Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

novehiclesinthepark.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 1001 posts

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#91

Post by dvt »

The lesson here is one worth learning, but the vehicle (forgive the pun) is very poor. The lesson is: we can't agree on what to moderate and what not to moderate. There are very good thought experiments here, including citing actual prose. Should we ban parts of the Bible (the sexually explicit ones, or the ones that seem to approve of slavery?), should we ban books like Lolita or the Scarlet Letter? Should we allow Neo-Nazis to protest? What about Stalinists?

These are questions worth asking and answers worth hearing, but the problem with the question here is that the rule "no vehicles in the park" already comes with a lot of baggage. For example, it's obvious that the rule is meant to prevent driving engine-propulsion vehicles through a park (a rule that we've seen many times in our own parks), so naturally police cars and ambulances will (or should) be exempt, especially if trying to save a life. Otherwise the corollary would be that saving a life is less important than the rule "no vehicles in the park." Which most would very obviously disagree with.

I like the idea of the website, but there's probably a better way to convey the complexities of rule-making and rule-following in the context of both our own moral (or religious, or ethical, etc.) frameworks and the social environment at large.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#92

Post by bee_rider »

sowbug wrote: post #75
juujian wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes a ton of sense. I was always confused by that. Reddit has a ton of rules in place, particularly against advocating for violence. I reported a few comments that called for death penalty for someone. Those comments were always greenlit. Maybe I just take stuff to literal. But some people sure have a hard-on for the death penalty...

In the US legal system, probably elsewhere as well, we have the concept of an "affirmative defense." That means "I committed the crime, but it's OK because of extra facts." That's different from denying one or more elements of the crime. Example #1: I didn't poison Joe. I was out of town when it happened. Example #2: I poisoned Joe. He had been sentenced to death, and my job is prison executioner. That's why I inject…

It specifically notes that some jurisdictions might have exceptions to this sort of rule, but that in this case there isn’t one.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#93

Post by jakelazaroff »

generalizations wrote: post #73

"vehicle:" * means of carrying or transporting something (planes, trains, and other vehicles) such as a) motor vehicle or b) a piece of mechanized equipment - Websters Online Dictionary * 1) any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport: a motor vehicle; space vehicles. 2) conveyance moving on wheels, runners, tracks, or the like, as a cart, sled, aut…

Let's take the third definition. Do the roller skates count? The wheelchair? The rowboat?

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#94

Post by ComputerGuru »

code_duck wrote: post #76
ComputerGuru wrote: post #62

I think the police and ambulance examples are interesting. To me, they're clear and blatant violations of the rule. To be sure, I certainly think it's ok that they broke the rule, but they still broke the rule. Yet some (45% of respondents) clearly think the rule wouldn't apply to them in the first place?

One thing that makes this exercise fairly useless is that any real world law or rule would have exemptions for such circumstances, and a definition of “in the park” and what a vehicle is… not just one sentence with no clarification. Beyond that, also a history of previous legal interpretation to which one could refer.

I actually disagree. I assume every law is subject to "at the discretion of the DA/judge" (or whoever is in charge). Do you think everyone needs to account for every emergency circumstance possible in every law? In real life, there's the law and then there are mitigating circumstances.

(A few years ago I could have said "we don't get ticketed by an AI that only follows the rules it was given." Well, we do now in many places and that's a problem.)

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#95

Post by dmbche »

nocoiner wrote: post #48
juujian wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes a ton of sense. I was always confused by that. Reddit has a ton of rules in place, particularly against advocating for violence. I reported a few comments that called for death penalty for someone. Those comments were always greenlit. Maybe I just take stuff to literal. But some people sure have a hard-on for the death penalty...

For whatever reason, it seem like people usually exclude acts undertaken in connection with the state’s monopoly on violence from the scope of these things.

The spirit is that governement is an extension of "the people" and as such this violence is an extension of their own - i.e. in a healthy society the violence perpetrated bt the state is fully known and sanctionned by its citizens.

Like having prisons or letting police use lethal force on dangerous people, some things fit this description - but at some point lines have to be drawn and the leashes have to be reigned in if the violence is not agreed upon anymore - institutionalised racism and the likes.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#96

Post by geobmx540 »

Macha wrote: post #34
bhaney wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's giving you a percentage of people who answered exactly the same as you on all questions. Edit: Okay I have no idea what it's meant to be (other than "11")

The problem is that I also got 11% just saying yes to everything. It would seem surprising to me to have the same percentage of maximalists as there is for people who are in the majority on every question

also 11%

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#97

Post by KMnO4 »

jefftk wrote: post #43
Macha wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that I also got 11% just saying yes to everything. It would seem surprising to me to have the same percentage of maximalists as there is for people who are in the majority on every question

Suspiciously, I also got 11% (no to everything except police, ambulance, and car)

I got 11% as well, with no to everything (including the emergency vehicles) and yes to the Honda civic

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#98

Post by adrr »

bhaney wrote: post #20

Nitpick: The summary at the end labels your choices as "You think it is not a vehicle" or "You think it is a vehicle" based on whether or not you said the situation violates the rule, but some of the scenarios were clearly about whether or not something was in the park , rather than whether or not it was a vehicle. I can think a plane or a space station is a vehicle without thinking it violates the rule about not bei…

Posting “racial epithets” is banned on social networks but if I post a video of a politician saying a racial epithet to raise awareness. Does that violate the rule? We aren’t debating whether or not it was a racial epithet.

Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

#100

Post by lacker »

bhaney wrote: post #20

Nitpick: The summary at the end labels your choices as "You think it is not a vehicle" or "You think it is a vehicle" based on whether or not you said the situation violates the rule, but some of the scenarios were clearly about whether or not something was in the park , rather than whether or not it was a vehicle. I can think a plane or a space station is a vehicle without thinking it violates the rule about not bei…

That seems like good analogy to content moderation. You have to ask "is the forbidden content actually on the site?"

For example you can have a rule like "no sharing pornographic content", but then are people allowed to share links to forbidden content? Links to sites that are 100% links to forbidden content? Links to sites that have one link to forbidden content among a lot of other links? Links to sites that have one extremely prominent link to forbidden content among a lot of other links? How prominent? Etc etc etc.

Post reply on HN