←back to thread

CDC data are disappearing

(www.theatlantic.com)
749 points doener | 6 comments | 01 Feb 25 11:52 UTC | HN request time: 1.231s | source | bottom
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 #
SeptiumMMX ◴[01 Feb 25 23:15 UTC] 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 ◴[01 Feb 25 23:52 UTC] 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 #
_heimdall ◴[02 Feb 25 02:25 UTC] No.42905044[source]▶
Really? Maybe its my bias showing through, but my memory of the last couple decades is largely an exercise in most people looking to outside authorities (governments, corporations, titled experts, etc) to fix problems rather than dealing with it individually.
replies(1): >>42906092 #
1. wilg ◴[02 Feb 25 05:16 UTC] No.42906092[source]▶
Yes, it's your bias.
replies(1): >>42908245 #
2. _heimdall ◴[02 Feb 25 12:31 UTC] No.42908245[source]▶
Well in an attempt to at least show where the bias, if that's what it is, comes from:

- Affordable Care Act - the entire Covid response - GDPR - the "TikTok Ban" act

To name a few, those are all examples of us having granted larger powers to the government in hopes that they will fix problems for us that we won't fix ourselves.

replies(1): >>42909037 #
3. jakelazaroff ◴[02 Feb 25 15:00 UTC] No.42909037[source]▶
Let’s take the ACA. That was designed to fix the problem “healthcare in the US is insanely expensive and insurance companies can deny coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.” How could you fix that problem individually?
replies(1): >>42911694 #
4. _heimdall ◴[02 Feb 25 20:51 UTC] No.42911694{3}[source]▶
My argument there wasn't actually that all of those could have done bottom up, only that they are examples of us granting the government more power and asking for a collectivist solution. That isn't always a bad thing, but it does point to the trend that I recognize (potentially due to my bias as pointed out above).
replies(2): >>42914013 #>>42915103 #
5. jakelazaroff ◴[03 Feb 25 01:45 UTC] No.42914013{4}[source]▶
Okay, but… if there’s no feasible individual solution, it really undercuts your argument here.
6. consteval ◴[03 Feb 25 04:50 UTC] No.42915103{4}[source]▶
Personally I think the US going from extremely hyper-individualistic to the point of self-destruction to slightly less hyper-individualistic is not a sign of a shift, but rather a return to normalcy.

We forget that the US has been far, far more collectivist in the past, particularly from the 20's - last 70's. The shift towards hyper-individualism is, in my opinion, a wealth extraction mechanism masquerading as a strength. It is highly beneficial to every wealthy person to have low regulations and low requirements for care. The ACA is just common sense - the reason we didn't have it isn't because of individualism, but rather because by not having it you can make a lot more evil and consequently make a lot more money as an insurer.