>>13873518Among other data points, of course it is. Or haven't you noticed the glut of posts similar to OP on virtually every board?
>Mobile screenshot of article without headline and a comment that goes like "what are some [books/science/technology] that can explain this?"It's an epidemic, and if we want to understand it we have to use the data available. Compare to baselines and see what stands out. My gut tells me we'd find i-phones overrepresented since a lot of these images follow the same name pattern. That would be interesting, especially if it agrees with other studies of astroturfing.
