5 ms·

A thread pulled together here by a helpful Twitter user, since Dr. Epstein doesn't know how to use Twitter properly: https://twitter.com/QuillnInk1776/status/1

A thread pulled together here by a helpful Twitter user, since Dr. Epstein doesn't know how to use Twitter properly: https://twitter.com/QuillnInk1776/status/1163950407569330176 https://twitter.com/QuillnInk1776/status/1163950407569330176 I got my news about this from the horse's mouth, I'd been following the guy's work before Hillary threw him under the bus. This is not a "biased right wing" story, it is a true story. > No idea what you're talking about. People that don't get their news from biased right wing sources are not usually up to date with the endless Hillary pseudo scandals. Frankly, how dare you cast those aspersions on me? Take that back. You can't just go calling people cynical, bad-faith actors because they've said something you aren't willing to look in to. I really do miss the left who were willing to consider that maybe, just maybe, a politician who receives significant monetary and material support from a particular major corporation, is willing to go to bat for that corporation in spite of the facts. It is no crime for you to be fond of Hillary Clinton, the Doctor himself is, despite what she's done to him this week. However, not every criticism of her actions is pseudo-something; sometimes it's just something.

guelo 7y ago
I tried following that twitter thread but I just got bored with all the details. Why should I care? The obsession with Hillary is like some weird social disease. For example nobody talks about John Kerry. I don't get it.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  If you aren't willing to read a couple paragraphs of text from a PhD who is sympathetic to your politics, you aren't even in the conversation. Why publish your opinion if you admit you are unwilling to make even the slightest effort to back it up?
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Why derail the conversation and start talking about Hillary Clinton’s relationship with some professor when the original topic was Donald Trump and his attacks on the legitimacy of the 2016 election? You’re right, they’re not even in this conversation, because they’re wondering why it even matters at all.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      > You’re right, they’re not even in this conversation, because they’re wondering why it even matters at all. Well, I'll set your mind-reading aside. > Why ... start talking about Hillary Clinton’s relationship with ... professor when the original topic was Donald Trump ... 2016 election? Because Hillary Clinton is in active denial, with a seeming corporate motive, about the election at least as much as you've accused Donald Trump of intending to be. Nobody in that race is clean of this particular accusation. I brought up the recent example of conduct related to that state of denial specifically because it demonstrates that if we're going to go down that road, nobody will emerge without mud on them.
      - mikeash 7y ago
        What does “denial” have to do with anything? My complaint is about undermining the peaceful transition of power that is fundamental to the idea of democracy.
wwweston 7y ago
There is an incredible number of psuedo-allegations against the Clintons. It's been practically its own industry over the last three decades. There may also be substantial criticisms but at this point it's pretty well-adjusted for people to assume that any given criticism is more likely psuedo than substantial. I haven't really given Epstein's bias charges much of a serious look because the popular summaries don't address a basic question: what would it even mean for you to say that given search term is "biased" towards one candidate or another, unless what people are typing in is "who should I vote for as President?" Even if that's the level at which we're talking about, in what sense was the bias different than, say, if editorial board upon editorial board of newspapers throughout the United States declared support for Clinton, in spite of any history of frequent support of candidates from the opposite party? Isn't it more likely that what people are searching for is information about candidate positions, statements? Maybe news? Now, maybe this is something that Dr Epstein explains in his more formal research, but why can't he explain it in his popular stuff? Maybe it's so complicated that it defies popular summarization or.... maybe there really isn't a lot of there there. The fact that I can't find answers to any of those questions even where he claims to have detailed methods ( https://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_&_ROBERTSON_2017-A_Method_for_Detecting_Bias_in_Search_Rankings-AIBRT_WP-17-02_6-1-17.pdf https://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_&_ROBERTSON_2017-A_Metho... ) strongly suggests the latter to me. The combination of crying wolf when it comes to the Clintons and a lack of a hook makes it pretty easy to ignore. Maybe that's why Dr Epstein is primarily finding only right wing borderline propaganda outlets are listening.

guelo 7y ago

I tried following that twitter thread but I just got bored with all the details. Why should I care? The obsession with Hillary is like some weird social disease. For example nobody talks about John Kerry. I don't get it.

microcolonel 7y ago
If you aren't willing to read a couple paragraphs of text from a PhD who is sympathetic to your politics, you aren't even in the conversation. Why publish your opinion if you admit you are unwilling to make even the slightest effort to back it up?
- mikeash 7y ago
  Why derail the conversation and start talking about Hillary Clinton’s relationship with some professor when the original topic was Donald Trump and his attacks on the legitimacy of the 2016 election? You’re right, they’re not even in this conversation, because they’re wondering why it even matters at all.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > You’re right, they’re not even in this conversation, because they’re wondering why it even matters at all. Well, I'll set your mind-reading aside. > Why ... start talking about Hillary Clinton’s relationship with ... professor when the original topic was Donald Trump ... 2016 election? Because Hillary Clinton is in active denial, with a seeming corporate motive, about the election at least as much as you've accused Donald Trump of intending to be. Nobody in that race is clean of this particular accusation. I brought up the recent example of conduct related to that state of denial specifically because it demonstrates that if we're going to go down that road, nobody will emerge without mud on them.
    - mikeash 7y ago
      What does “denial” have to do with anything? My complaint is about undermining the peaceful transition of power that is fundamental to the idea of democracy.

wwweston 7y ago

There is an incredible number of psuedo-allegations against the Clintons. It's been practically its own industry over the last three decades. There may also be substantial criticisms but at this point it's pretty well-adjusted for people to assume that any given criticism is more likely psuedo than substantial. I haven't really given Epstein's bias charges much of a serious look because the popular summaries don't address a basic question: what would it even mean for you to say that given search term is "biased" towards one candidate or another, unless what people are typing in is "who should I vote for as President?" Even if that's the level at which we're talking about, in what sense was the bias different than, say, if editorial board upon editorial board of newspapers throughout the United States declared support for Clinton, in spite of any history of frequent support of candidates from the opposite party? Isn't it more likely that what people are searching for is information about candidate positions, statements? Maybe news? Now, maybe this is something that Dr Epstein explains in his more formal research, but why can't he explain it in his popular stuff? Maybe it's so complicated that it defies popular summarization or.... maybe there really isn't a lot of there there. The fact that I can't find answers to any of those questions even where he claims to have detailed methods ( https://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_&_ROBERTSON_2017-A_Method_for_Detecting_Bias_in_Search_Rankings-AIBRT_WP-17-02_6-1-17.pdf https://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_&_ROBERTSON_2017-A_Metho... ) strongly suggests the latter to me. The combination of crying wolf when it comes to the Clintons and a lack of a hook makes it pretty easy to ignore. Maybe that's why Dr Epstein is primarily finding only right wing borderline propaganda outlets are listening.