3 ms·
>They also haven't given you enough information to know the size of the pro-NN batch they investigated, so we still don't know that it's "massive." There's tho
by ikeboy 6y ago
>They also haven't given you enough information to know the size of the pro-NN batch they investigated, so we still don't know that it's "massive."
There's thousands of people who said they didn't leave the respective comments. That's enough to be statistically significant and to extrapolate across the whole sample.
There might be selection bias, as only a small percentage of people responded.
- geofft 6y agoSure. So how big is that population you can extrapolate over? The WSJ article is carefully not saying, 32% of people who appear to have left pro-NN comments said they didn't make them. They said 32% of people in this batch did. They didn't say, as far as I can tell, how big the batch is. (Maybe I'm just misreading?) There's a big difference between "32% of a thousand pro-NN comments are untrustworthy" and "60% of a million anti-NN comments are untrustworthy." The WSJ, like any MSM outlet, is manipulating you through half-truths. Pay attention.
- ikeboy 6y ago>There's a big difference between "32% of a thousand pro-NN comments are untrustworthy" and "60% of a million anti-NN comments are untrustworthy." If you look on the sidebars, they reached thousands of people on both sides that disclaimed the comments left in their name. Given the abysmal response rate, the total size of the batches would have been hundreds of thousands at least for both sides. >The WSJ, like any MSM outlet, is manipulating you through half-truths. Pay attention. Look. I agree with you that we should be skeptical of such claims. But you seem to be applying that skepticism only to claims about one side.