4 ms·

I'm very skeptical about anything coming out of Freedom House when its chair was the co-author of the Patriot Act... like come on. There is quite an obvious con

I'm very skeptical about anything coming out of Freedom House when its chair was the co-author of the Patriot Act... like come on. There is quite an obvious conflict of interest in what this organization puts out. More often than not, these types of organizations are used to justify support for western action in what they call "non-free" countries. It works. Instead, I think we should focus more on improving the majority of lives of the people in the US than focusing on countries abroad.

CountDrewku 5y ago
Can you find a source that disproves what they're saying? I'm kinda tired of this general idea that if you dislike the person/source that's making a claim then the claim itself is inaccurate.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  Generally I agree, but thinktanks exist to produce studies that strengthen a pre-established political position. Taking them as an objective source is misunderstanding what a thinktank is for.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    Bias and objectivity are not mutually exclusive.
crazy_horse 5y ago
What's the alternative? I'll tell you scientists are dying for good information (probably really are). IN a lot of authoritarian countries it does not exist, for obvious reasons. Freedom House, yeah, it has an agenda, but at the end of the day it's that data or none at all. It is the job of people using the data, not posting comments about it to do a more thorough review than it has connections, therefore, not useful. Do you have a specific issue with the ratings? We have to ask these questions and do. We adjust our priors accordingly. > Instead, I think we should focus more on improving the majority of lives of the people in the US than focusing on countries abroad. Do me a favor and search for "human rights" on that page. That's kind of the whole point for a lot of but not all of these contributors. Oh, and if you care about the US - the US scores are declining.
- diffCtx 5y ago
  Given how easy it is to hide conflict of interest when presenting findings, I’d say it’s commenters jobs to criticize the source This is forever human stuff, using a computer does nothing to remove bias if the inputs are the usual garbage anti-human, authoritarian bias. Human language preferences go out of style. Perhaps the Evangelicals should have had more sympathy for the indigenous tribes similar complaints. The leopard was never supposed to eat SOMEONES face. It always does.
- saurik 5y ago
  > Do you have a specific issue with the ratings? A friend of mine recently said that Mexico was more "free" than the United States. I tried to find some analysis or discussion of this, and came across Freedom House, which rated Mexico quite poorly vs. the United States (other rankings or comparisons being irrelevant for this comment). He was frustrated that I used some biased source to define "freedom" and challenged me to find and read the explanation they had for why Mexico was "less free" than the United States. I did so on the spot. I guess I encourage you to do so as well, as it is related to this discussion. https://freedomhouse.org/country/mexico/freedom-net/2021 https://freedomhouse.org/country/mexico/freedom-net/2021 As far as I was concerned, he decisively won the argument and effectively dismantled any ability for me to use the Freedom House metrics in our discussion: "ironically" (but, in retrospect, kind of "as expected"), Freedom House has a completely different way of defining "freedom" than I do. In particular, and to use some of the vernacular we use on the Internet in discussions of "freedom" with respect to things like "walled gardens": they seem to believe in "freedom from" rather than "freedom to". Freedom House cares deeply about "freedom from" even when it comes into direct conflict with "freedom to"; and in the article about Mexico, we see this in their premise that Mexico doesn't have freedom of the press... because another privacy citizen might kill you over it and get away with it due to the courts being shoddy? Is that really an argument that they are "less free" or is the issue in fact that they are "more free"? As a tech example, I consider the Apple iPhone to be one of the least "free" platforms ever designed: it is explicitly built to restrict freedom of both users and developers to maximize Apple's profit and control both their intellectual property as well as that of their licensees. However, assuming you believe that this also has the side effect of improving security or minimizing scams or whatever Apple claims (let's just assume it for a moment without trying to examine it deeply), I bet Freedom House would consider that extremely "free" because users would be able to go out about their business with relatively lower concern of being targeted by hackers or being stalked or whatever people tend to give up freedoms in order to prevent. (You will see this same issue in their discussion of fake news and misinformation, on another thread here on Hacker News. I personally find the idea that the allowance of people saying incorrect things online makes people "less free" absurd and the idea that new attempts to restrict the ability to say incorrect things online is somehow "promising" for freedom to be a somewhat ridiculous parody of what the word "free" could possibly mean.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28607451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28607451

