The Biden administration recently announced that datasets containing historical bias and deemed “imbalanced” will no longer be used in decision-making processes.
Data that negatively impacts those categorized as the “protected class” will be considered illegal and destroyed. This move towards censorship has been criticized by some as prioritizing political correctness over transparency and factual accuracy.
The Biden admin is coming for our "imbalanced datasets" and "datasets that incorporate historical bias"
Any data that lead to "discriminatory outcomes" are now illegalhttps://t.co/6g3QyHJrn0 pic.twitter.com/sEUCdOa4aK
— ~~datahazard~~ (@fentasyl) April 26, 2023
Here’s a closer look:
Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro criticized the move, stating, “It’s incredibly frightening that the US government is now banning data that might hurt someone’s feelings. We’re now putting progressive ideology and social justice nonsense ahead of the truth.”
The government has defended its decision, stating that it seeks to make any data leading to discriminatory outcomes illegal. However, some critics argue that this is an overly broad approach that ignores the complexities of historical bias in data.
Revolver News gave an example of what the government may deem “imbalanced data.” (pictured below) It is unclear what criteria will be used to determine which datasets fall under this category, leading to concerns about the potential suppression of important information.
Critics of the move argue that while it is important to address historical biases in data, banning certain datasets altogether is not the solution. Instead, efforts should be made to identify and correct biases in data through careful analysis and evaluation.
Conservative commentator Matt Walsh expressed doubt that government officials will hold back on publishing datasets that portray white people negatively, stating, “It’s highly doubtful our government officials will hold back on publishing datasets that paint white people in a negative light.”
Despite concerns about censorship and the potential suppression of information, the government maintains that its goal is to create more accurate and fair decision-making processes that benefit all members of society. It is important to continue advocating for transparency and access to information in order to make informed decisions and hold leaders accountable.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.
“Data that negatively impacts those categorized as the “protected class” will be considered illegal and destroyed. This move towards censorship has been criticized by some as prioritizing political correctness over transparency and factual accuracy.”
Problem with this? Nobody, but NOBODY is actually “in” a protected class.
Protected classes in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, are the classifications (such as race, religion, national origin) that the law applies to.
This is different from a another meaning of the word class, such as middle class or working class.
No wonder there is so much confusion.
So many people (and apparently the writer of this article) seem to think that some people (such as non-whites) are in some special protected class, but that is not true.
For instance, religion is a protected class, but that doesn’t mean that Hindus are protected but Baptists aren’t.
Because the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law.
So forget the idea that some people are protected but others are not.
We all have a race. But some white people think that people of color have some special status and white people don’t, and under the law that is not true.
All people are protected under the law against racial discrimination, not just non-whites.