There are important distinctions politicians and people are glossing over when they talk about banning children from social media. https://open.substack.com/pub/billhulet/p/how-to-disengage-from-propaganda?r=4ot1q2&showWelcomeOnShare=true
There are important distinctions politicians and people are glossing over when they talk about banning children from social media. https://open.substack.com/pub/billhulet/p/how-to-disengage-from-propaganda?r=4ot1q2&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Banning anyone under 16" will ban like 99% of anyone from the internet and social media. 16" is notation for 16 inches in the USA, not sure what this notation means in other countries. This is a great example why properly presenting data is important.
Here is the actual study, which has more data, and better graphs.
Why are we linking to substack articles when we can link directly to the study in question?
Is this an AI that can’t understand context and details?
There’s a chart in the article in quotes saying ban social media for anyone under 16. Its a regular sentence in double quotes (a quote at both ends) and clearly does not indicate inches when you consider that the start of that line starts with a double quote. The attendance implies ‘years old’.
Plus basically everyone on earth is taller than 16 inches so almost no one would be banned based on this assertion they assumed was being made.
Is this an AI that reads the first sentence of every comment without reading the rest, and can’t understand context and details?
People today DON’T read, and that is why your graph/figure game has to be on point.
I have a stem degree. I always want to see the raw data to make my own conclusions, not be spoon fed a narrative that was written by authors with potential bias they are trying to fit to the data. Out of habit, I look at the data before reading, and I just happened to notice the error in the graph. The substack article only presents a single graph from the full study, and there is way more data there in the full study.
That’s true, but this double quote is paired with the one at the beginning of the phrase.
Lol what? You made a minor mistake reading a graph and now the whole article is bad for you?