> "Although users estimated to be pro-Trump/conservative were indeed substantially more likely to be suspended than those estimated to be pro-Biden/liberal, users who were pro-Trump/conservative also shared far more links to various sets of low-quality news sites," the paper says.
> Who judges what is a low-quality news source? It turns out the result holds true when the quality of news was judged by a group composed solely of Republican laypeople and those balanced from a political perspective.
It would be interesting to see who the judges are more carefully and how they determine quality. Ideas about what is low quality or misinformation are highly subjective. For example many republicans AND democrats believe misinformation about Snowden or Assange, and label their findings as misinformation too. I wonder if slicing up the judge group by other traits like geography and income and so on would tell us more.
The reason to use republican judges was that republicans are sympathetic to republican ideas, opinion etc., and so if they choose to ban a user, it won't be because that user expresses republican opinions.
A key excerpt from the article:
> "Although users estimated to be pro-Trump/conservative were indeed substantially more likely to be suspended than those estimated to be pro-Biden/liberal, users who were pro-Trump/conservative also shared far more links to various sets of low-quality news sites," the paper says.
> Who judges what is a low-quality news source? It turns out the result holds true when the quality of news was judged by a group composed solely of Republican laypeople and those balanced from a political perspective.
It would be interesting to see who the judges are more carefully and how they determine quality. Ideas about what is low quality or misinformation are highly subjective. For example many republicans AND democrats believe misinformation about Snowden or Assange, and label their findings as misinformation too. I wonder if slicing up the judge group by other traits like geography and income and so on would tell us more.
What might that tell us?
The reason to use republican judges was that republicans are sympathetic to republican ideas, opinion etc., and so if they choose to ban a user, it won't be because that user expresses republican opinions.
What might another group tell us?
The study referenced in the article is "Differences in misinformation sharing can lead to politically asymmetric sanctions" [1][2].
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07942-8
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41722602