A loaded coin may come up heads 75% of the time. Using that coin to make a decision yields a biased procedure. It's also objective, since the bias is unrelated

A loaded coin may come up heads 75% of the time. Using that coin to make a decision yields a biased procedure. It's also objective, since the bias is unrelated to the experimenter. That's just not true. The experimenter chose to record the results of coin tosses, chose the coin, chose the tossing method, and chose what variables to record (heads/tails for each toss). Before the coin is tossed the first time, human subjectivity and bias have already had ample opportunities to affect the outcome. What does it even mean to propose that the resulting data will be "objective?" The resulting bias, if any, is entirely the experimenter's responsibility. This is what the essayist means when she says "the people who own the model have the power." Her point isn't that using measurements is bad or that feedback loops can't work, it's that merely establishing an ambitious shiny new model doesn't offer any guarantee that the powers and influences that corrupted the old model won't corrupt the new one too.