> Their ideas and memes unconsciously get preferential treatment.

I think as this repo shows it's conciously, rather than unconsciously, getting preferential treatment.

People can always use their countries' social media (and I assume many do!).

But it's indeed an interesting fact that people seem to specifically seek American tech and social media. And honestly, there's no shortages of foreign nationals commenting on American politics (and it's a good thing, it's their right thanks to the first amendment!).

What a strange age classification — no idea about what your age actually is, just that it definitely isn't 55-64. I assume it would never conclude you are under 13 for legal reasons.

Aren't "enterprise software" and "horror" the same thing?

I'm a guy in my 30s but they had me classified as a 65+ year old woman. They also thought I was a radiologist.

I live in the US in "Trump country" and don't see any political content. Maybe its just related to the people you follow and the content you look at?

Some of the power users Musk reportedly had boosted are specifically right wing political posters, like catturd2. But then he's also boosted some high profile left leaning politicians, so it's not exclusive. It does mean you're more likely to see right wing American political content either way, which has to be annoying for people outside of the US.

https://gizmodo.com/twitter-algorithm-aoc-ben-shapiro-cattur...

It isn't an attitudinal problem, it is the logical outcome of our political systems. In political science it is known as Duverger's law: single ballot, winner take all systems inevitably tend toward a two party equilibrium.

Changing this requires states to adopt alternative systems, which can sometimes mean amending state constitutions. It isn't easy or straightforward, and the general sense is that there are better things to spend that effort on.

It's just different order of operations on coalition building. Other systems divide into a majority and opposition at some point. In the US it just happens earlier, but there is the same diversity of opinions within those groups.

You'd think a country that played a central role in a global, decades-long unstable regime of bipolar power that routinely pushed mankind to the brink of nuclear oblivion would know better than to have a bipolar electoral system

In some other countries the different interest groups sort themselves into two factions after being elected but I don't know that it is really that different in practice.

IIRC Some states you cannot vote outside your declared party (Washington)

That's attributable to turnout.

You tell me if 90% is a "vast" majority or not. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/03/14/political-in...

So you can make sure not to accidentally change it.

There are many reasons to measure things if you don't intend to change them.

You might want to ask that of, say, astronomers, paleontologists, or even simply journalists.

Observing and measuring leads to understanding. As others here have noted, sometimes you want to measure to ensure that you're not inadvertently affecting an outcome or phenomenon.

There are probably many other non-political alternatives to select 2 groups to test for bias

Most big companies I've worked at are international and are regulated in many regimes, although sure the one with the main corporate headquarters is more important.