10 ms·

The problem with this sort of poll is that rhetoric, for a huge number of voters, has a much greater impact than facts about issues. Even and especially if they

The problem with this sort of poll is that rhetoric, for a huge number of voters, has a much greater impact than facts about issues. Even and especially if they aren't aware this is the case. This poll reminds me of those ACA polls which concluded overwhelming support by focusing on particular aspects of the Act instead of just coming right out an asking "Obamacare: repeal or keep?" with no preface. If you truly want to gauge public opinion as it will matter in election years -- which is pretty much the only way it matters -- you shouldn't define net neutrality and you definitely shouldn't ask a sequence of potentially priming questions. Instead, you should just ask: "Do you support Net Neutrality?" and nothing else! Of course, the results of this survey are still important. But they might not be predictive of how the average person really feels when asked, over a beer, whether we should "keep internet Obamacare" or "let Comcast censor our speech"

cwyers 9y ago
> If you truly want to gauge public opinion as it will matter in election years -- which is pretty much the only way it matters -- you shouldn't define net neutrality and you definitely shouldn't ask a sequence of potentially priming questions. Instead, you should just ask: "Do you support Net Neutrality?" and nothing else! Well, "would you change your vote" or "would you stay home rather than vote for a candidate who disagrees with you" are even more meaningful questions, if you think they'll answer honestly.
snowwrestler 9y ago
Rhetoric changes, though. Now that Obamacare is at risk of repeal, people are paying a lot more attention to the details of what it does. That's why GOP members, who thought they would be heroes back home for finally repealing it, are instead getting screamed at.
JoshTriplett 9y ago
> Instead, you should just ask: "Do you support Net Neutrality?" and nothing else! That might tell you who will favor a candidate who says "I support Net Neutrality" as a sound bite. It won't tell you if they mean the same thing that you have in mind. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey . "If by net neutrality you mean ..."
- Profragile 9y ago
  "Net Neutrality" is one of those terms like "Pro-choice"... you can put it nicely but basically you're saying that you want to kill your child because you didn't really plan to have one and you were careless.
slg 9y ago
I think it depends entirely on your goal. If you are trying to understand the political repercussions of something, then I agree the rhetoric is what is important. However I think that is one of the biggest problems with the current political climate. We are always focusing on the political aftermath of these decisions and not the decisions themselves. If the goal is to actually understand the views of the general population then the more details and the less buzzwords the better. An "Obamacare: repeal or keep?" poll question might help some politicians stay in office, but why should I care about that? It is the "Do you think it is fair that people with preexisting conditions pay higher insurance premiums?" poll questions that would actually lead to a law that is a better representation of the beliefs of the American people.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  I agree with you about what should matter most. I'm just not convinced that it does matter most. > ...but why should I care about that? "Elections have consequences" and all that. > It is the "Do you think it is fair that people with preexisting conditions pay higher insurance premiums?" poll questions that would actually lead to a law that is a better representation of the beliefs of the American people. Maybe. But if identity politics are important enough to take priority over policy opinions, then knowing what policies people prefer doesn't really tell you anything. Which, I agree, is very unfortunate!
  - slg 9y ago
    >"Elections have consequences" and all that. Except they don't. The person who occupies the 3rd Congressional seat in Georgia has no impact on my life. I shouldn't care about it and the media should spend less time focusing on it. What matters are the actual actions of Congress. Asking about "Obamacare" is a question about politics. Asking about "preexisting conditions" is a question about what actions Congress should take. >But if identity politics are important enough to take priority over policy opinions, then knowing what policies people prefer doesn't really tell you anything. It isn't identity politics. It is marketing. If a particular policy is popular when it is described but unpopular by name, the only thing it means is that the message about that policy has not been properly communicated.
dsp1234 9y ago
"Obamacare: repeal or keep?" with no preface. Unfortunately, it's not that easy, because if you change Obamacare to the Affordable Care Act, the answer changes. http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2013/09/26/FI10863c-release%209-25-13.pdf http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorial... Search "11a"
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dmd 9y ago
  That's exactly the point being made.
- danjoc 9y ago
  It works on hacker news too: >Facebook should not be allowed to... "It is Facebook's business! Don't like it? Go start your own!" >Comcast should not be allowed to... "Right on! Stick it to those price gouging monopolists!"
