3 ms·
To be fair, it actually said: > Fiscally conservative / civil-libertarian with traditionalist social leaning And justified it with: > Bogleheads & MMM frugal
by cgriswald 1y ago
To be fair, it actually said:
> Fiscally conservative / civil-libertarian with traditionalist social leaning
And justified it with:
> Bogleheads & MMM frugality + Catholic/First Things pieces, EFF privacy, skepticism of Big Tech censorship
First Things in its current incarnation is all about religious social conservatism. If someone is Catholic and reads First Things articles, "conservative" is a pretty safe bet.
However, I think profiling people based on what they read might be a mistake in general. I often read things I don't agree with and often seek out things I don't agree with both because I sometimes change my mind and because if I don't change my mind I want to at least know what the arguments actually are. I do wonder, though, if I tended to save such things to pocket.
- kixiQu 1y agoI have a hypothes.is account where a decent amount of my annotations are little rage nits against the thing I'm reading. You'd be able to infer a ton of correct information from me if you pulled the annotations as well as the URLs, but the URLs alone could mislead. I've had to remind myself of this pattern with some folks whose bookmarks I follow, because they'd saved some atrocious stuff – but knowing their social media, I know they don't actually believe the theses.
- pyuser583 1y agoFirst things is also pretty high brow. If you’re interested in poetry, classics, etc it had a lot to offer. I’m sure any profiler would be very confused by my reading history, but I really, really like poetry and Plato. So New Yorker, Atlantic, First Things, N+1.