Glad it was useful 😉

Correct link (without typo) to the blog by Cox: tinyurl.com/28taeyet

This was right after I finished my dissertation, so a sudden decrease is more likely!
Correct link to the blog by Cox: tinyurl.com/28taeyet

7/7 In conclusion, although this is an elegant and theoretically interesting model, if the empirical premise of its explanation for polarization does not hold, I'm not sure what to make of it.

6/7 Finally, such a marked increase in connectivity cause by social media is not known in the (sociological) literature on personal networks, nor does it show up in other data sources (e.g., tinyurl.com/28taeyet)%3E Indeed, this would have been remarkable discovery, worthy of a paper in itself!

5/7 Most of the "transition" around 2008 seems driven by the fact that almost all data points before and after are based on different measurement instruments, respectively name generators ("with whom did you discuss...?") and asking for aggregated numbers ("how many close friends do you have?")

4/7 The data sources for some of the data points are rather unclear. For example, to my knowledge, core discussion networks were not measured in the GSS after 2010 but they are reported in the Figure. Also some other data points (e.g., for Norway and Germany) are attributed to the wrong data sources

3/7 The supposed "transition" in connectivity around 2008 is based on the data points of 4 countries, but then compared to polarization in only the US. If one would take only the US data points for connectivity too, the transition is much less clear

2/7 The selection of countries is strangely selective, focusing only on the US and North-West Europe

Following up on this: should we start new journals (which creates huge coordination problems) or try to wrangle our beloved top journals out of the hands of the big publishers? Are there any good examples/strategies for the latter?