Levels of findings about the online controversy of violent video games:

HighScore:

 

 

 

 

1. Biggest fears in general is "Violent behavior", "Aggression" and "Create Violence" where at the same time "Do not create Violence" is just as big! That means that the activity in different positions is still going on.

​

2. MAVAV.com is invisible. It is an active participator in the controversy, but is not found in any of the networks, neither the Wikipedia, the web corpus or the academic. This might tell something about that they lack acknowledgement through links online.

​

3. The pro-part ('there is a reason to fear that violent video games make gamers violent in real life) of the controversy is focusing on: Bushman, adolescence, social psychology and the U.S.

​

4. The con-part ('there is no evidence that we should fear that violent video games make gamers violent in real life') of the controversy is focusing on: adolescent research, Video games and aggression and mental health.

​

5. The more overall discourse of the controversy is focusing on: Ferguson, Thompson, a lot of game-names, school shootings and addiction.

​

6. The debate links in general the reality of the games to the reality of real life. It is striking how the games are mentioned by name in relation to violent acts or psychological issues of young people that are gamers - as where the games real acting characters. This might tell us something about the difficulty in placing or pointing out evil in these situations, creating a set of diffuse fears.