2 ms·
> Making the issue more political, the US edits and censors the data it publishes for its own purposes. This isn’t a secret but it taints the perception of US n
by keybored 2y ago
> Making the issue more political, the US edits and censors the data it publishes for its own purposes. This isn’t a secret but it taints the perception of US neutrality when making this data available.
Less doublespeak version: The US edits and censors the data it publishes for its own purposes. Thus the data is not viewed as neutral.
The neutrality of some entity is not set by default by God and then “tainted” by their very own actions. The neutrality or lack thereof can be reasoned about directly.
- jandrewrogers 2y agoThe irony is that the US isn’t actively encouraging other countries to use this data, quite the opposite. But if it is public to anyone it is public to everyone. Countries became accustomed to freeloading on this data because they didn’t have their own, even though it wasn’t for them or designed to be fit for their purposes. The intended purpose of the data may not be the same purpose that other countries are trying to use it for. The censoring and editing often isn’t nefarious, it is a useful data cleaning exercise that reflects why the data was collected. If they simply published the raw feed then they would be doing a disservice to their actual customers.
- keybored 2y ago> The censoring and editing often isn’t nefarious, it is a useful data cleaning exercise that reflects why the data was collected. If they simply published the raw feed then they would be doing a disservice to their actual customers. The way you worded it made it sound self-serving and underhanded to my interpretation. :p I mean data cleaning is all neutral. I’m not gonna complain about that.