CountDrewku 5y ago

Can you find a source that disproves what they're saying? I'm kinda tired of this general idea that if you dislike the person/source that's making a claim then the claim itself is inaccurate.

pasabagi 5y ago
Generally I agree, but thinktanks exist to produce studies that strengthen a pre-established political position. Taking them as an objective source is misunderstanding what a thinktank is for.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  Bias and objectivity are not mutually exclusive.

crazy_horse 5y ago

What's the alternative? I'll tell you scientists are dying for good information (probably really are). IN a lot of authoritarian countries it does not exist, for obvious reasons. Freedom House, yeah, it has an agenda, but at the end of the day it's that data or none at all. It is the job of people using the data, not posting comments about it to do a more thorough review than it has connections, therefore, not useful. Do you have a specific issue with the ratings? We have to ask these questions and do. We adjust our priors accordingly. > Instead, I think we should focus more on improving the majority of lives of the people in the US than focusing on countries abroad. Do me a favor and search for "human rights" on that page. That's kind of the whole point for a lot of but not all of these contributors. Oh, and if you care about the US - the US scores are declining.

diffCtx 5y ago
Given how easy it is to hide conflict of interest when presenting findings, I’d say it’s commenters jobs to criticize the source This is forever human stuff, using a computer does nothing to remove bias if the inputs are the usual garbage anti-human, authoritarian bias. Human language preferences go out of style. Perhaps the Evangelicals should have had more sympathy for the indigenous tribes similar complaints. The leopard was never supposed to eat SOMEONES face. It always does.
saurik 5y ago
> Do you have a specific issue with the ratings? A friend of mine recently said that Mexico was more "free" than the United States. I tried to find some analysis or discussion of this, and came across Freedom House, which rated Mexico quite poorly vs. the United States (other rankings or comparisons being irrelevant for this comment). He was frustrated that I used some biased source to define "freedom" and challenged me to find and read the explanation they had for why Mexico was "less free" than the United States. I did so on the spot. I guess I encourage you to do so as well, as it is related to this discussion. https://freedomhouse.org/country/mexico/freedom-net/2021 https://freedomhouse.org/country/mexico/freedom-net/2021 As far as I was concerned, he decisively won the argument and effectively dismantled any ability for me to use the Freedom House metrics in our discussion: "ironically" (but, in retrospect, kind of "as expected"), Freedom House has a completely different way of defining "freedom" than I do. In particular, and to use some of the vernacular we use on the Internet in discussions of "freedom" with respect to things like "walled gardens": they seem to believe in "freedom from" rather than "freedom to". Freedom House cares deeply about "freedom from" even when it comes into direct conflict with "freedom to"; and in the article about Mexico, we see this in their premise that Mexico doesn't have freedom of the press... because another privacy citizen might kill you over it and get away with it due to the courts being shoddy? Is that really an argument that they are "less free" or is the issue in fact that they are "more free"? As a tech example, I consider the Apple iPhone to be one of the least "free" platforms ever designed: it is explicitly built to restrict freedom of both users and developers to maximize Apple's profit and control both their intellectual property as well as that of their licensees. However, assuming you believe that this also has the side effect of improving security or minimizing scams or whatever Apple claims (let's just assume it for a moment without trying to examine it deeply), I bet Freedom House would consider that extremely "free" because users would be able to go out about their business with relatively lower concern of being targeted by hackers or being stalked or whatever people tend to give up freedoms in order to prevent. (You will see this same issue in their discussion of fake news and misinformation, on another thread here on Hacker News. I personally find the idea that the allowance of people saying incorrect things online makes people "less free" absurd and the idea that new attempts to restrict the ability to say incorrect things online is somehow "promising" for freedom to be a somewhat ridiculous parody of what the word "free" could possibly mean.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28607451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28607451