All you're doing is misreading, invent random magic numbers, construe things in a way hardly worth a reply because it is unclear how the thoughts come to be. These are distractions and whataboutism. The prisoner dilemma has nothing to do with free speech, it's game theory. Sociology is a social science. In all science, there is always a doubt, that's what makes it so thrilling and what drives it. You can't even support your own statements, so why demanding evidence 'without doubt' from others ? We're already beyond that and looking into the future, with more or less concern, you're holding us back.mr.WHO wrote: ↑Wed, 5. May 21, 17:34Lets elaborate why it's not a lie - there is no measurable data, because scienticially accceptable measurable data would looks like this:
- hate crime statistics from last 10-20 years.
- statistics with attached yearly classification and definition of all hate crimes (e.g. if year 2000 would have 100 types of defined hate crimes and year 2021 would have 600 hate crimes, or reverse)
- weight attached to every hate crime (e.g. murder > beating > calling names > something absurd like OK hand gesture).
- all data reconciled and ajdusted with above variables.
Only such data could show hard evidence if there was increase or decrease in hate against minorities.
...but even then it could be questionable, because as I mention with Sociology, you cannot reproduce the experiment to prove beyond any doubt that the thing you measure (e.g. hate) was specifically cause by the other thing (internet hate speech), because you're physically and scientifically unable to exclude milion other factors that are in effect for historic data.
Basically with sociology you're not doing science, but simply storytelling and educated guess based on historic data.
You can't be sure for final results of something so simplistic as prisoner dillema, yet you expect to figure out something for multi-milion people groups?
At best you could only prove the trend (hate increase or decrease), but there is no way to prove what is the direct cause of that hate.
That's why I avoid putting "scientific" articles in any political discussion.
Going back, I wrote 'a gamer forum is hardly the place for [scientific rigour]'. Don't claim I demaned its application in here, I just asked for sources for your assertions, which you keep on failing to produce, instead, as others have mentioned, you redefine things, twist peoples words, wind and evade.
Really, there's little to discuss, no progress is to be expected. Pity.