[myrmidon]

> That's not my reading.

I'm not sure where you actually disagree with me.

I'd be very careful though about drawing conclusions about what exactly polarity means here because 3 examples are not nearly enough-- especially for conclusions like which polarity is more "fact based".

My viewpoint is that the polarity in the algorithm should be akin to a principal component in alignment space (because of how the algorithm works), and you would expect the political parties to be split along a very similar axis in a 2 party system (an emergent property-- if they were not, one party could gain voters or improve cohesiveness of its voter pool by shifting its alignment).

[nvm0n2]

I think on re-reading, I'm not strongly disagreeing with you indeed. I think it's just that the article says the positive polarity posts don't map cleanly to Republicans, whereas the negative polarity posts do map cleanly to the Democrats, so how much does it really coincide?