Angry Jesus writes:
"The Chicago Police Department is mis-applying epidemiological science (the study of entire populations) to target individuals in a real-life version of Minority Report. They have decided that it is a good idea to put people on a secret list based on a Big Data analysis of their social networks. But don't worry, it isn't racist or abusive because, Science!"
"These policies may not be deliberately racist, but their practical result is almost certain to be so."
Editorials need to be labeled as editorials.
The actual article at theverge is along the lines of "here's this use of technology, and some of those who are criticizing it are calling it racist".
Your headline not only flat out declares it to be racist, but implies a deliberate attempt to disguise deliberate racism behind das blinkenlights, and the summary gets tied back to that by the snark at the end*.
If you're going to make up our minds for us, why bother posting a link to the original article? You run the risk of us getting confused by the facts.
Obviously here in the comments a lot of what people write is going to be opinion, but that's expected--it's the comments section.
*Nothing against snark, per se, it's part of why it's such a delight to experience what Charles P. Pierce can do with the language when writing online about politics for Esquire Magazine.
But there's no such thing as impartial, objective snark.
All that said, I do appreciate having the article brought to my attention, and I emailed Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft to bring it to hers.
Give me a fucking break. There is absolutely no requirement that submissions be neutral. I submitted the story because of my opinion about the issue. That's the way it works in a community driven site like this. You want neutral reporting? Go to Ars Technica where they pay writers and editors to do that.
People told you what they think of your submission. That's the way it works on a community-driven site like this. You don't like that? Well, start your own blog, then you can control whether criticism of what you wrote appears on that site.