Comment by xg15 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by xg15 | Hacker News Reader

It's definitely an interesting article, but I think here it's really worth to click around a bit and get aware of the context it's posted in.

The site it's published on, Filter Magazine, describes itself [1]:

> Our mission is to advocate through journalism for rational and compassionate approaches to drug use, drug policy and human rights.

Sponsors include [2] Juul Labs, Phillip Morris International, The American Vaping Association and Knowledge Action Change (see below).

The author of the article herself is a grantee of Knowledge Action Change [3]. KAC describes itself [4] as an advocacy organization for "tobacco harm reduction" which basically means promoting "alternative" tobacco products such as vapes. [5]

None of this means that the article is wrong, but it is definitely not unbiased.

I think it makes a difference that the author is not some random person who reflects about her drug use growing up and comes to the conclusion that it actually had lasting positive effects - but someone who actively lobbies for drug use as part of her job.

[1] https://filtermag.org/about-filter/amp/

[2] https://filtermag.org/about-the-influence-foundation/amp/

[3] https://filtermag.org/author/kiran-sidhu/amp/

[4] https://kachange.eu/#about-us

[5] https://thrsp.net/introduction-to-the-thrsp/

Thank you. Bias always needs a revealing.

> None of this means that the article is wrong, but it is definitely not unbiased.

Who in their right mind would read this piece and think it unbiased? It is absolutely and unapologetically biased. This isn't journalism. It's closer to an op-ed, and is one person's account of their experiences.

Did you really think you needed to put in the effort to engage in this ad hominem? That readers would be so ignorant as to see this piece as one of objective, factual journalism when it so clearly isn't?

Im not sure what the difference is between bias, perspective, and belief in this context.

I believe in tobacco and drug harm reduction. Am I biased?

If I write an article, do I become biased?

If I work for an advocacy group, do I become biased?

You could say the same thing about anything anyone believes.

> If I work for an advocacy group, do I become biased?

Lol. Yes, of course you do. If nothing else then for the fact that suddenly, what you write in your articles can directly influence the relationship you have with your superiors, could get you fired or could anger the sponsors of your advocacy organization and effect the wellbeing of the entire organisation.

Everybody's biased in everything all the time to some degree or other - that's just part of the human experience.

That said, I think bias is generally only harmful when it's concealed from people. In this article, which is unabashedly and clearly pro-drugs, I don't see the harm in bias - people can evaluate it freely and judge accordingly.

The bias is not 'pro drugs', the bias is 'why am I expressing pro drugs to you'

Is it? I thought bias was "I have a distorted view of reality"

per wikipedia:

>Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Biases can be innate or learned. People may develop biases for or against an individual, a group, or a belief.[1] In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error.

If you are correct, you are not biased.

A weird and not quite applicable expression, yet still not inconsistent with what I said.

You don't have to have a distorted view of reality to be in favor of something, nor to proselytise it.

You don't have to have a distorted view of reality to present a distorted view to others either.

I agree that you don't have to have a distorted view of reality to present one, and that would be bias.

My understanding and take is that bias is basically synonymous with error, either explicit or by omission. Claiming that a conclusion is biased is the same as it is wrong or incomplete.

My question is rather can someone be biased and correct?

If I'm paid to advocate for something, does that mean that everything I say is biased, and therefore incorrect?

"My understanding and take is that bias is basically synonymous with erro"

I wouldn't say that. I would only say that the veracity and completeness of the presentation is unknown, but what is known is that there is some reason to question and corroborate it beyond the universal baseline reason to question everything.

I don't think that's quite right - after having read this, I feel pretty comfortable assuming that the author is expressing this pro drugs point of view because she really believes it and wants to write about an important part of her life.

It might be true that there's bias on the part of the publication in the fact that they select/pay for pro-drug pieces, but I don't really see how that affects me, the reader, particularly in the context of having clicked on this on HN and read it with no context about the publication.