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - bunnymancer 9y ago
    "Obamacare" - ACA Facebook - Comcast Not.. even similar
    - MBCook 9y ago
      How about: Obamacare:ACA is Xfinity:Comcast or (for many) Spectrum:Time Warner
  - RickS 9y ago
    Customers have ample alternatives to facebook, and avoidance of that entire product category is not debilitating. Neither are true of comcast's internet services.
StillBored 9y ago
Which is a great way of determining the level of knowledge people have about a bill. Simply ask them if they support he soundbite position, then start asking them about the details. Particularly telling is if you start asking them to prioritize one thing over the other. I think a few the obamacare surveys did this, but people were frequently too partisan to change their minds about it, even when presented with the fact that it wasn't going to kill all the babies, or OTOH, create cheap wonderful helthcare for all.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  Yes. In the context of this poll, Q3 could've been asked first with no definition provided, and without a "back" button. Then, after the top-level question, you can start honing in on potentially-priming questions aimed at figuring out people's policy preferences and perceptions.
  - jacobolus 9y ago
    If you lead with the soundbite question, you end up distorting responses to all subsequent questions. Designing meaningful/informative polls is very hard.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Eh, the classic version of this is a late 1960s experiment that asked people to sign a petition... which happened to be the Declaration of Independence. The overwhelming majority of Americans who started reading it didn't recognize it, and thought it was too radical.
  - miles 9y ago
    That's fascinating. Do you have more information on that experiment? A few minutes searching did not turn up anything.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      I wrote a term paper about the Students for a Democratic Society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_a_Democratic_Soci...) in high school, and this is something I recall from it. I did a little googling and don't see a reference to it. Sorry.
te_platt 9y ago
On top of that I think hardly anyone has a good idea of what net neutrality is or what specific actions would be affected. Should an ISP be allowed to throttle or block data from a competing service? Should an ISP be allowed to throttle or block data from a politically controversial site? From a suspected piracy site? From ip addresses involved in DOS attacks? And then on top of that what is in the actual proposed legislation purporting to be supporting net neutrality? Even if politicians make an honest effort to do right (could happen....) how confident can we be that it will actually be for the better? My main point is we need to be vigilant in the details and not get caught up in a tribal fight over a label.
- howard941 9y ago
  I'm not certain the details are problematic. If you rephrase the hypotheticals in the context of common carriers the detailed application is clear. So would a telco be allowed to block incoming calls from a competitor? [no] Would an airline refuse to ticket members of politically controversial groups? [no] How about from known hijackers? [yes] Common carrier doctrine carries a lot of unfortunate historical baggage regarding regulation. EDIT - added [answers]
ww520 9y ago
If anything the 2016 election has shown, it's that polls are often done to influence instead of to measure.
redler 9y ago
"Obamacare: repeal or keep?" with no preface Among the problems with this is that many millions would respond as if the question were "Obama: like or dislike?" It would boil "approval" down to namecraft: how well did the authors of the initiative accurately or deceptively name it? For the millions who know little to nothing about it, how effective is it from a trigger-word/dog-whistle perspective? What kind of group signaling is implied by the response options? (N.B. "Obamacare" is, of course, using what began as a derogatory term among the opposition to the plan).
TallGuyShort 9y ago
>> If you truly want to gauge public opinion That probably shouldn't be the goal of all polls. Some polls are supposed to predict the outcome of elections, but I'd like to see more polls that get at the root of why people support different things - so I'd like a poll that gauges people's motivation for a certain stance.
richdougherty 9y ago
> Instead, you should just ask: "Do you support Net Neutrality?" and nothing else! Even that phrasing would give biased results, since "Net Neutrality" has a positive and virtuous ring to it. That's probably why the phrase "Net Neutrality" is preferred by its supporters, instead of something like "Government Mandated Internet Usage Restrictions". ;)
- croon 9y ago
  > That's probably why the phrase "Net Neutrality" is preferred by its supporters, instead of something like "Government Mandated Internet Usage Restrictions". ;) Especially since that would be blatantly false. The entire thing revolves around enforcing that your internet usage ISN'T restricted. Which is why the phrasing is both positive AND accurate.
  - richdougherty 9y ago
    Net Neutrality is "positive AND accurate", sure. But for a useful survey the phrasing should be just accurate, and neither positive or negative, if you don't want bias. The example of negative phrasing I provided is intentionally over the top, just to illustrate the point.
