If anyone managed to send me a poll I would assume it is a scam to steal my identity or beg for donations.
I remember when self-reported online polls were considered dirty and useless.
Oh, how the times have changed.
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 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…
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.
Alternative title: how annoying people have adapted to not being able to annoy everyone as easily as before.
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?
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
