I don't get it. Why are mechanical turk outcomes being founded upon political ideology as a concrete, objective data point? There's something in this process o

I don't get it. Why are mechanical turk outcomes being founded upon political ideology as a concrete, objective data point? There's something in this process of deriving authenticity that seems... flimsy? I mean, substitute "Skeletor" and "Hordak" as stand-ins for "KKK" and "Nazi Party", and "Eternia" for "America". When you make a video game out of clicking questionnaire responses, and seal it in an inconsequential vacuum, why would anyone expect conclusive results that "Skeletor" and "Hordak" should be regarded objectively as detestable? There's no real consequence to saying "blah", "yay" or "boo" and I don't think I'd expect success if I were to try and ground my hypothesis on simple, obtuse good/bad/indifferent political opinions, to prove whether response data is "authentic" or not. This feels like a weaker conclusion than gauging lie detector readings. You can safely ground response data on facts like: The sky is blue. Wood comes from plants. Stars exist in outer space. But, you can't really demand predictable results to bind on opinions. Is Mr. Rogers nice? Are leather jackets good? Do old cars go fast? Whether evil people started answering, or ambivalent people started shrugging at the questions doesn't provide a conclusive assessment of whether a system is producing useful data. I feel like this is a garbage-in-garbage-out scenario, no?