←back to thread

CDC data are disappearing

(www.theatlantic.com)
749 points doener | 1 comments | 01 Feb 25 11:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
breadwinner ◴[01 Feb 25 20:59 UTC] No.42902252[source]▶
Data is the ultimate Fact Check. This is a President that's adamantly opposed to fact checking [1] and has even coerced Facebook to drop fact checking. Of course they don't want data on government sites that disprove their "alternate facts".

[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4920827-60-minutes-tru...

replies(10): >>42902356 #>>42902413 #>>42902434 #>>42902630 #>>42902793 #>>42902978 #>>42903439 #>>42903684 #>>42904050 #>>42918244 #
SeptiumMMX ◴[01 Feb 25 21:57 UTC] No.42902793[source]▶
Well, fact-checking works if it's done impartially. So, if you want to fairly fact-check a political debate, each side should have their own team of researchers/fact-checkers being equally able to object to an argument made by the opposing party. Due process, sort of, kind of.

But I don't think I've ever seen that done actually. Usually, fact checkers are akin to Reddit moderators. Technically independent, but with one important twist. These are people that have a lot of free time and are willing to spend it doing unpaid (or underpaid) work. And that's a huge bias. Big enough to question impartiality, if you ask me.

replies(7): >>42903035 #>>42903405 #>>42903547 #>>42904979 #>>42905326 #>>42906291 #>>42908884 #
mcmcmc ◴[01 Feb 25 22:21 UTC] No.42903035[source]▶
Having two parties with opposing biases and incentives doesn’t magically cancel out and become impartial. That’s the opposite of impartiality.
replies(4): >>42903437 #>>42903546 #>>42904821 #>>42906309 #
1. Clubber ◴[02 Feb 25 01:51 UTC] No.42904821[source]▶
>Having two parties with opposing biases and incentives doesn’t magically cancel out and become impartial. That’s the opposite of impartiality.

No, but it's close. It's similar to a courtroom where you have a plaintiff and a defendant. Each party plays a roll on each issue that is up to debate. They plead their side and ultimately the citizenry is the jury. Unfortunately, in the political arena there aren't any rules for speech like in a courtroom; perjury for example.

It's imperfect, but you won't ever find an impartial person or group, nor should you blindly take their word for it. It's an appeal to authority fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority