3 ms·
Maybe some of them do have categories that are too broad or subjective. That is why I referred to the consensus of the lists and not any individual list. Those
by slg 4y ago
Maybe some of them do have categories that are too broad or subjective. That is why I referred to the consensus of the lists and not any individual list. Those list come from a variety of political and ideological backgrounds, so any biases should be reduced in aggregate and they all seem to end up showing the same pattern. The US is generally in the 2nd or 3rd tier while Australia and the UK are generally in the 1st or 2nd tier.
I would assume this means the experts have concluded that the right to be rude to a politician on Twitter is not a particularly important right and its removal doesn't have much impact on the overall freedom of that society. That seems more likely than a diverse group of think tanks, academic institutions, journalistic outlets, and NGOs have all either joined a conspiracy or randomly acted in concert to misrepresent the relative freedom of the US in comparison to our peers.
- robswc 4y ago>Maybe some of them do have categories that are too broad or subjective. All of the ones I have looked through have that. Every single one. We're looking at just one metric though. Freedom to express ideas on the internet. Countries where you can get arrested for "offensive" tweets or get your house raided for calling a politician a dick score a few 0.1s away from the maximum of 10. We don't know how, because AFAIK, they do not go into specifics about why they give the UK/Germany a 9.x/10 on "Internet Freedom." >I would assume this means the experts have concluded that the right to be rude to a politician on Twitter is not a particularly important right Then I, along with most people, would conclude that their metric (and possibly by extension, their entire index) is useless. Not having your house raided for calling a politician a dick is exactly what most people would consider a particularly important "right."