3 ms·
"It shows who to investigate," also implies a predetermined outcome and guilt. It's more that it shows there's something to investigate, period. In 2019, we sho
by stcredzero 8y ago
"It shows who to investigate," also implies a predetermined outcome and guilt. It's more that it shows there's something to investigate, period. In 2019, we should be cautious about applying bulk statistics instantly to blame or suspicion. It's that sort of attitude which propagates the 70% wage gap myth, when more detailed analyses narrow this to 94%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it0EYBBl5LI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it0EYBBl5LI
I think, in the case of Apple and Facebook, there's more than bulk statistics, anyways. The focus should be on that evidence, not such crude measures.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoAgreed. Such an approach would be a money wasting dragnet. Once upon a time the DEA tried a similar approach and began investigating people for buying bill counters (drug traffickers count a lot of bills). They eventually admitted it was a massive waste of time because without another reliable data source to correlate it with it just generated low quality leads that basically always led to nothing.