    - croon 9y ago
      > Net Neutrality is "positive AND accurate", sure. But for a useful survey the phrasing should be just accurate, and neither positive or negative, if you don't want bias. Is it bias if the accurate description naturally leans to one direction? Isn't that like saying I'm biased if I describe Earth as an oblate spheroid instead of "roundish shape up to interpretation"? I'm firmly opposed to the notion that you need to cater to both sides of an issue and meet in the middle, when the legitimacy of both sides are clearly assymetric.
      - richdougherty 9y ago
        > Is it bias if the accurate description naturally leans to one direction? No, but you should be confident about that. > I'm firmly opposed to the notion that you need to cater to both sides of an issue and meet in the middle, when the legitimacy of both sides are clearly assymetric. Sure, if you feel it's clear.
derefr 9y ago
> Instead, you should just ask: "Do you support Net Neutrality?" and nothing else! If you aren't going to define the term, I would think it would be useful to ask the question but also add an extra checkbox, as follows: 1. Do you support Net Neutrality? [yes] [no] 2. Did you feel confident in your knowledge of what "Net Neutrality" means, when answering the above question? [yes] [no] There's no option to answer #1 with anything other than "yes" or "no"—just like there wouldn't be when trying to decide what candidate to support and seeing it listed as part of their platform. But it'd be great to know who really believes in a certain stance on an issue, and who's answering based on what even they're aware is uninformed speculation as to what "supporting" a given thing means.
- Natanael_L 9y ago
  #2 needs to be a knowledge test to be useful.
rayiner 9y ago
> The problem with this sort of poll is that rhetoric, for a huge number of voters, has a much greater impact than facts about issues. Even and especially if they aren't aware this is the case. It's not just an issue of rhetoric. It's that policymaking of this sort is an exercise in cost-benefit analysis, and that's very difficult to capture in a poll. For example, when British Telecom was privatized in the 1980s, there was an economic analysis into how to craft the regulatory structure to balance consumer prices against investment incentives: http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/people/emeritus/dmgn/files/palgrave.pdf http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/people/emeritus/dmgn/files/palgrav... (pages 4-7); http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTFINANCIALSECTOR/Resources/282884-1303327122200/132green.pdf http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTFINANCIALSECTOR/Resour.... How do you craft a poll that intelligently asks voters to weigh in on these choices? Imagine asking people: "should sewage/water rates be cut?" One can imagine a majority of people supporting the position. After all, who doesn't want lower prices? But of course that ignores the enormous cost of cheap water (both in terms of environmental impact, and depriving utilities or revenue needed for capital improvements and maintenance). Indeed, because water rates are generally set by public bodies beholden to voters, our water rates nationwide are far too low: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/business/economy/the-price-of-water-is-too-low.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/business/economy/the-pric....
hosh 9y ago
> These are findings from an Ipsos poll conducted May 24-25, 2017 on behalf of Mozilla. For the survey, a sample of roughly 1,008 adults age 18+ from the continental U.S., Alaska and Hawaii was interviewed online in English. I wonder if the online polling affects the kind of people who are selected for the sample. Would it make a difference if the people involved own their own computers, have their own broadband, or has to go to the library to access the internet? What about people who don't use the internet? Does age group or other socioeconomic factors matter in this? What about people who accesses the internet primarily from a mobile device?
- pmyteh 9y ago
  It matters. Anything except a truly random sample of the population (essentially impossible) invalidates the statistical guarantees of polling. Consequently, polling involves a large number of processes to both get the most representative sample possible, then adjusts the results to reflect the biases they are aware of. This is something of an artistic process, and is one reason why pollsters have house effects/biases: they each do things slightly differently. Having said that, the general feeling is that online polls are as reliable as offline polls nowadays after these adjustments have been made, partly because polling by telephone has a well-established set of biases associated with it too.
specialist 9y ago
Phrasing matters. "Death taxes" vs "inheritance taxes". I realized I don't know the origins of "net neutrality". Coined by Prof Tim Wu. It's pretty good marketing; nicely done Prof Wu! Nor has Frank Luntz been paid to conjure it's evil twin. You can see the counter argument hasn't been weaponized yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Unnecessary_regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Unnecessary_reg... Aside: Thiel and Levchin arguing the internet has thrived despite the government is hysterical.

