I think the pattern is very concerning.
You have well meaning middle class people who come from certain backgrounds, who have no comprehension of certain things. So they build data and the politics that surrounds those politics based soley on that. Their inability - or at times - their deliberate ommission of certain things means vulnerable grounds are left particularly exposed.
Those who put too much weight on what data shows and use this as a means to argue that certain things are not happening are frankly dangerous politically.
Those things that aren't supposed to be happening - but are - are part of people's reality. The political ommision and then the use of data to erase that reality leads to people not trusting data, nor those who value data. And their politics. Why would they, if those politics are leaving them exposed?
The fact that Big Tech companies are so heavily dominated by white, middle class males - often of a certain social group and thus political agenda is deeply troubling in this context and you can see how this is affecting the politics and is marginalising the experiences of women in particular.
It also marginalises working class groups in different ways. But if those who are particularly marginalised or simply uneducated through no fault of their own, don't understand how to argue about what is missing from data and to ask questions about why its missing and be able to argue forcefully for its inclusion theres a problem.
They are then also vulnerable to the political exploitation of groups and individuals who do recognise the ommision of such data, but offer alternative explanations and politics. Thus we have 'alternative facts', conspiracy theories and 'fake news'.
Women are better placed to be more aware that there is a problem with whats going on across the board, because they have always been marginalised in this way and by beaucracy. And because many have the advantage of being educated to spot gaps in data and identify cracks in beaucracy. Academics, notably are also amongst some of the best placed people to pick apart beaucratic weaknesses and data holes / bias because its their job description to do that.
This makes them politically dangerous to the far right and a political inconvenience and nusiance to the far left.
This pattern is happening across the board with politics. It fits in remarkably well with the erosion of safeguarding frameworks and that whole ongoing narrative.
It just highlights the growing gap between rich and poor too.
Its a perfect storm brewing. Until politicians get a grip and really start recognising it, we are going to have enormous problems.
Data is only as good as those who collect that data. Their politics matter.
Yes, this particular story isn't specificially about unelected tech giants, but it does show the issue in a practical way which is relevant to this debate and we should be talking about it in the context of others too.