Comment by loeg
5 months ago
It's an extreme and divisive claim on a pay-for-publish local TV channel website. The details are unpersuasive coincidence and no reliable 3rd party has substantiated the allegations. The originator of the claims is an organization that didn't exist three months ago. These are all reasons to be pretty skeptical before amplifying.
All of your criticisms are unrelated to understanding the analysis (or software). Let's read it, work through it and discuss it, rather than dismissing it for all the wrong reasons. Flagging this submission is anti-curious. Instead of not engaging if you're not interested in doing the work, you're trying to suppress other people from doing the work. It may turn out that none of it is convincing, but we don't know that right now and what has already been presented is surprising and worth investigating.
I looked at the source blog post and decided it was pretty shoddy. I kind of agree that a reasonable person would doubt the veracity of this post, not just for the reasons loeg mentioned, but because the presented "evidence" is a single cherry-pick from data with lots of inherent variance.
I think it's valid criticism to say that you should have taken a closer look before submitting, and concluded that it was too junky for HN. In which case the flagging is appropriate.
Can you share your analysis of the data? Other commenters have included details. I think we all would be interested in more than vague value judgments that you took a look, didn't like it and therefore tried to flag to repress discussion of it
2 replies →
This is not a forum for original research. Additionally, this community is not well-equipped for sober analysis of divisive topics.
Trying to repress discussion is the opposite of soberly analyzing divisive topics, so you are attempting to prove your point. There are many people who disagree with you (including me) and would encourage you to dig in and practice curiosity and open discussion
4 replies →
This is not wikipedia. About the only relevant thing in the guidelines is that most stories about politics are off-topic, but that's not the reason you provided.