2 ms·
I mean they just walk up to people. You can see that. They're unedited.
by guerrilla 4y ago
I mean they just walk up to people. You can see that. They're unedited.
- gruez 4y agoI'm not questioning the interviewing process (ie. misrepresenting what was said in the interview), I'm questioning the publication/selection process itself (ie. conducting interviews but only choosing to publish the sympathetic interviewees, or deliberately profiling potential interviewees to select for the most sympathetic ones). I looked at the two youtube channels you linked, and while they might have unedited interviews, there isn't obvious indication that the interview candidates were selected at random or otherwise free of bias (ie. an continuous hour long video interviewing people one after the other).
- guerrilla 4y agoI understand, selection bias. I mean I don't know how Mark chooses his interviewees (he never says and he's never shown on the street) but many of them are extremely unsympathetic (certain pimps, for example), a couple are simultaneously likeable but clearly evil, and some are super boring, so I don't think there's any kind of intentional bias. As far as IP, they just walk up to random people, which you can see in some of the videos. They definitely want to help people, but it's not like they hide drug addiction or anything like that if that's what you're worried about [1]. 1. https://www.youtube.com/c/InvisiblePeople/search?query=drugs https://www.youtube.com/c/InvisiblePeople/search?query=drugs
- SilasX 4y agoThe first link is clearly in a studio environment, with extensive effort at production. That’s a lot more than “just walking up” to people and not editing.