Malicious Compliance
People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.
======
-
We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
-
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
-
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.
======
Also check out the following communities:
!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world
view the rest of the comments
Going through these comments you've not presented one scientific or statistical argument. You're basically going on vibes.
They haven't made any numerical claim. The argument against biased data is a fundamental one. Arguing that someone's methodology is wrong is not arguing that the opposite of the conclusion is true. They are just saying "Facebook research don't count". I don't know what statistical evidence you need for "Facebook research don't count".
I've only responded to you twice. Once to tell you that a biased sample set provides garbage data, and again to tell you I wouldn't be arguing with someone who didn't understand the core concepts of the conversation.
The vibes thing is quite the projection, though.
Considering this is the first time you've responded to me at all I think maybe I don't trust your ability to judge Core Concepts of a conversation.