3 ms·
I think it is biased, because generally HN is more rational and level headed than media coverage and popular opinion. For example, in the US >20% of people are
by mgraczyk 5y ago
I think it is biased, because generally HN is more rational and level headed than media coverage and popular opinion.
For example, in the US >20% of people are unwilling to take a covid vaccine, citing reasons ranging from fear of unknown side effects, to intentional government orchestrated mass steralization, to nanobots controlling their minds. I doubt more than 5% of the HN crowd is anti-vaccine, and those that are probably stick to the more realistic objections (side effects).
On the other hand, rationality is basically thrown out the window during discussions about FB (and to a lesser extent other big companies). All of a sudden, large conspiracies with thousands of people keeping silent for years are possible, impossibly sophisticated mind control technology exists, pure-evil or amoral actors pull on hidden strings to control society, etc.
- voisin 5y agoBy all means, if there are stories about the positive impacts of FB on society, please post them! I don’t think HN would downvote those the same way that it would download Anti-vax articles. I think pro-FB articles aren’t posted because they don’t exist because FB is legitimately a bad actor with no moral compass. No conspiracy needed.
- mgraczyk 5y agoYou're right they would not, because it's not possible to downvote posts on HN :P In reality, people aren't interested in those posts, so nobody upvotes them and they die. Also most content like that would be created by FB itself, and even I don't want to read self-aggrandizing crap.
- spurgu 5y ago> For example, in the US >20% of people are unwilling to take a covid vaccine, citing reasons ranging from fear of unknown side effects Somewhat related: I remember seeing some stats where ~25% of Americans thought there's a 10% change you die if you get Covid...