@Darat
TBH, after reading through the actual poll, I must confess that I find it flawed AF. In fact it could serve as a case study on how to get the result you want to get, rather than actually find anything out.
The problems that polls generally have, and that professional polling companies fight hard to minimize the impact of, are all derived basically from the fact that people have a lifetime of experience with trying to be agreeable. It's something that's almost reflex, rather than something you can just turn on or off, just because someone said it's an anonymous poll. Anyway, the most important ones include:
1. People tend to tell you what they think you want to hear. If your language or use of loaded terms even vaguely suggest that you might agree or disagree with a position, they tend to agree or disagree with it too.
2. People tend to answer "yes" more than "no". Hence radomizing the phrasing of the question so half the people get asked the negative.
3. People tend to pick the top option more than the bottom one. Hence randomizing the choicing.
Added to that, anthropology studies have shown since decades ago that, all else being equal:
4. people will tend to pick whatever choice makes them sound like better people, or more acceptable in their community or culture. This can go to such extremes like one community telling you that yeah, they work the fields together, and build barns together, and all, even if the last time it happened was like before they were born. Or one tribe declaring themselves to be all hunters and warriors, like their culture says a proper man should be, even after generation of just doing agriculture, and only a tiny minority even owning a weapon any more, that could be used for either hunting or warfare.
Well, what's the problem with this one? (Their own source provided:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-7326-d36e-abff-7ffe72dc0000 ) Well, mostly that it goes out of its way to trip 1 and 4, by its use of loaded words.
No matter how it tries to claim that it used a neutral definition (spoiler: no they didn't) just the fact that it repeatedly uses the term "cancel culture" at a time when it's THE buzzword being decried, is a MAJOR red flag. It's like asking someone "are you a SJW?" or "are you into political correctness" on a poll, back in the heyday of those being THE loaded buzzword. Yeah, no matter what 'neutral' definition you tack on to it, just using the buzzword already gives a hint of whether you find that good or bad.
But even their definition is not as neutral as they claim in the article. In the article they only mention the definition being "
the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive." Well, that already already mentioned "cancelling" a second time, in case you didn't catch it the first time in their use of "cancel culture" (nudge nudge, wink wink.) But that's actually the least of problems.
The bigger problem is that they're basically lying by omission already: that's only the first
half of what the actual question was telling people. In the actual text (see the link I provided), it goes on to say that it's a form of group shaming. (And then calls it "cancel culture" again, maybe the third time you get the hint
)
That's already telling people the kind of answer that would be acceptable.
And then proceeds to just call it "cancel culture" some more in the next questions.
So, anyway, if they actually wanted to phrase it neutrally, why not just do just that: go neutral. Ask something more like, say, "do you think it's ok to withdraw support from a company or person if you find their actions objectionable?" I would bet real money that the results would be quite different, if that were the case.
It's not *new*. But it is detrimental. ...snip...