cwyers 9y ago

> If you truly want to gauge public opinion as it will matter in election years -- which is pretty much the only way it matters -- you shouldn't define net neutrality and you definitely shouldn't ask a sequence of potentially priming questions. Instead, you should just ask: "Do you support Net Neutrality?" and nothing else! Well, "would you change your vote" or "would you stay home rather than vote for a candidate who disagrees with you" are even more meaningful questions, if you think they'll answer honestly.

snowwrestler 9y ago

Rhetoric changes, though. Now that Obamacare is at risk of repeal, people are paying a lot more attention to the details of what it does. That's why GOP members, who thought they would be heroes back home for finally repealing it, are instead getting screamed at.

JoshTriplett 9y ago

> Instead, you should just ask: "Do you support Net Neutrality?" and nothing else! That might tell you who will favor a candidate who says "I support Net Neutrality" as a sound bite. It won't tell you if they mean the same thing that you have in mind. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey . "If by net neutrality you mean ..."

Profragile 9y ago
"Net Neutrality" is one of those terms like "Pro-choice"... you can put it nicely but basically you're saying that you want to kill your child because you didn't really plan to have one and you were careless.

slg 9y ago

I think it depends entirely on your goal. If you are trying to understand the political repercussions of something, then I agree the rhetoric is what is important. However I think that is one of the biggest problems with the current political climate. We are always focusing on the political aftermath of these decisions and not the decisions themselves. If the goal is to actually understand the views of the general population then the more details and the less buzzwords the better. An "Obamacare: repeal or keep?" poll question might help some politicians stay in office, but why should I care about that? It is the "Do you think it is fair that people with preexisting conditions pay higher insurance premiums?" poll questions that would actually lead to a law that is a better representation of the beliefs of the American people.

throwawayjava 9y ago
I agree with you about what should matter most. I'm just not convinced that it does matter most. > ...but why should I care about that? "Elections have consequences" and all that. > It is the "Do you think it is fair that people with preexisting conditions pay higher insurance premiums?" poll questions that would actually lead to a law that is a better representation of the beliefs of the American people. Maybe. But if identity politics are important enough to take priority over policy opinions, then knowing what policies people prefer doesn't really tell you anything. Which, I agree, is very unfortunate!
- slg 9y ago
  >"Elections have consequences" and all that. Except they don't. The person who occupies the 3rd Congressional seat in Georgia has no impact on my life. I shouldn't care about it and the media should spend less time focusing on it. What matters are the actual actions of Congress. Asking about "Obamacare" is a question about politics. Asking about "preexisting conditions" is a question about what actions Congress should take. >But if identity politics are important enough to take priority over policy opinions, then knowing what policies people prefer doesn't really tell you anything. It isn't identity politics. It is marketing. If a particular policy is popular when it is described but unpopular by name, the only thing it means is that the message about that policy has not been properly communicated.

dsp1234 9y ago

"Obamacare: repeal or keep?" with no preface. Unfortunately, it's not that easy, because if you change Obamacare to the Affordable Care Act, the answer changes. http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2013/09/26/FI10863c-release%209-25-13.pdf http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorial... Search "11a"

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dmd 9y ago
That's exactly the point being made.
danjoc 9y ago
It works on hacker news too: >Facebook should not be allowed to... "It is Facebook's business! Don't like it? Go start your own!" >Comcast should not be allowed to... "Right on! Stick it to those price gouging monopolists!"
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- bunnymancer 9y ago
  "Obamacare" - ACA Facebook - Comcast Not.. even similar
  - MBCook 9y ago
    How about: Obamacare:ACA is Xfinity:Comcast or (for many) Spectrum:Time Warner
- RickS 9y ago
  Customers have ample alternatives to facebook, and avoidance of that entire product category is not debilitating. Neither are true of comcast's internet services.

