>but not really in a way beyond "I don't believe it because I don't want to."

You are free to your own opinions… one doesn't need to believe, and one shouldn't have to be swayed by stat inflation to address problems.

>I also don't think a comment on HN qualifies as bad publicity, and I haven't seen a substantive argument that presents the relationship that way.

I guess you have missed over the years bad press companies received because on threads of hn (Palantir may be above this affecting their bottom line though not all companies are as fortunate)… I've already asked for more sources from the commenter beyond the post they shared that pointed to some of the discrepancies in how people are counting, because I would actually be interested in seeing/collecting more accurate data from more nuanced definitions for myself (and it appears others in this thread would like to see that to).

>Maybe it should be more explicit that this means 14.2 million people are "slaves," but this is a matter of definition that Polaris and its peers have no control over. Other comments also go into why "slavery" isn't even an applicable term.

Sure, lets hand wave stat inflation and questionable definitions, and accept NGO's/governments/large corps have no control whatsoever compared to individuals as actors in a given society in how they aggregate data and generate their pretty plots.

>View the study, though, and it looks like there is exactly zero effort put towards manipulating or even exploiting technical definitions. Section 2 of the paper: "Challenges in Trafficking Research." First problem: "Definitional problems." It then outlines which definitions compete for dominance, why, and then plainly states which one it uses. For the record, it can be found here (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf, Sec 103 Paragraphs 8 and 9) and seems to make sense.

Ok, the definition makes sense, so lets just accept it prima facie, and not question it or think about how we could improve upon it in certain ways that minimize even further how certain parties are negatively affected? How would people learn anything if we approached problems like that all the time? So just because one states how they're defining something, it absolves them from critique if people disagree and wish for something more nuanced? lol

>Again, people can construct whatever idea or explanation they'd like. If you really want to believe something is incapable of good then you can easily make even the most benign acts look insidious. The question is whether or not you can substantively provide evidence for what is otherwise paranoia.

There would have to be a component of fear or anxiety for this to be true, which if one has neither (i.e. Me), casting such as paranoia in order to bolster ones argument because one may not think an NGO or its corporate sponsors are being upfront or relying on "not being able to do anything about the definitions we benefit from at the expense of others to the degree of which we are not certain", then one must not "believe" (not sure why we have to believe when we can look at the definitional flaws that can negatively affect certain populations lives they may be seeking out) anything can be good is pretty weak, when noting how certain parties mere existence hinges on such (or at least their marketing pitches lol)… people are free to believe all the stat inflation they want, its not my time or after tax currency being sucked into the church lol

Do you work for Palantir or something? It would be good to know as I can not waste my time further hereticing in front of the choir.