Get drunk and throw darts at a dartboard.
If anyone managed to send me a poll I would assume it is a scam to steal my identity or beg for donations.
In short: They’re not. They’re basically guessing at this point for anyone under 50.
Not only that but anyone under 50 who they do reach is the type of person who doesn’t use an ad blocker. In other words, iPhone users and the ignorant.
I answered a phone call for a poll a few weeks ago. I knew it was a poll, but I wasn’t doing anything too important and talked to them for a few minutes. I was receiving texts and phone calls that I ignored (blocked), but since I picked up the call, the volume has increased. I realized my mistake of trying to let them know my opinion. The increase from before the poll to after was pretty drastic for the first week. I won’t make that mistake again.
That is why people don’t answer even if we are free. No good deed goes unpunished.
I mean, even if they “reach” you doesn’t mean you have to pick up the phone or respond to texts. As a matter of policy I don’t answer calls from numbers not in my contacts. If it’s important they’ll leave a voicemail.
iPhone user here, with an ad blocker in Safari and DNS-based ad blocking. Don’t assume all iPhone users are in that category…
ONE OF US
ONE OF US
Hey, don’t forget about the lazy.
Weird clarification, but the iPhone has shitloads of adblock, much more so than Android. There are YouTube apps that block all video ads, for instance. iOS even has a vpn built into the OS.
Tl:dr sample bias is people who don’t use ad blockers
So a conservative luddite bias.
Luddites weren’t conservatives and they weren’t anti technology, they were anti-technology being used to destroy the livelihood of workers rather than being used to improve their lives.
Imagine that AI / robots suddenly made your entire career field obsolete overnight and suddenly you couldn’t find a job anywhere. You would be pretty upset, ya? Now imagine being called anti-technology just because you argued that technology should be used to help the workers that are displaced rather than leaving them destitute.
Alternative title: how annoying people have adapted to not being able to annoy everyone as easily as before.
I remember when self-reported online polls were considered dirty and useless.
Oh, how the times have changed.
The goal, as ever, is to present to the public an accurate reflection of what the people as a whole think about candidates and issues.
Can this not simply be harvested from the endless volumes of online posts made to the public internet? Why do they act like they need to go on the hunt for something that is normally difficult even to avoid?
Because then louder people get counted more
What, you don’t want audience participation voting?
Fun fact, my hometown in NH still votes this way unless someone asks for a count
Because based on online posts, Howard Dean, Ron Paul, and Bernie sanders all won by a wide margin?
The types of people that offer their political opinions online are not themselves representative of the whole voting public. This would introduce an instance of sampling bias.
No. Not even before now since you could make as many accounts as you want on a given platform.
But especially not now since the cost of text content generation has dropped to basically zero.
The Conversation - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Conversation:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - Australia
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
