3 ms·
The problem I have with this kind of bias evaluation is fairly straightforward: what if a group of people aligned in a particular way engages in more "untrustwo
by perching_aix 2y ago
The problem I have with this kind of bias evaluation is fairly straightforward: what if a group of people aligned in a particular way engages in more "untrustworthy" speech than their counterparts? Follows then that a filtering that aimed to curb untrustworthy content would now be disproportionately filtering against their content in general, so now they can point at the filtering and call it biased, and even pass the smell test as far as the numbers are concerned.
Very curious things start happening when we look through lenses like these. It's very difficult to effectively discuss unfortunately too, without getting into any catfights.
- like_any_other 2y ago> The problem I have with this kind of bias evaluation is fairly straightforward: what if a group of people aligned in a particular way engages in more "untrustworthy" speech than their counterparts? The article takes this into account: "but a similar standard has not been applied to lower quality, left-leaning sources such as CounterPunch, AlterNet, and the Daily Kos."
- perching_aix 2y agoThat is fine, but I think it's still important to recognize this. In my initial reading, the numbers comparison stood out a lot more from the thread starter's comment than the rest for example, which is a problem if perpetuated without the rest. In a sense, mentioning the numbers in the way it was mentioned almost invites misinterpretation, I'd say.