Souplex said:
This experiment is simple, you may receive either +1 internets, or +3 internets based on how you vote. However, if more than 10% of people vote for +3, nobody gets any internets. Please vote, (Without viewing results first) and then tell me why you voted the way you did.
SOUPLEX! Man, it's been forever since I've seen you around!
Anyway, I chose +1 internet. So everyone could have internetz.
I'm also vaguely cognizant that this can't
possibly be the prisoner's dilemma; it must be something else. In fact, it more reminds me of a gimped version of that movie, The Button. The fundamental question here is whether or not ensuring your own well being would be better than everyone else's is worth the price of potentially ensuring everyone is LESS well off. It's about preserving a privilege, not avoiding a punishment, and that's going to screw with how the game works. Furthermore, the caveat is that the majority DOESN'T have the power here; it only takes a fraction of the total to fuck things up for everyone, and that functionally puts EVERYONE at a disadvantage.
Something else I noticed; while different people had different options for choosing the +3 option (so they could have more internet, so NO ONE could have internet, they wanted to play the system, they wanted to break the game, fuck the police, ect) there wasn't a lot of variation on why people picked the +1 option; it was so everyone could have +1 internet. I'm not sure what that means, but I'm sure it means something.
...I'm a guess this has something to do with politics. A majority of the people wanting something for everyone, but a handful of people wanting more than everyone else fucking it up for literally everyone? That sounds like politics to me.