> That's a popular conspiracy theory, but it doesn't hold up to Occam's Razor.
This comment is open to interpretation. A reasonable interpretation is that something must hold up to Occam's Razor, or else it is not true, especially with the inclusion of "That's a popular conspiracy theory".
In fact, the "conspiracy theory" charge is also flawed. The speculative claim "The algorithms are a proxy for some youtube engineers' tastes" may actually be true. We do not know.
Statement #2:
> The simpler explanation is that content from all sides gets buried to some extent, but it appears biased to people because they only notice when their own content is buried.
This persuades the reader, perhaps based on a presumed knowledge of the phenomenon of confirmation bias, that any such beliefs are likely an example of such confirmation bias. Again, the truth is not known.
If you don't like your comments being interpreted, you could tighten them up to minimize the need or possibility for interpretation.
> That's a popular conspiracy theory, but it doesn't hold up to Occam's Razor.
This comment is open to interpretation. A reasonable interpretation is that something must hold up to Occam's Razor, or else it is not true, especially with the inclusion of "That's a popular conspiracy theory".
In fact, the "conspiracy theory" charge is also flawed. The speculative claim "The algorithms are a proxy for some youtube engineers' tastes" may actually be true. We do not know.
Statement #2:
> The simpler explanation is that content from all sides gets buried to some extent, but it appears biased to people because they only notice when their own content is buried.
This persuades the reader, perhaps based on a presumed knowledge of the phenomenon of confirmation bias, that any such beliefs are likely an example of such confirmation bias. Again, the truth is not known.
If you don't like your comments being interpreted, you could tighten them up to minimize the need or possibility for interpretation.