3 ms·

I seriously doubt NYU will have it's reputation damaged by this. The vast majority of people do not read beyond the title of the study and I garuntee you that t

I seriously doubt NYU will have it's reputation damaged by this. The vast majority of people do not read beyond the title of the study and I garuntee you that this will be cited ad-nauseum in every censorship or manipulation debate for years to come. It doesn't matter how flawed or biased the arguments in the study are because it's conclusion is exactly what people on the left want to hear.

jjulius 6y ago
>The vast majority of people do not read beyond the title of the study... At the risk of breaking a rule, I would like to point out that OP claimed this 28-page report was "editorial garbage" a mere 4 minutes after it was posted. Perhaps either of you would be able to highlight what, in this, is flawed, biased or garbage?
- BitwiseFool 6y ago
  Sure, but I will absolutely mention that the PDF of this study has a snazzy but hard to read layout. So I'm not done reading the whole thing. But there's certainly a lot I noticed that seemed 'off' about it. Namely, this quote "This drumbeat of accusation has had consequences." You'll notice that most of the paper revolves around linking conservative voices to misinformation and justifying removal based on that fact. I definitely get the sense that the paper is setting up an argument that censorship of conservatives actually makes sense and is justified because they spread so much dangerous misinformation. But it's also asserting that censorship isn't going on because of how many people are following conservative voices on social media. To be clear, this is my interpretation. It's the sentiment I get from reading this as an average person. I have no doubt a conservative person would feel even more strongly than I do that this is a biased paper. I do not have the ability to present anyone here with a scholarly analysis or some kind of academic-grade proof that this is a biased work.
throwawaymanbot 6y ago
so give an example!

jjulius 6y ago

>The vast majority of people do not read beyond the title of the study... At the risk of breaking a rule, I would like to point out that OP claimed this 28-page report was "editorial garbage" a mere 4 minutes after it was posted. Perhaps either of you would be able to highlight what, in this, is flawed, biased or garbage?

BitwiseFool 6y ago
Sure, but I will absolutely mention that the PDF of this study has a snazzy but hard to read layout. So I'm not done reading the whole thing. But there's certainly a lot I noticed that seemed 'off' about it. Namely, this quote "This drumbeat of accusation has had consequences." You'll notice that most of the paper revolves around linking conservative voices to misinformation and justifying removal based on that fact. I definitely get the sense that the paper is setting up an argument that censorship of conservatives actually makes sense and is justified because they spread so much dangerous misinformation. But it's also asserting that censorship isn't going on because of how many people are following conservative voices on social media. To be clear, this is my interpretation. It's the sentiment I get from reading this as an average person. I have no doubt a conservative person would feel even more strongly than I do that this is a biased paper. I do not have the ability to present anyone here with a scholarly analysis or some kind of academic-grade proof that this is a biased work.

throwawaymanbot 6y ago

so give an example!