4 ms·
This comment thread is a really interesting instance of a social phenomenon that happens in forums. The overwhelming majority of comments here are both: 1. Pa
by thomastjeffery 5y ago
This comment thread is a really interesting instance of a social phenomenon that happens in forums.
The overwhelming majority of comments here are both:
1. Partially or fully supportive of this policy.
2. Downvoted to grey.
There seem to be two ways people are engaging with this topic:
1. Writing a nuanced comment about how this is probably good for children or well meaning (to be downvoted by most readers).
2. Upvoting the handful of comments that point out how this is obviously a terrible overreach (but not writing as much in a comment because it has already been said).
Because those with an unpopular opinion have so much more to express, those perspectives generate the most comments and the fewest upvotes/most downvotes.
This phenomenon tends to make it seem like a minority opinion is held by the majority present.
- dang 5y agoThat's not how the thread turned out in general. It's a good idea to wait and see how things develop. The earliest comments usually are not representative of community opinion.
- thomastjeffery 5y agoThe thread may have more comments now, but the top ones are all still the same. The top comment is still, "I have mixed feelings about this" and totally lumps together all "modern games" as the toxic problem this win-some-lose-some law might be "needed" for; and that's exactly the facade of nuance I'm complaining about. Just because a law is intended to fix a real problem doesn't mean we need to prop up devil's advocate on stilts to balance it against criticism. A government forcing tens of millions of children to log in to a centralized database to make sure they only play video games during a specific perscripted three hours/week is prima facie insane. Leading discussion about it with "mixed feelings" is utterly disingenuous and unrepresentative.