4 ms·

Sure, but I would argue that 1,000 registered voters is going to make that a lot harder, not to mention it's actually "1000 registered voters who self selected

Sure, but I would argue that 1,000 registered voters is going to make that a lot harder, not to mention it's actually "1000 registered voters who self selected to go through a 20 minute poll about facebook," which is why they said "no estimates of sampling error can be calculated." https://accountabletech.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Accountable-Tech-071920-FQ.pdf https://accountabletech.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Accou...

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
your rebuttal depends on the premise that people don't view facebook as harmful, but you yourself have not yet presented any data to that effect -- criticizing the study saying that people view it as harmful isn't the same as providing your own study saying they don't tl;dr his evidence, even if we assume the issues you bring up are significant, outweighs your lack of any, so I am leaning in his favor
- esyir 5y ago
  Speaking from a survey design point of view, he's more correct here. Especially with topics like this, the self selection effect and subsequent sampling bias can be very strong. The evidence here is sufficiently poor to provide minimal value. Poorly collected data can often be worse than no data, as it can mislead you.
- jedimastert 5y ago
  > your rebuttal depends on the premise that people don't view facebook as harmful. No it doesn't. It depends on the fact that I don't know the opinions of other people at all. But I can infer that the selection biases of "registered voters" (which I think is a far bigger confounding factor than anyone is giving it credit for), and self-selection make it too difficult to extrapolate to the population of US citizens.
  - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
    I also don't know. So I have to look to the evidence. On the no-harm side, I see nothing. On the harm side, I see a study about which someone has raised some concerns. I understand you have concerns about the study design, but I'm not confident that they affect the outcome in such a way that the study provided zero evidence for Facebook being viewed as harmful. Is there a study which doesn't run into the same concerns which says the opposite of this one?
    - jedimastert 5y ago
      I think it's important to note that the study is not about whether or not Facebook was harmful, but whether the average person thinks Facebook is harmful (or rather if the average registered voter who would volunteer to spend 20 minutes on a survey on Facebook thinks Facebook is harmful). It was just a survey of public opinion. I personally also think Facebook is harmful.

ImPostingOnHN 5y ago

your rebuttal depends on the premise that people don't view facebook as harmful, but you yourself have not yet presented any data to that effect -- criticizing the study saying that people view it as harmful isn't the same as providing your own study saying they don't tl;dr his evidence, even if we assume the issues you bring up are significant, outweighs your lack of any, so I am leaning in his favor

esyir 5y ago
Speaking from a survey design point of view, he's more correct here. Especially with topics like this, the self selection effect and subsequent sampling bias can be very strong. The evidence here is sufficiently poor to provide minimal value. Poorly collected data can often be worse than no data, as it can mislead you.
jedimastert 5y ago
> your rebuttal depends on the premise that people don't view facebook as harmful. No it doesn't. It depends on the fact that I don't know the opinions of other people at all. But I can infer that the selection biases of "registered voters" (which I think is a far bigger confounding factor than anyone is giving it credit for), and self-selection make it too difficult to extrapolate to the population of US citizens.
- ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
  I also don't know. So I have to look to the evidence. On the no-harm side, I see nothing. On the harm side, I see a study about which someone has raised some concerns. I understand you have concerns about the study design, but I'm not confident that they affect the outcome in such a way that the study provided zero evidence for Facebook being viewed as harmful. Is there a study which doesn't run into the same concerns which says the opposite of this one?
  - jedimastert 5y ago
    I think it's important to note that the study is not about whether or not Facebook was harmful, but whether the average person thinks Facebook is harmful (or rather if the average registered voter who would volunteer to spend 20 minutes on a survey on Facebook thinks Facebook is harmful). It was just a survey of public opinion. I personally also think Facebook is harmful.