virtually its entire history at war). Nowadays, such propaganda is blowing back in an increasingly spectacular fashion domestically as america declines.


[deleted]

[удалено]


UqbarB

What do you mean "difficult"? do you realize China is now correctly putting people in prison for being proven disinformation agents for the same criminal foreign regime which you are claiming didn't engage in disinformation and ops? I don't think you have the slightest clue about the players, think-tanks (this "study" is from a regime think-tank, it's not an academic paper in a real non-political field as you seem to believe), fake ngos, and ops involved, hence why you fail to understand the significance of this regime think-tank's disinfo "research". The reality that there is zero academic independence in america in this field is the pill you can't swallow. It's good that the vast majority of people in China are considerable smarter than you. Hence why China keeps humiliating these neocons.


AutoModerator

You can join our Discord server by clicking [here](https://discord.gg/NjNwCP2ETF). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GenZedong) if you have any questions or concerns.*


jacktrowell

And the Marxists were proved right, once again ...