> The irony is palpable.

> I already am eating from the trashcan all the time. The name of this trashcan is ideology. The material force of ideology - makes me not see what I'm effectively eating. It's not only our reality which enslaves us. The tragedy of our predicament - when we are within ideology, is that - when we think that we escape it into our dreams - at that point we are within ideology.

Some food for thought from ideology expert Slavoj Zizek.

> I listed the issues, but if you need an expert to explain them to you in detail, then perhaps you have neither the statistical nor media literacy necessary here.

You didn't list any of those before, no need to get personal. You could just argue on the facts instead.

Regarding 1 - You still haven't established why 9 accounts are insufficient. No interaction seems to be exactly the right move if the point is to establish the baseline behavior.

Your argument 2 is kind of self-defeating, don't you think? Either it's a right-wing propaganda machine because its algorithm emphasizes right wing propaganda or it's a right-wing propaganda machine because it's full of right-wing propaganda. I don't see how this argument helps your case that it isn't in either case.

Re 3 - now you're getting back to attacking the messenger. Attack the actual model. Which classification do you disagree with?

> Never mind the “propaganda” claim, which would require showing that not only was the algorithmic bias real (not demonstrated), but that the intent was propaganda instead of — for example — simply the result of maximizing for user engagement.

You haven't established why it would require any of that. As a counterexample, MoMA funded abstract art in the 50s as what they thought was supporting artistic freedom. Turns out it was CIA-funded propaganda. [0] It didn't require any intent from MoMA. It still was a propaganda campaign.

[0] https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt...