[kelseyfrog]

But you could say that about anything including the opposite.

I see a bunch of people who say that "CEO-killing is wrong. Therefore they must be in an internet bubble." I think we should both admit that the consistency of a message isn't actually a good signal for "bubbleness" and that something like randomized polling on personal beliefs and perceptions or a similar study actually would be.

[IncreasePosts]

Bubbleness isn't about the viewpoint, it is about the difference between bubble perception vs global perception.

If you read reddit/twitter, a common statement was something like "The police will never be able to find him - no one will cooperate". "Must be hard to find someone when there are 150million suspects". Basically, treating him like a modern day robin hood.

When, back in real life, the news of the day seems to be that he was caught at a McDonalds after two random employees noticed him and called the police on him.

[kelseyfrog]

If you want to make a statement about bubbles, then you have to ground it in global perception which is operationalizable and empirically verifiable - speculation isn't epistemologically responsible.

[IncreasePosts]

I'm not particularly worried about verification or epistemologically responsibility when something is manifestly obvious. The same reason I'm not jumping out of an airplane without a parachute even if I haven't read a study on the relative effectiveness of parachutes vs no parachutes when jumping out of an airplane.

[kelseyfrog]

Sorry, I hate to burst your bubble, but social facts ESPECIALLY need to be tested before being assumed because humans are particularly susceptible to typification, legitimization, and reification.