> Whether or not the ISPs have this information is a fundamentally separate issue from whether ideological homogeneity biases science. There is no dichotomy her

> Whether or not the ISPs have this information is a fundamentally separate issue from whether ideological homogeneity biases science. There is no dichotomy here. I'm sort of making two only vaguely related claims here. Claim 1: In this particular case, I don't think bias is even a problem, because we shouldn't even be doing this leg work on behalf of ISPs in the first place. My point is that ISPs choose not to contribute to the quality of publicly available information. When entire industries (or governments) willfully hide data that's necessary for a populace to make an informed decision, I default to a worst-case assumption on that data. Not because I think that's most likely, but out of contempt for the lack of transparency and as a forcing function for greater transparency. In other words, these "biased" researchers are already a hell of a lot more charitable toward the ISPs' position than I think we ought to be. If ISPs aren't willing to share granular data on network accessibility, then assume it's a major problem until they muster up the will to share that data. >... the humanities and social sciences... Claim 2: On this issue, I think it's helpful to discuss "critical studies" and related departments separately from the rest of "academia" and separately from the natural and mathematical sciences in particular. I don't think that the liberal bias in natural/math sciences has the same underlying causes OR the same long-term effects. I.e., I don't think that chemistry departments are hiring based upon political beliefs, and I also don't think that political homogeneity effects the quality of chemistry research. You also have to explain why political diversity is even important in the face of other forms of homogeneity. E.g., I'd rather a very liberal, very theoretical physics department hire a flaming liberal experimentalist than yet another theorist who happens to be conservative. The importance of political diversity in humanities and social sciences is obvious, but I don't see why science would suffer if all algebraists were libertarians... My assertion is that if you want a politically diverse chemistry department, you have to 1) justify why that diversity is even necessary / more significant than other major problems; and then 2) probably also solve different underlying causes. > Of course, I'm picking on the academy, but the same probably holds true for journalism. And also literally every other profession, from clergy to CEOs to career criminals. There's even a trite quote about it.