StillBored 9y ago

Which is a great way of determining the level of knowledge people have about a bill. Simply ask them if they support he soundbite position, then start asking them about the details. Particularly telling is if you start asking them to prioritize one thing over the other. I think a few the obamacare surveys did this, but people were frequently too partisan to change their minds about it, even when presented with the fact that it wasn't going to kill all the babies, or OTOH, create cheap wonderful helthcare for all.

throwawayjava 9y ago
Yes. In the context of this poll, Q3 could've been asked first with no definition provided, and without a "back" button. Then, after the top-level question, you can start honing in on potentially-priming questions aimed at figuring out people's policy preferences and perceptions.
- jacobolus 9y ago
  If you lead with the soundbite question, you end up distorting responses to all subsequent questions. Designing meaningful/informative polls is very hard.
greglindahl 9y ago
Eh, the classic version of this is a late 1960s experiment that asked people to sign a petition... which happened to be the Declaration of Independence. The overwhelming majority of Americans who started reading it didn't recognize it, and thought it was too radical.
- miles 9y ago
  That's fascinating. Do you have more information on that experiment? A few minutes searching did not turn up anything.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    I wrote a term paper about the Students for a Democratic Society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_a_Democratic_Soci...) in high school, and this is something I recall from it. I did a little googling and don't see a reference to it. Sorry.

te_platt 9y ago

On top of that I think hardly anyone has a good idea of what net neutrality is or what specific actions would be affected. Should an ISP be allowed to throttle or block data from a competing service? Should an ISP be allowed to throttle or block data from a politically controversial site? From a suspected piracy site? From ip addresses involved in DOS attacks? And then on top of that what is in the actual proposed legislation purporting to be supporting net neutrality? Even if politicians make an honest effort to do right (could happen....) how confident can we be that it will actually be for the better? My main point is we need to be vigilant in the details and not get caught up in a tribal fight over a label.

howard941 9y ago
I'm not certain the details are problematic. If you rephrase the hypotheticals in the context of common carriers the detailed application is clear. So would a telco be allowed to block incoming calls from a competitor? [no] Would an airline refuse to ticket members of politically controversial groups? [no] How about from known hijackers? [yes] Common carrier doctrine carries a lot of unfortunate historical baggage regarding regulation. EDIT - added [answers]

ww520 9y ago

If anything the 2016 election has shown, it's that polls are often done to influence instead of to measure.

redler 9y ago

"Obamacare: repeal or keep?" with no preface Among the problems with this is that many millions would respond as if the question were "Obama: like or dislike?" It would boil "approval" down to namecraft: how well did the authors of the initiative accurately or deceptively name it? For the millions who know little to nothing about it, how effective is it from a trigger-word/dog-whistle perspective? What kind of group signaling is implied by the response options? (N.B. "Obamacare" is, of course, using what began as a derogatory term among the opposition to the plan).

TallGuyShort 9y ago

>> If you truly want to gauge public opinion That probably shouldn't be the goal of all polls. Some polls are supposed to predict the outcome of elections, but I'd like to see more polls that get at the root of why people support different things - so I'd like a poll that gauges people's motivation for a certain stance.

richdougherty 9y ago

> Instead, you should just ask: "Do you support Net Neutrality?" and nothing else! Even that phrasing would give biased results, since "Net Neutrality" has a positive and virtuous ring to it. That's probably why the phrase "Net Neutrality" is preferred by its supporters, instead of something like "Government Mandated Internet Usage Restrictions". ;)