> > The bias is not 'pro drugs', the bias is 'why am I expressing pro drugs to you'

> I don't think that's quite right [...] there's bias [...] the fact that they select/pay for pro-drug pieces

You're basically agreeing with parent post here.

> I don't really see how that affects me

The difference is the commercial interest and the extent to which more readers are exposed to the opinion because of paying writers who are aligned with the message.

I'm pro drugs, but I don't write articles about it.

The author of the article gets paid to write it.

On the other hand, I'm also pro blockchain, and I do get paid to make blockchain, so if you see me write an article about how privacy is important and how Stripe and Paypal are screwing over people, you may agree with both of those, and they're honest expressions of my opinion, but because there is a correlation between my beliefs and what I get paid to do, I may be financially incentivised to express those beliefs.

So you could claim that the investors are, to some degree, channelling money into popularising a belief.

The evangelists are just pawns.

Once your income depends on it, yes.

The article is about MDMA, not nicotine.

The further the legal boundaries are in the ard drug direction, the further they are from regulating the cigaret market which is currently (and rightfully) under attack in some countries (cf new zeland, russia..)

> it is definitely not unbiased.

Can one really reach that conclusion from your evidence? A person can recieve sponsorships without allowing that fact to influence the person's writing.

Are Philip morris getting into the ecstasy business? Seems unlikely.

No but if more harmful things get normalised, then users of their product can feel less guilty.

It's a variation on the "commoditize your complement" pattern.

(before someone says: "actually x is less harmful than y", I mean their perception by the general public)

Does the general public perceive cigarettes to be safer than ecstasy?

I was going to make the actual harm comment before your edit, but I still wonder about the premise.

I assume most parents would be less concerned by cigarette-use, but attitudes may differ from one country to the other.

>Does the general public perceive cigarettes to be safer than ecstasy?

Obviously so?

Obvious based on what? Is there recent polling on this?

This doesn't seem like an obvious conclusion at all in 2022, with major shifts in understanding about the risks of smoking and rapidly evolving/shifting sentiment about recreational drugs in general.

I think you're overblowing both the "major shifts in understanding about the risks of smoking" and the "shifting sentiment about recreational drugs in general".

Some (all?) states legalized weed use in some cases, it's not like it's some welcome acceptable thing in the average global working/middle/upper class family, and E/MDMA much less so...

I don’t agree that this is overblown at all, and I was primarily asking exploratory questions.

There is strong evidence of a major shift right in front of us in the form of new laws (federal/country-wide in some locations), legal dispensaries, and a new and exploding (legal) industry that is bringing in significant money. Main stream documentaries on Netflix about Mushrooms, a shift in tone regarding drug use in popular media, etc.

These laws are passing with increasing frequency because of that major shift in sentiment. If that shift had not occurred, these laws would not be as popular as they are.

Does that automatically translate to similar shifts for MDMA? That is less clear, but at a minimum, there is strong evidence that people do not buy the historical fear mongering that has always cast a shadow on marijuana.

Anecdotally, I know multiple people who now enjoy the occasional edible despite having very anti-drug views in decades past.

Minds are changing.

They probably would, if it was legal.

Don’t give them any ideas

That's perhaps a bit pendatic. Maybe vested interest would be a more accurate term, but the idea is quite clear from context.

> A person can recieve sponsorships without allowing that fact to influence the person's writing.

yeah right.

Yes, a person peddling a harmful substance donates to making a broader set of harmful substances more acceptable.

I agree all those cheseburgers French fries and cheese platters need to go!

That’s true, but my view is even if the original article is unbiased, the selection process by which it was chosen to appear on this periodical with the reach it has introduces some statistical bias.

Only theoritically, in an abstract sense only applicable in lab settings.

In real life and in practice there is always some influencing, some internal censorship, some gloves being kept on, and so on. And it's ten times so if the person wants to continue to receive more sponsorships in the future...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com