29 Percent of Gen Z Favors Government Installing Surveillance Cameras in Homes

Most organizations have a mission beyond pure research, including Scientific American, Nature, the Open Society Foundation, and nearly every think tank and newspaper. And all of them have at one point or another published something that falls under the broad category of "flawed". So with these standards you could dismiss nearly every poll or study you'd want.

For the record I mostly disagree with Cato's libertarian beliefs, but I don't have such a low opinion of them that I'd think they'd outright fabricate a poll - they're a well-established think-tank with a good reputation. Is that what you think happened? Or is it the sample size of 2000 that bothers you? I agree a bigger sample is always better, but I don't see that as reason to outright discard their results.

In my experience about a quarter of the younger generation give the wrong answer to long text based questions. The question stated was:

"Would you favor or oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every household to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity?"

Very bad question, especially if your possible answers are [Yes] and [No]. What is a household? Just the entrance?

Survey design is really interesting to me. Did they add a control question? Something like "Justin Bieber is a giant squid" and all of the responses for anyone who answers "yes" get dropped.

If this was real, I wonder how much of the respondents had an IQ less than average.

Neurotoxic and other long-lasting chemical effects degrade intelligence. Hardly worth considering this if the only people to vote on it lacked the intelligence to critically evaluate it in the first place.

Heck even ingesting above 0.5 of flouride causes degradation and potentially brain damage in babies, cumulatively you might get 6 or above in a day as its put in everything. Science pretty clearly shows it doesn't impact tooth decay when ingested, its purely topical.

If you're being drugged knowingly or not, in a way that would impact your ability to evaluate that's a pretty big red flag for any study.

Interesting that flouridation is required in any city center above 200k people, with the primary reason being tooth decay. Side effects include lethargy and liver damage. I wonder what factor, if any, this might play in general obesity since liver damage can impact fat metabolism, normal carbon filters such as Brita don't filter this out, only bone filters do.

Three fourths is the same as three quarters, yes.

It's 29% because that's the poll numbers. 3 in 10 is the simplification.