Talk:Digital media use and mental health/Archive 2

Algorithmic bias in see also
Hi thanks again. I just removed that because the article wasn't really referring to algorithmic bias after we removed the journalists opinion about google search algorithms, ie. the below discussion: Then I replied I'm going to remove the journalists as they're not experts. There's a plethora of expert opinion referring to moral panic but I think I'll just leave it to the one internet addiction review in history and terminology.
 * First, you have to introduce the moral panic you're talking about first. You mention it briefly in the lead, but you never really explain what kind of moral panic occurred. Secondly, it isn't quite clear how search engines focusing on popularity lead to moral panic. It would seem you are skipping one or more variables here. Thirdly, stating that Google only uses popularity as a sorting criterion needs multiple good sources, since it flies against what is generally known about Google, per WP:EXTRAORDINARY.
 * Not fussed about inclusion or removal what do you think? --E.3 (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am okay either way, but just explain it sufficiently please. Thanks -- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 08:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. I'll remove it because its a little confusing without going into the google algorithms, which as you noted in the review is difficult for me to do within scope with sources mentioning mental health (WP:SYNTH issues) --E.3 (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)