this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
82 points (100.0% liked)

tails: A Place for Mastodon Posts

328 readers
1 users here now

A virtual community

Posts from Mastodon users, featured natively in a community, so you can view them without the need for them to be re-hosted or screenshoted, and reply to the original author and Mastodon respondents if you wish.

Has so far included content from Warsandpeas, Mr. Lovenstein, SMBC, Loading Artist, Low Quality Facts, nixCraft, ElleGray, and other interesting or provocative stuff I've random'd across on Mastodon.


Supported:
Comments & Upvotes
Unsupported:
Posts, Downvotes, & PD's Automod

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 

(Originally published earlier today on mastodon.au)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I’m not trying to read something that isn’t there. Poverty does cause negative consequences and it will show in statistics, but here at least, poverty does not seem to be the dominant factor.

The internet adoption map mostly shows 3 correlations:

  1. A political one along national borders. That for example Romania and Kosovo have relatively high internet adoption and Greece + Portugal don’t, is caused by government policy, not because of wealth: Greece + Portugal are still far wealthier than the other two.
  2. A division within countries whereby the capital region has higher internet adoption rates than other regions. The capital region usually has a higher gnp per capita (not in Poland apparently though), but it also usually has more immigration of young people.
  3. And another trend within countries, whereby regions with declining + aging populations (Fe Saarland + southern Italy + former east Germany) score lower.

But the one that clearly dominates is 1) Government policy. You can have 2 regions with similar demographics + wealth and a national border between the 2 regions, and the internet adoption rate between the 2 can be vastly different, a far bigger difference than between 2 regions within the same country.

Your attempt at discrediting my obversations as looking at trees in a forest is cute, but it’s not going to fly. You can’t claim that a forest is boreal and then if someone observes that it contains palm trees, proclaim that they’re not allowed to look at the trees.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Agree to disagree then. I’m not interested in arguing with someone who chooses to take offense over a metaphor.

[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Again you resort to a personal attack instead of trying to argue with facts. Cute.