5 ms·

I admire that you've confirmed your biases. By truth I mean scientific discourse centered on evidence and freedom of speech. Unfortunately, Musk's and Trump's

by pms 2y ago

I admire that you've confirmed your biases. By truth I mean scientific discourse centered on evidence and freedom of speech. Unfortunately, Musk's and Trump's "freedom of speech" includes freedom to disinform the public to achieve their goals, so it isn't equivalent to everyone's freedom of speech. By taking down this post, you're acting against everyone's freedom of speech. The study is honest, because it doesn't make any conclusions, just provides new data analysis, potential interpretations, and a call for further research. You haven't responded to my arguments, e.g., about how the study takes into account external events. It sounds like you're misperceiving the post because of your personal biases, but at least you're upfront about it, which I appreciate. You're taking down the post, because you don't like it. That's against Hacker News guidelines. This kind of behavior needs more attention, just like the behaviors of Musk and Trump. We need more transparency, not less, so I appreciate that you're upfront. BTW, I haven't voted for Harris nor Trump. My perfect (non-existing) candidate would take the best from each of them. While I appreciate various things about Trump and Musk, I'm critical about the fact that they both disinform the public to achieve their personal goals. That's unethical.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>By taking down this post, you're acting against everyone's freedom of speech. As far as I understand flagging on Hacker News, everyone's free to flag anything and becomes [flagged] upon receiving enough such flags. So it's not just me or the guy who posted about flagging, enough people said this thread wasn't worth Hacker News's time. >The study is honest, because it doesn't make any conclusions, That makes it worse because that means I spend my time to achieve nothing. I don't need a rocket scientist to tell me something obvious happened for speculatory allegations. >just provides new data analysis, Musk has been quite clear about siding with the Right/Conservatives/Liberals/Republicans when it comes to his politics, and X being his personal property is very well known to lean that way at this point. >potential interpretations, a call for further research. A study of knowns like this one should put forth a declaration in the absolute. >how the study takes into account external events. The study alleges a potential change in algorithm based off certain posts' performance metrics and Musk's endorsement of Trump. Essentially arguing correlation is causation and without even declaring there was causation to merit the study. That is bullshit, I ask the study and those who disseminate it to please stop wasting my time. >You're taking down the post, because you don't like it. I flagged this thread because it is not conducive to thoughtful and insightful debate. The study refuses to declare any conclusions or accusations, just potentials and maybes, and the logic is flawed from the outset because it strives to draw a desired conclusion ("there was (maybe) algorithm changes") first and then the steps to get there at any cost. Even aside that, this thread is also about politics surrounding celebrities which are by themselves also against guidelines. This thread and study could have just as likely been about Zuckerberg and Facebook or Spez and Reddit or dang and Hacker News, I would have still flagged it all the same. >I'm critical about the fact that they both disinform the public to achieve their personal goals. That's unethical. It's also unethical to publish a study that throws out allegations without merit for the express purpose of driving narratives, like this one. Can the study cite how, where, and when X changed its algorithm? If not, using the term "potentially" to avoid outright libel is cowardly; anyone lodging accusations should have the decency to own it. Does the logic in the study make sense? Of course not, correlation is not causation is one of the first rules of logic most of us should learn and respect. That's why I flagged this thread and study. It's worthless, it's flawed, and it's unethical and cowardly.
- pms 2y ago
  You continue falling to the straw man fallacy by bringing over and over the correlation is causation criticism, but the study doesn't make causal claims... I understand that an analysis like that is not conducive to thoughtful and insightful debate for closed-minded people who do not care, or even oppose, to learn things that don't align with their interests. You continue to ignore my responses to your points, e.g., about the fact that the study takes care of external events by applying difference-in-differences methodology, and continue writing accusations without being specific. If anything, disinformation and censorship of research are worthless, flawed, unethical, and cowardly.

by pms 2y ago

Dalewyn 2y ago

>By taking down this post, you're acting against everyone's freedom of speech. As far as I understand flagging on Hacker News, everyone's free to flag anything and becomes [flagged] upon receiving enough such flags. So it's not just me or the guy who posted about flagging, enough people said this thread wasn't worth Hacker News's time. >The study is honest, because it doesn't make any conclusions, That makes it worse because that means I spend my time to achieve nothing. I don't need a rocket scientist to tell me something obvious happened for speculatory allegations. >just provides new data analysis, Musk has been quite clear about siding with the Right/Conservatives/Liberals/Republicans when it comes to his politics, and X being his personal property is very well known to lean that way at this point. >potential interpretations, a call for further research. A study of knowns like this one should put forth a declaration in the absolute. >how the study takes into account external events. The study alleges a potential change in algorithm based off certain posts' performance metrics and Musk's endorsement of Trump. Essentially arguing correlation is causation and without even declaring there was causation to merit the study. That is bullshit, I ask the study and those who disseminate it to please stop wasting my time. >You're taking down the post, because you don't like it. I flagged this thread because it is not conducive to thoughtful and insightful debate. The study refuses to declare any conclusions or accusations, just potentials and maybes, and the logic is flawed from the outset because it strives to draw a desired conclusion ("there was (maybe) algorithm changes") first and then the steps to get there at any cost. Even aside that, this thread is also about politics surrounding celebrities which are by themselves also against guidelines. This thread and study could have just as likely been about Zuckerberg and Facebook or Spez and Reddit or dang and Hacker News, I would have still flagged it all the same. >I'm critical about the fact that they both disinform the public to achieve their personal goals. That's unethical. It's also unethical to publish a study that throws out allegations without merit for the express purpose of driving narratives, like this one. Can the study cite how, where, and when X changed its algorithm? If not, using the term "potentially" to avoid outright libel is cowardly; anyone lodging accusations should have the decency to own it. Does the logic in the study make sense? Of course not, correlation is not causation is one of the first rules of logic most of us should learn and respect. That's why I flagged this thread and study. It's worthless, it's flawed, and it's unethical and cowardly.

pms 2y ago
You continue falling to the straw man fallacy by bringing over and over the correlation is causation criticism, but the study doesn't make causal claims... I understand that an analysis like that is not conducive to thoughtful and insightful debate for closed-minded people who do not care, or even oppose, to learn things that don't align with their interests. You continue to ignore my responses to your points, e.g., about the fact that the study takes care of external events by applying difference-in-differences methodology, and continue writing accusations without being specific. If anything, disinformation and censorship of research are worthless, flawed, unethical, and cowardly.