3 ms·

I don't think that's quite right - after having read this, I feel pretty comfortable assuming that the author is expressing this pro drugs point of view because

I don't think that's quite right - after having read this, I feel pretty comfortable assuming that the author is expressing this pro drugs point of view because she really believes it and wants to write about an important part of her life. It might be true that there's bias on the part of the publication in the fact that they select/pay for pro-drug pieces, but I don't really see how that affects me, the reader, particularly in the context of having clicked on this on HN and read it with no context about the publication.

sshine 4y ago
> > The bias is not 'pro drugs', the bias is 'why am I expressing pro drugs to you' > I don't think that's quite right [...] there's bias [...] the fact that they select/pay for pro-drug pieces You're basically agreeing with parent post here. > I don't really see how that affects me The difference is the commercial interest and the extent to which more readers are exposed to the opinion because of paying writers who are aligned with the message. I'm pro drugs, but I don't write articles about it. The author of the article gets paid to write it. On the other hand, I'm also pro blockchain, and I do get paid to make blockchain, so if you see me write an article about how privacy is important and how Stripe and Paypal are screwing over people, you may agree with both of those, and they're honest expressions of my opinion, but because there is a correlation between my beliefs and what I get paid to do, I may be financially incentivised to express those beliefs. So you could claim that the investors are, to some degree, channelling money into popularising a belief. The evangelists are just pawns.