This kind of blog posting seems like a much more integrous approach to disseminating information to me. Any person can add further information/opinions and back up their claims with links to sources or further reading. This is in direct opposition to most peer reviewed articles I see that don't allow any commentary, which seem to pretend that the documents are some sort of uncontestable hard truth.
In some contexts I agree, like when field experts publish blogs or tweets. For example, Scott Aaronson does this often ( https://scottaaronson.blog/ )
The problem is that this generally requires already having the credibility / “clout”. Without that, you’re just some anonymous person screaming into the void that the mainstream is wrong. there isn’t a dialogue, just a rant. And without a name backing you up, the internet has little reason to care about the rant.
I don’t see the numbers and analysis in this article contributing to any discussion but rather providing a facade of authenticity for the following political rant. And the problem is, if someone says it’s legit analysis, why should I believe them? Until an expert will put their name on the line, I just don’t care; and that brings us back to the peer review / “clout” problem
As a reader, if one or several experts came forward with this blog, I would skip the analysis and read the political rant, keeping in mind they may have the benefit of the doubt on the analysis. Not ‘believe’ per se, but enough to consider it worth my time to read the political stuff predicated on the analysis.
When an anonymous author comes forward with this, I could do the same, but why would I? Political rants are a dime a dozen on the internet, so it doesn’t justify itself, and I can’t personally vouch for the author because I’m not an expert in the field.
If you have the expertise to validate the author’s meta meta analysis and actually want to do so, then I applaud your benevolence and envy your free time. When I was in my 20s I did this with P vs NP cranks on Reddit. I spent hours reading random people’s algorithms and pointing out flaws. In retrospect I don’t particularly feel like it was a good use of my time.
