World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Jesus Christ they got 20,000 people to answer poll questions in two weeks?
. . . What was the methodology? Was it, like, at a football match everybody who agrees . . raise your hand? Was it “like if you agree” on Telegram? Agggh. Okay I’ll go look.
Okay here’s the Methodology section:
Which - says who did it, but except for “online” or in the case of Ukraine “random telephone numbers”, it doesn’t describe the Method of the . . y’know, the Ology. So. “online”. Like, click on an Ad at stormfront.com, or -?
Anyway here’s the numbers:
Thanks for posting the table, much more informative than the article.
IDK if I have a browser problem? But that table was not visible to me reading the article.
That was from the source pdf linked in the article, fwiw. It also didn’t have any methodology notes, it was just results.
There’s a lot of info and graphs, but it’s interesting:
Yeah, it’s just that polls are notorious for saying something grand, and then when you dig into it it’s always some bizarre, unbelievable process with a minuscule percentage of the population.
As we see, the article doesn’t say how they did it.
If we broadly take the population of Europe and Ukraine to be 788 million people total, this survey of 20,000 people would be 0.002% of the population.
I don’t think that’s statistically significant. By, well, a lot.
But it is an interesting headline.
It is, population size has essentially no effect on statistical significance of a sample (other than amplifying it as you start to sample most of the population). 20,000 people is massive and will give you sub 1% confidence ranges. The difficulty is ensuring you have a representative sample (no one does) and correcting for the biases you do have in your sample.
Do you really think the huge polling industry is unaware of basic statistics and your dividing the sample size by the population would come as a revaltion to them?
I think the huge polling industry is based on, and a provider of, multiple lies.
I think the average person, who will incorporate polling headlines into their worldview, is unaware of the enormous differences.
Do those lies include tricking professional mathematicians into thinking their lies are actually formally proved mathematics?
No. The math is sound. The premise is flawed.
So why did you say that 20,000 was far too small a sample for Europe if you accept the maths which shows that that size sample gives <1% margin of error for that sample size?
From your link:
You see how the elements listed there (cost, time, convenience, and ‘sufficient statistical power’) are more qualitative measurements and not known constants? (I mean, whenever it starts with, “In practice . . .” you know it means “in a perfect system devoid of unknowns”, or in other words “ideally but you’ll see it doesn’t work exactly like that” )
What is the sufficient statistical power for sampling Europe? 0.002%? Two thousandths of a single percent? That greenlights your findings? Okay. I disagree. Polling companies don’t disagree because in this case, as you noted, 20k is an amazing sample size. The cost and time for that - not to mention the convenience! - alone is amazing . . for an opinion poll. No doubt they’re proud, that’s a fine achievement for an opinion poll. Now: did they measure what they set out to measure? I doubt it, but since the methodology given is the single word “online”, I remain skeptical.
And saying “but there’s math in it!” is exactly why I’m skeptical. That effectively means nothing, and it's used to validate whatever conclusions were presented. “We ran the numbers, and . . ” can mean very specific things, and in some contexts it is good enough to move on to the conclusions. Polls trade on that, but they don’t deserve to.