I don’t really see the issue with the study. It’s says ten percent of the negative tweets are troll/bots/bigots, which is only half of critical audience. So if anything the critics should be happy that’s it’s validating them… but no, of course this study is just saying “everybody” is racist/sexist. Sure. I don’t see the problem with Rian Johnson retweeting it either, I think he literally stated that it supports what he’s been saying that it’s only a small percentage that sends him stuff like that (this study is after all focused entirely on tweets directed at him).
Also, Collipso, potentially buying bots and actually buying off professional real life movie critics are such incredibly different things in so many ways that I can’t imagine why anyone would think one proves the other.
I also don’t have a problem with the study. I take issue with the conclusions that are drawn based on the select few who sent tweets to RJ, and the use this group as some accurate representation of the fandom in general. I take issue with his “political” category, which equates political affiliations (oddly restricted to right wing politics) with active political messaging and subversion, which is presented as some sort of proof, that the backlash isn’t real, mostly Trump supporters, bigots, and Russian bots.
Well I don’t think the study is perfect either, obviously it’s an incredibly small and specific sample set, plus there’s a response bias that tends towards the extremes. But I still think it’s an interesting curiosity, insofar as a comprehensive study would be impossible this provides a decent snapshot.
I still don’t understand why you say it “proves the backlash isn’t real, mostly bots and trolls and such,” because that isn’t what it proves at all.