>It's easy to ban a bunch of people and come up with an estimate of a large amount of hate reduced. "These hate-mongers posted X times per day to an audience of

>It's easy to ban a bunch of people and come up with an estimate of a large amount of hate reduced. "These hate-mongers posted X times per day to an audience of Y people, therefore we stopped Z hatred-incidents per month. Big progress in stopping hate.". That's the stupid man's interpretation of the available data. Starting with H1, it's quite clear these are not their definitions, but they're your misinterpretations of their definitions. Is there a reason you're misrepresenting the conclusions of the study, and doing so as uncharitably as possible? Is it possible it's "the stupid man's interpretation" because it's not at all their interpretation of their results? > It's a lot harder to measure things like the feeling that people who already feel disenfranchised about life feel when they can't even vent about stuff on the Internet and what that leads to. The people with the ban-hammers are doing nothing but creating further and further resentment and confirming whatever biases and conspiracy theories that many people already feel. It seems weird to note that it's hard to measure while simultaneously expressing complete confidence in the data-less conclusion you seem to want to be true.