Sophie E. Hill
@sophieehill.bsky.social
PoliSci PhD student @ Harvard / 🇬🇧🏳️🌈 / Creator of MyLittleCrony.com
Signal: @sehill.11
Signal: @sehill.11
Utterly pathetic client journalism in The Telegraph — accepting the Trump administration's claim that CCDH (an anti-disinformation charity) is "complicit in censoring American citizens". No quotes, no qualification.
@telegraphnews.bsky.social
www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025...
@telegraphnews.bsky.social
www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025...
November 10, 2025 at 5:38 PM
They can't even spell the name of the subject of the article correctly!
I've read AI slop that's higher quality than this.
I've read AI slop that's higher quality than this.
!["The one thing everyone [in the Trump administration] agrees on is the need to dramatically pressure the UK over the Online Safety Act," the source said.
The decision to revoke Mr Ahemd's visa would not be without precedent.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:wk4ks4sjxkducttvaawps2wb/bafkreigpihly4n4hdva6brengyifyktujkgjlxdpugunz43qfuwaj6xoqe@jpeg)
November 10, 2025 at 5:25 PM
They can't even spell the name of the subject of the article correctly!
I've read AI slop that's higher quality than this.
I've read AI slop that's higher quality than this.
Here's an example of the work that CCDH does: a report showing how X allows vast amounts of antisemitic content to spread and be monetized.
Does The Telegraph think it's accurate to describe this work as "censorship"? @telegraphnews.bsky.social
counterhate.com/research/a-h...
Does The Telegraph think it's accurate to describe this work as "censorship"? @telegraphnews.bsky.social
counterhate.com/research/a-h...
A Home for Hate — Center for Countering Digital Hate | CCDH
CCDH’s new AI-powered research shows that antisemitism is thriving on Musk’s X - despite violating the platform’s hate speech policies.
counterhate.com
November 10, 2025 at 5:18 PM
Here's an example of the work that CCDH does: a report showing how X allows vast amounts of antisemitic content to spread and be monetized.
Does The Telegraph think it's accurate to describe this work as "censorship"? @telegraphnews.bsky.social
counterhate.com/research/a-h...
Does The Telegraph think it's accurate to describe this work as "censorship"? @telegraphnews.bsky.social
counterhate.com/research/a-h...
Reposted by Sophie E. Hill
waking up and being told that Valerie Vaz was describing My Little Crony to Jacob Rees-Mogg in the House of Commons...
10/10, peak lockdown fever-dream experience
10/10, peak lockdown fever-dream experience
November 8, 2025 at 7:20 PM
waking up and being told that Valerie Vaz was describing My Little Crony to Jacob Rees-Mogg in the House of Commons...
10/10, peak lockdown fever-dream experience
10/10, peak lockdown fever-dream experience
Oh wow, this is so cool. I'm gonna have to look into how they made those.
In a way network visualization is simple (nodes + edges + some simple "physics" to determine layout). But it can end up looking chaotic.
Luckily for My Little Crony the tangled spiderweb aesthetic felt appropriate!
In a way network visualization is simple (nodes + edges + some simple "physics" to determine layout). But it can end up looking chaotic.
Luckily for My Little Crony the tangled spiderweb aesthetic felt appropriate!
November 8, 2025 at 7:37 PM
Oh wow, this is so cool. I'm gonna have to look into how they made those.
In a way network visualization is simple (nodes + edges + some simple "physics" to determine layout). But it can end up looking chaotic.
Luckily for My Little Crony the tangled spiderweb aesthetic felt appropriate!
In a way network visualization is simple (nodes + edges + some simple "physics" to determine layout). But it can end up looking chaotic.
Luckily for My Little Crony the tangled spiderweb aesthetic felt appropriate!
waking up and being told that Valerie Vaz was describing My Little Crony to Jacob Rees-Mogg in the House of Commons...
10/10, peak lockdown fever-dream experience
10/10, peak lockdown fever-dream experience
November 8, 2025 at 7:20 PM
waking up and being told that Valerie Vaz was describing My Little Crony to Jacob Rees-Mogg in the House of Commons...
10/10, peak lockdown fever-dream experience
10/10, peak lockdown fever-dream experience
I was thinking of doing a "5 year anniversary" update for My Little Crony this week but... there was so much more to add than I expected 😳
Ah, tangled webs of sleaze. They grow up so fast!
Ah, tangled webs of sleaze. They grow up so fast!
November 8, 2025 at 7:11 PM
I was thinking of doing a "5 year anniversary" update for My Little Crony this week but... there was so much more to add than I expected 😳
Ah, tangled webs of sleaze. They grow up so fast!
Ah, tangled webs of sleaze. They grow up so fast!
Note: My Little Crony was last updated in Jan 2022.
More info has been revealed since then - e.g. it shows £872mn in contracts to Uniserve, while the Guardian piece today reports a total of £1.4bn!
Still useful for who's who though.
mylittlecrony.com
More info has been revealed since then - e.g. it shows £872mn in contracts to Uniserve, while the Guardian piece today reports a total of £1.4bn!
Still useful for who's who though.
mylittlecrony.com
My Little Crony
An interactive visualization of the links between Tory politicians and firms winning government contracts
mylittlecrony.com
November 8, 2025 at 7:11 PM
Note: My Little Crony was last updated in Jan 2022.
