Comment on ‘Close to zero impact’: US study casts doubt on effect of phone ban in schools
reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 3 weeks agoI think we agree! I was the original commenter in this comment thread and posted the screenshot of the sponsorship issue
PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Maybe we do, and I appreciate you pointing out what you did! I’ll be the first to acknowledge I never would have known those things had you not posted them (and I’m sure that’s true for tons of folks who saw your comment, so truly, thanks).
But to me even “taking this with a grain of salt”, though, that’s just way more credulity than documents coming out of those orgs will ever merit. So I don’t know, your comment struck me as really strange, you point out the bombshell facts you did, to me those utterly destroy any assumption of good faith investigation/analysis, and then you go essentially “so I’ll take it with a grain of salt and wait for other experts to weigh in”. But…why?
Apologies if you’re simply using neutral language as a way to reach more readers. But the damning epistemological facts about the document make it ineligible for taking seriously. To make an analogy it’s like you said “we can see this bread is half-baked (white paper), and it actually comes from a mold factory (Bezos, Waltons), not a bread factory. So I’ll have a little, not a lot, and then see what other bread experts say about it too”. Which would be a crazy course of action, given the preceding description.
Again, sincere apologies if I’m mischaracterizing your POV, that’s how it reads to me though.
reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
I guess I felt like the evidence spoke for itself, my aim was to communicate that Guardian was acting in bad faith in their reporting of this. “Grain of salt” was just colloquial language. I hadn’t read the paper so I couldn’t speak to the actual contents.
I’m also disappointed that Stanford, Upenn, and Duke would be okay with this (there are rules for putting your university affiliation on illegitimate research to make it seem legitimate). I would kind of expect it from Stanford (who also sponsored the research) tbh but not Duke or Upenn.
No wonder people are losing faith in the scientific establishment. If anyone reading this goes to one of those universities you should email the VPR/OPR office to complain. This is eroding your legitimacy too.
This whole thing is an excellent example of how corporations wield their ‘soft power’ to try to make their policies seem reasonable.
PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Okay got it, sounds like I just kinda jumped down your throat then. “How dare this person not dunk on those folks as hard as I think they should!” (that’s me lol)
Cheers. Thanks for the info.
reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
Nah you’re completely right it merits an angrier tone, it’s just so exhausting!
Agreed on the lack of legitimate publications. Pretty much every mainstream news source is compromised. You just have to piece together the truth from independent sources and read between the lines.
They make their agenda kind of transparent just in what they do choose to cover (like Bezos’ papers hyping billionaires and AI) vs what they choose not to cover (perpetual and well documented rape murder and other war crimes by Israel).