I don't know, is it moral to give legitimacy and a platform to someone like J. Mark Ramseyer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Mark_Ramseyer)? Less clear example would be keeping around Roland Fryer.
I find that very few people and even fewer institutions are consistently always on the right side of things morally, even in very clear-cut cases (never mind that what exactly the "moral thing" is, is a whole discussion in itself). It's probably better to look at the overall pattern rather than a incidents (either good or bad).
I have no opinion on Harvard myself by the way; I don't know enough about it. I'm just saying this is not an especially good criticism.
In the paper they use a ratio defined by comparing a hashtag's popularity on TikTok vs on Instagram. So it accounts for Instagram's biases since they're comparing to them. Not sure if that's what you're asking.
They’re using the difference between TikTok and Instagram to conclude (by implication at least) that TikTok has a bias. But the same data could just as easily imply Instagram has a bias, or both do. Or something else. Or nothing.
I have heard of that one, and I guess to be fair looking at the list again I've heard of OpenSea a few times too as an NFT marketplace. Just not the target customer I guess, I am not a developer (or into NFTs).
I think it'll also be interesting to see in several years. old.reddit.com and mobile web reddit might be killed off by then, resulting in another spike in migrations. And there might be enough content in the threadiverse by then for it to possibly enter its own golden age like the bacon narwhal age of reddit back in the day.
Although in this optimistic future I'm worried that search engines will be much worse, with a completely closed off Reddit (like e.g. Facebook groups) and a fragmented anti-crawler threadiverse (like the fediverse now).
