kutkun t1_ivoieu8 wrote
Reply to comment by trying-to-do-better in New international study concludes digital media can fuel polarisation and populism by giuliomagnifico
I cannot conduct a full review in the scope of a Reddit post. However I will state a few as a reward for your downvotes.
The study conflates correlational studies with experimental ones. Which should have been enough for desk rejection. However, the paper advances an ideological position that Nature already adheres to. Hence they published it.
The selection and exclusion criteria was so complicated that they needed a giant chart to make it more understandable. However it doesn’t hide the fact that authors excluded articles that do not fit to their ideological position. It is very clear even at that outset of the paper that authors were pre-determined to teach to a specific conclusion: “digital tech is bad so people should be restricted”. Introduction starts with a reference so Nazism. Incompetence of the authors were all over the introduction. If an individual references Nazism in a conversation regarding freedom of expression, then you are not actually in a conversation. You are listening to a leftist apparatchik who do not believe in individual rights.
They used only palates indexed in WOS and Scopus. Corporations that own wos and scopus both have a systematic bias against freedom of expression and academic freedom. This bias is well-documented now. We all are aware of it. It’s obvious and very natural that authors share and enjoy that bias. Editorial boards of those journals adhere to radical leftist ideologies and do not pulsing any research that is not in line with their ideology. Nature itself is one of them. And their radical leftist change in policy was news a few weeks ago. Leftists are against individual rights including but not limited to freedom of expression. They want total control of individuals and dissemination of knowledge by governments and government adjacent corporations such as CNN, MSNBC, Facebook, Twitter, Washington Post, AT&T, etc.
Authors did not conduct a scientific research. They write the ideological manifesto then put some jargon to make it like a research report. All the articles they reviewed were ideologically filtered.
You can understand it yourself. Look for “effect size” in the paper. You will find the truth yourself.
trying-to-do-better t1_ivvbd7d wrote
This is misleading...
I see that your response has much stronger political bias than you claim exists in the article. While, you have some valid points that I can agree with, you also seem to ignore or not understand the conclusion, because you then assert a narrative that there are "radical leftists" coming for your freedom. At this point I think your logic breaks down as your fears are unsubstantiated in the claims of the authors.
Yes, Correlation and causation are different things. There are biases in the databases that where searched, as well as the selection and coding process the authors used. That does not equal an agenda. I also think there should have been better discussion of authors' positions and biases. Certainly Nature has it's problems, I won't deny that. None of this makes the points in the conclusion inherently right or wrong.
You do however, conflate the institutions of academic publishing with radical leftists, which they very much are not. Criticism of academic publishing should remain centered around access to information, transparency of academic processes, and freedom of study.
It's funny that you say
>Leftists are against individual rights including but not limited to freedom of expression. They want total control of individuals and dissemination of knowledge by governments and government adjacent corporations
When the authors are simply calling for greater transparency so that more sound studies may be conducted in the future. It seems to me that you agree with the authors more than you realize even if you see their work as more an ideological manifesto or lacking academic integrity.
The study certainly lacks transparency, in that we don't know exactly what perspectives may have been excluded. That is not in itself evidence of a political or ideological agenda. It wouldn't rule out an agenda except that the authors acknowledge the contradictory and non-causal aspects of the findings.
You undermine your good points when you push a tangential political agenda. I don't think partizan lines show the actual issues such as consolidation of power like you imply.
Maybe if you listened better what the "radical left" is actually saying you would understand how much your broader goals align with other perspectives. Then maybe we could have a more productive discussion of policy.
If you want to make an argument for your political position I don't think this is the way. There is evidence of academic work being heavily biased toward the left and right. I certainly am biased myself, but the debates around climate science, funding of misinformation, disinformation, and unsound science that's been funded by right wing interests plainly show this is not just a problem with leftists. On the left there are issues but I don't see the same blatant efforts to mislead, simply bias rooted in different perspectives as well as occasional hypocrisy. Hypocrisy seems more symptomatic of people who want to seem like they care about others but want to maintain their own wealth and privilege even if at the expense of those the appear to care about.
Okay this has been fun to type up but I realize is a huge waste of time. We all have better things to do with our precious free time but I appreciate the dialogue none the less.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments