←back to thread

CDC data are disappearing

(www.theatlantic.com)
749 points doener | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
breadwinner ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
SeptiumMMX ◴[] No.42903546[source]
That's the problem. Real humans in real world cannot be impartial and will always have biases. So if you expose the public to many different biased opinions and let them learn to recognize the biases and see past them, the "cumulative mindset" will be more objective and less prone to manipulation.

But if you let one biased group decide what the majority is allowed to see, the public opinion will inevitably align with the interests of that group, and won't be necessary beneficial to the public.

Have you noticed how in the past decade or two we have totally abandoned the pursuit of happiness through self-reliance and independence? How being depressed and outraged is normal, and is all but encouraged. This is all coming from the media actively shaping what gets into one's attention span and it will only be causing more and more misery with no end in sight.

And this comes down to a very simple formula. Media likes people who will create content for free. People who are willing to do are often unhappy and have a mindset that causes unhappiness. Media broadcasting their content (to their own profit, of course) is popularizing that mindset and making more people miserable. Bingo!

replies(5): >>42903777 #>>42903860 #>>42904910 #>>42906353 #>>42908641 #
wilg ◴[] No.42903860[source]
> Have you noticed how in the past decade or two we have totally abandoned the pursuit of happiness through self-reliance and independence?

No.

replies(2): >>42904864 #>>42905044 #
SeptiumMMX ◴[] No.42904864[source]
Interesting. If you don't mind me asking, at what age do you plan to retire, what funds to you plan to use to cover the living expenses, and what skill set are you trying to pass to your kids so they will be able to afford moving out and staring their own families?

I'm asking because things things are getting harder every year and the media has a permanent blind eye on them.

replies(1): >>42905495 #
astrange ◴[] No.42905495[source]
"Things" are not getting harder every year; if you only see negative things in the world, this is a sign you have depression more than anything.
replies(1): >>42905644 #
iugtmkbdfil834 ◴[] No.42905644[source]
Hmm.

If things are not getting harder then either they stay the same or get better. I would find it hard to argue for either of those positions, but I would welcome you to try to defend that "things are not getting harder". In just about every possible metric outside of maybe "few really, really wealthy individuals make more money" things are not getting better or are stable.

Are you maybe suggesting that what is good for an individual is not good for society?

replies(2): >>42905875 #>>42905971 #
1. lucb1e ◴[] No.42905875[source]
> Are you maybe suggesting that what is good for an individual is not good for society?

I don't read any such suggestion into the person's post; to me, it seems to mean what it says. As to whether individual needs and societal needs always align, I would guess you probably know the answer is "no" -- but also far from "never"