More info has been revealed since then - e.g. it shows £872mn in contracts to Uniserve, while the Guardian piece today reports a total of £1.4bn!
Still useful for who's who though.
mylittlecrony.com
More info has been revealed since then - e.g. it shows £872mn in contracts to Uniserve, while the Guardian piece today reports a total of £1.4bn!
Still useful for who's who though.
mylittlecrony.com
Pre-publication, you're guilty until proven innocent.
Post-publication, you're innocent until proven guilty.
And even if there's a smoking gun, the editors will help you come up with a fake alibi, clean up the crime scene, and – if necessary – pin it all on your most junior co-author!
Post-publication, you're innocent until proven guilty.
And even if there's a smoking gun, the editors will help you come up with a fake alibi, clean up the crime scene, and – if necessary – pin it all on your most junior co-author!
November 8, 2025 at 6:09 PM
Pre-publication, you're guilty until proven innocent.
Post-publication, you're innocent until proven guilty.
And even if there's a smoking gun, the editors will help you come up with a fake alibi, clean up the crime scene, and – if necessary – pin it all on your most junior co-author!
Post-publication, you're innocent until proven guilty.
And even if there's a smoking gun, the editors will help you come up with a fake alibi, clean up the crime scene, and – if necessary – pin it all on your most junior co-author!
Nice. This is also a good workflow for pre-registration (create the simulated data and write the analysis code in advance of data collection).
November 8, 2025 at 5:52 PM
Nice. This is also a good workflow for pre-registration (create the simulated data and write the analysis code in advance of data collection).
Interesting suggestions here.
IMO the biggest single improvement for handling statistical errors would be requiring replication code to be reviewed & published (even without data).
IMO the biggest single improvement for handling statistical errors would be requiring replication code to be reviewed & published (even without data).
November 8, 2025 at 12:37 PM
Interesting suggestions here.
IMO the biggest single improvement for handling statistical errors would be requiring replication code to be reviewed & published (even without data).
IMO the biggest single improvement for handling statistical errors would be requiring replication code to be reviewed & published (even without data).
Yep. That's including all the estimates presented across 9 tables in the appendix.
(4 outcome vars, 1 composite + 7 individual sweeteners vars, various subsets, etc.)
(4 outcome vars, 1 composite + 7 individual sweeteners vars, various subsets, etc.)
November 7, 2025 at 1:50 PM
Yep. That's including all the estimates presented across 9 tables in the appendix.
(4 outcome vars, 1 composite + 7 individual sweeteners vars, various subsets, etc.)
(4 outcome vars, 1 composite + 7 individual sweeteners vars, various subsets, etc.)
Hi Thomas! Thanks. I've enjoyed reading your Pubpeer comments on the stem cell paper.
And yes, I know how bad journals are at dealing with these issues... I just don't know why they'd bother correcting some of the mistakes but not all of them!
And yes, I know how bad journals are at dealing with these issues... I just don't know why they'd bother correcting some of the mistakes but not all of them!
November 7, 2025 at 1:48 PM
Hi Thomas! Thanks. I've enjoyed reading your Pubpeer comments on the stem cell paper.
And yes, I know how bad journals are at dealing with these issues... I just don't know why they'd bother correcting some of the mistakes but not all of them!
And yes, I know how bad journals are at dealing with these issues... I just don't know why they'd bother correcting some of the mistakes but not all of them!
Reposted by Sophie E. Hill
the authors say they fixed all the incorrect confidence intervals and i just have one question:
would you say the number 69 is closer to 93 or to 6? 🧐
would you say the number 69 is closer to 93 or to 6? 🧐
November 7, 2025 at 1:31 AM
the authors say they fixed all the incorrect confidence intervals and i just have one question:
would you say the number 69 is closer to 93 or to 6? 🧐
would you say the number 69 is closer to 93 or to 6? 🧐
the authors say they fixed all the incorrect confidence intervals and i just have one question:
would you say the number 69 is closer to 93 or to 6? 🧐
would you say the number 69 is closer to 93 or to 6? 🧐
November 7, 2025 at 1:31 AM
the authors say they fixed all the incorrect confidence intervals and i just have one question:
would you say the number 69 is closer to 93 or to 6? 🧐
would you say the number 69 is closer to 93 or to 6? 🧐
This is pure chaos. There's an estimate that looks correct in the text but incorrect in the appendix (upper bound is missing a minus). So what did the authors do? They removed the (correct) value from the text, and left the incorrect value in the table unchanged!
November 7, 2025 at 1:29 AM
This is pure chaos. There's an estimate that looks correct in the text but incorrect in the appendix (upper bound is missing a minus). So what did the authors do? They removed the (correct) value from the text, and left the incorrect value in the table unchanged!
Call me old-fashioned, but I think if you have to correct one of the key results cited in your *abstract*, then the correction actually does affect the overall conclusions of your study!
November 6, 2025 at 11:21 PM
Call me old-fashioned, but I think if you have to correct one of the key results cited in your *abstract*, then the correction actually does affect the overall conclusions of your study!
Link to the correction: www.neurology.org/doi/full/10....
Association Between Consumption of Low- and No-Calorie Artificial Sweeteners and Cognitive Decline | Neurology
www.neurology.org
November 6, 2025 at 10:29 PM
Link to the correction: www.neurology.org/doi/full/10....
OK now I have to check if they really did correct them all...
November 6, 2025 at 10:28 PM
OK now I have to check if they really did correct them all...