4 ms·
Although you make a valid point, the article linked to is statistically questionable, and consequently potentially very misleading. “Potentially”, because it m
by defined 8y ago
Although you make a valid point, the article linked to is statistically questionable, and consequently potentially very misleading.
“Potentially”, because it may (who knows) accidentally have come to the correct conclusion, notwithstanding its shaky basis, but it could just as easily be wrong.
The author of that article even goes as far as writing “Correlation does not equal causation“ and in the same sentence goes on to call it a trend, which I find contradictory.
- phs318u 8y agoThe linked article doesn’t in fact draw a conclusion - it is simply drawing attention to the correlation - which is quite striking. And while it would have been equally correct (if not drawing a conclusion) to state that the “trend” (poor choice of word) indicates that states with fewer shooting deaths enact more gun laws (ie. not assuming cause and effect), to do so would have been disingenuous. IF the effect is not the obvious one, then there is possibly a hidden variable driving fewer gun deaths that is associated with populations that prefer more gun laws (even if the laws themselves don’t drive the reduction). At the very least it’s worth further study. And yet here we are discussing the corporate control of emojis on freedom of speech. And while that’s worthy of discussion- we are all still free to use English (or <insert your language here>) instead of a language that is unfree. To the best of my knowledge no one has yet died as a result of misinterpretation of the gun emoji.