croon 9y ago
> That's probably why the phrase "Net Neutrality" is preferred by its supporters, instead of something like "Government Mandated Internet Usage Restrictions". ;) Especially since that would be blatantly false. The entire thing revolves around enforcing that your internet usage ISN'T restricted. Which is why the phrasing is both positive AND accurate.
- richdougherty 9y ago
  Net Neutrality is "positive AND accurate", sure. But for a useful survey the phrasing should be just accurate, and neither positive or negative, if you don't want bias. The example of negative phrasing I provided is intentionally over the top, just to illustrate the point.
  - croon 9y ago
    > Net Neutrality is "positive AND accurate", sure. But for a useful survey the phrasing should be just accurate, and neither positive or negative, if you don't want bias. Is it bias if the accurate description naturally leans to one direction? Isn't that like saying I'm biased if I describe Earth as an oblate spheroid instead of "roundish shape up to interpretation"? I'm firmly opposed to the notion that you need to cater to both sides of an issue and meet in the middle, when the legitimacy of both sides are clearly assymetric.
    - richdougherty 9y ago
      > Is it bias if the accurate description naturally leans to one direction? No, but you should be confident about that. > I'm firmly opposed to the notion that you need to cater to both sides of an issue and meet in the middle, when the legitimacy of both sides are clearly assymetric. Sure, if you feel it's clear.

derefr 9y ago

> Instead, you should just ask: "Do you support Net Neutrality?" and nothing else! If you aren't going to define the term, I would think it would be useful to ask the question but also add an extra checkbox, as follows: 1. Do you support Net Neutrality? [yes] [no] 2. Did you feel confident in your knowledge of what "Net Neutrality" means, when answering the above question? [yes] [no] There's no option to answer #1 with anything other than "yes" or "no"—just like there wouldn't be when trying to decide what candidate to support and seeing it listed as part of their platform. But it'd be great to know who really believes in a certain stance on an issue, and who's answering based on what even they're aware is uninformed speculation as to what "supporting" a given thing means.

Natanael_L 9y ago
#2 needs to be a knowledge test to be useful.

rayiner 9y ago

> The problem with this sort of poll is that rhetoric, for a huge number of voters, has a much greater impact than facts about issues. Even and especially if they aren't aware this is the case. It's not just an issue of rhetoric. It's that policymaking of this sort is an exercise in cost-benefit analysis, and that's very difficult to capture in a poll. For example, when British Telecom was privatized in the 1980s, there was an economic analysis into how to craft the regulatory structure to balance consumer prices against investment incentives: http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/people/emeritus/dmgn/files/palgrave.pdf http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/people/emeritus/dmgn/files/palgrav... (pages 4-7); http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTFINANCIALSECTOR/Resources/282884-1303327122200/132green.pdf http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTFINANCIALSECTOR/Resour.... How do you craft a poll that intelligently asks voters to weigh in on these choices? Imagine asking people: "should sewage/water rates be cut?" One can imagine a majority of people supporting the position. After all, who doesn't want lower prices? But of course that ignores the enormous cost of cheap water (both in terms of environmental impact, and depriving utilities or revenue needed for capital improvements and maintenance). Indeed, because water rates are generally set by public bodies beholden to voters, our water rates nationwide are far too low: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/business/economy/the-price-of-water-is-too-low.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/business/economy/the-pric....

hosh 9y ago

> These are findings from an Ipsos poll conducted May 24-25, 2017 on behalf of Mozilla. For the survey, a sample of roughly 1,008 adults age 18+ from the continental U.S., Alaska and Hawaii was interviewed online in English. I wonder if the online polling affects the kind of people who are selected for the sample. Would it make a difference if the people involved own their own computers, have their own broadband, or has to go to the library to access the internet? What about people who don't use the internet? Does age group or other socioeconomic factors matter in this? What about people who accesses the internet primarily from a mobile device?

pmyteh 9y ago
It matters. Anything except a truly random sample of the population (essentially impossible) invalidates the statistical guarantees of polling. Consequently, polling involves a large number of processes to both get the most representative sample possible, then adjusts the results to reflect the biases they are aware of. This is something of an artistic process, and is one reason why pollsters have house effects/biases: they each do things slightly differently. Having said that, the general feeling is that online polls are as reliable as offline polls nowadays after these adjustments have been made, partly because polling by telephone has a well-established set of biases associated with it too.

specialist 9y ago

Phrasing matters. "Death taxes" vs "inheritance taxes". I realized I don't know the origins of "net neutrality". Coined by Prof Tim Wu. It's pretty good marketing; nicely done Prof Wu! Nor has Frank Luntz been paid to conjure it's evil twin. You can see the counter argument hasn't been weaponized yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Unnecessary_regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Unnecessary_reg... Aside: Thiel and Levchin arguing the internet has thrived despite the government is hysterical.