Hacker News Reader

Comment by insickness | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

There is no evidence to support your first claim, and some evidence that it is incorrect, but okay, let's hypothetically assume it's true.

That still doesn't make the comment to which I responded make any sense.

- A

- Evidence of Not-A

- "Or it’s evidence of A!"

No, there is no way whatever that it is evidence of the opposite of what it is evidence of. Just re-starting the assertion without any supporting evidence, and worse, pretending that evidence against is somehow evidence for based on restating the assertion again, it's not a good faith statement.

We're not even talking about evidence here. I'm saying this claim is false:

> The initial claim was that Facebook is currently acting to suppress one political view. This claim is false, based on that political view being the dominant view on Facebook.

I'm saying that both can be true at the same time, independently of each other. Try this example:

- Quadrant 8 of the city has the most incidents of graffiti

- The police spend the most time preventing graffiti in Quadrant 8 of the city

Both of those could be true independently of each other. Neither proves the other true or false. One could surmise that the reason police spend so much time preventing graffiti in that part of the city is because it has the highest rate of incidents of graffiti, just like maybe Facebook censors so many conservative news stories because they are so prevalent, but that is not necessarily the case.

You really seem to be missing, repeatedly, that I was replying to a comment that misrepresented the entire concept of evidence. You can agree or disagree with me about whether or not evidence is sufficient, that's fine. But you're still missing that someone tried to claim that evidence for Not-A was actually somehow evidence for A, which is simply not how anything works.

Can A and Not-A both be true? Sure, maybe, it's possible. But evidence for Not-A is not therefore magically evidence for A.

What you don't seem to get is that Facebook and Twitter have censored Trump 65 times according to this study compared to a total of 0 for Biden. You keep ranting about lack of evidence but when confronted with it, you can't register it. Having a large community is NOT evidence of impartiality. For example, /TheDonald was the largest subreddit before it was shutdown completely because it was not inline with the ideologies of China's new asset. So you can take your argument and put it in the garbage where it belongs.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/19/facebook-tw...

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/19/new-study-shows-faceboo...

Facebook employees contribute overwhelmingly to democratic candidates. Suggesting they are largely not conservative.

https://www.govpredict.com/blog/political-contributions-by-f...

There is some reason to believe said employees do try and suppress conservative content.

https://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-sup...

The idea that a companies politics must coincide with that of their users is a bad one.

But only one of those assertions is actually backed up by evidence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com