5 ms·

That seems...somewhat subject to selection bias.

• zardo 10y ago
  All population studies are, it needs to be accounted for and minimized, but it doesn't have to be eliminated.
  • hyperpape 10y ago
    With regard to the status quo, you could say: "All population studies are subject to incomplete or inaccurate data. It needs to be accounted for and minimized, but it doesn't have to be eliminated". I guess livestreamers are another data point, so in a perfectly pure framework, they can't actually make your epistemic situation worse, no matter how bad the selection bias is, but I don't see how they're going to make the situation that much better.
    • zardo 10y ago
      I think they do help. For constant dollars, each study has to balance the detail of the data captured against the size of the population included. Anything that allows more detailed data to be gathered from a larger population is helpful. While that population is going to skew wealthy if the study involves the participants making a purchase, that can be counteracted by seeking out under-represented populations and asking and/or incentivising them to participate.
      • bluGill 10y ago
        >I think they do help. For constant dollars, each study has to balance the detail of the data captured against the size of the population included. Anything that allows more detailed data to be gathered from a larger population is helpful. Not exactly because we don't know all the factors to control for. You end up with a bunch of correlations but often it isn't clear why. Are people who eat X foods Y because they eat that, or because the common genetic background of people who eat X are Y? Or maybe it is because before they were born their parents did Z?
• kbenson 10y ago
  For the public feeds? Possibly. That's not the entirety of the point though, just a note about a large corpus of public data that will likely be available in the near future.