| ▲ | motolov a day ago |
| Interesting abstract.
I can see similar concepts applied to eg govt regulation, censorship, etc (only one side monitoring, other sides absorb content of the monitored) BTW, it looks like your PDF is missing figures/illustrations/etc (there is placeholder text)
Not sure if this was a publishing tech issue or if missed in authoring |
|
| ▲ | Freak_NL a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| The whole document looks weirdly formatted, but you can click the red numeral in the placeholder text for the tables and figures to jump to the appendix where it is. Not sure if this approach is intentional. It's certainly weird. You would think that with a decent LaTeX template academic papers would look reproducibly good, but for some reason some (many?) institutions and authors choose weakly justified convention over typographically sound formatting optimised for actual reading. The font choice (not too bad, but not pleasant either), the outsized leading which competes with the paragraph spacing. Look at how badly the references section on page xxviii scans. The word missing from the abstract is 'PornHub', of course. They're not just studying “a dominant online platform”. The fact that it is PornHub seems relevant enough not to hide it in the abstract to me. |
| |
| ▲ | gwern 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This always frustrates me about paper abstracts. Whether it's economics or AI, everyone seems to make a point of being as vague as possible, when it would sometimes take 1 tiny word to clarify it hugely . You'll see paper abstracts talk about how they analyze "an important and widely deployed commercial family of large language models (LLMs)" and then you have to skim 10 pages before you finally find out that they mean 'GPT'. I don't think the authors are even doing it maliciously or deliberately, because it's like how students or kids struggle to write anything. It's just a fallback when you're struggling to condense it and have gotten lost in your forest. Like how you can ask someone, "OK, that's all great, but what did you do? What are you trying to say here?" "Oh, I Xed the Y with Z." "There you go. That's your abstract." | |
| ▲ | mcphage a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The word missing from the abstract is 'PornHub', of course. They're not just studying “a dominant online platform”. The fact that it is PornHub seems relevant enough not to hide it in the abstract to me. The fact that it was PornHub is mentioned repeatedly in the paper itself. Leaving it out of the abstract seems fair—they picked PornHub because it was a site that deleted 80% of their content, not because they're specifically interested in studying PornHub. And, they study several of MindGeek's sites, not just PornHub exclusively. | | |
| ▲ | Freak_NL a day ago | parent [-] | | Sure, but omitting it is like having a study about 'a dominant social medium' and not mentioning that it is Facebook or X in the abstract (or a study about radicalisation of young men focusing on 'an anonymous imageboard' and not putting 4chan or whatever in the abstract). These are for the most part unique beasts, not interchangeable venues. It is relevant information for anyone scanning through dozens of abstracts on the topics addressed. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dkga a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is how some people in economics format their papers due to how some top journals require manuscripts to be. Source: I'm an economist (although I personally prefer to place figs/tables where they are supposed to be). |
|
| ▲ | bschne a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I also find this annoying, but it‘s common practice to do this while a draft is still being worked on and not yet getting submitted to a journal (SSRN is ≈ SocSci Arxiv) |
| |
| ▲ | tough a day ago | parent [-] | | Why isn't there a global-like open platform for science like ArXiv? | | |
| ▲ | bschne a day ago | parent [-] | | path dependency with fields having developed their own early on I guess? | | |
| ▲ | tough a day ago | parent [-] | | so are these like other fields don't use LaTeX but other formatting? I can see for example if its' mostly word documents from source on that area of science maybe there's no point on arxiv like pipeline that builds from source. wondering if it will ever converge there, like a wikipedia only about science/research but of all areas | | |
| ▲ | pmyteh 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Some of it is formatting, some of it is just field dependent. SSRN is commercial and "good enough" for many people. It (at least used to) advertise itself as a social network for social science academics. There's also SocArXiv[0] and others, which are purer extensions of the arxiv model. Part of the issue is that the arxiv doesn't want every discipline in science, so a certain amount of duplication is necessary. [0]: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | nh23423fefe a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| i left reddit because i was tired of mods destroying communities (with "moderation" which is really just shitty curation by your shitty taste) porn consumption is even more demanding. if you want "that release" you dont really care about the 2257 |
