On nebulosity, see https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262134095/ . No need to read it, just to be aware that there’s a thick book full of people trying to get a handle on what a concept like “park” or “vehicle” or “in” actually is for humans, and failing completely.
The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
541–550 of 1001 posts
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#542Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously. I read the rule and I hear "keep the park a park". Only the car is forbidden and everything else goes.
Same here. I looked at the intent of the rule given the context. Rules are enforced by humans not robots and are meaningless without context. When you do try to enforce rules literally, you end up with kids being expelled because they brought an action figure to school, or teenagers being executed because they fell into a flower bed.
You weren't being asked to enforce a rule, you were being asked to determine if a rule has been violated.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#543I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…
> So if this is supposed to be an example of how content moderation rules are unclear to follow, it's achieving precisely the opposite.
The game gives a super simple 2-paragraph-instruction that I feel could not be any clearer, but that you chose to ignore in favor of your own interpretation of what is being asked (because you deem the intent "crystal-clear").
Super fascinating.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#544Earlier quoted context omitted.
The game was pretty clear that the question was not if it "should be allowed to violate the rule", but if it violates the rule in the first place.
Does something violate the rule if it’s allowed based on common sense? I don’t think so.
Obviously, it does. The rule says "No vehicles in the park" and tells you specifically not to moralize , justify, or apply local laws.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#545Nitpick: 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…
I was thinking along these lines as well but after reading the explanation at the end of the game, I’m not so sure. The rule is no vehicles in the park. I’ve also concluded that an ambulance or police responding to a call didn’t violate the rule but saw that a lot of people seemed to think it did. And it made me think. The rules say to not apply any other rule but the stated one. And if you follow the rule to the let…
The instructions beforehand were very clear that you should answer whether the scenario violated the rule, not whether it should be allowed.
I suppose that's the beauty, intentional or not, of this exercise... Since the point was to highlight human behavior your response is still a valid, important datapoint despite you "failing" to complete the exercise according to the instructions.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#546Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say the tank is no longer a vehicle. More like a statue than a vehicle.
how is it getting into the park? If it's rolling, IMO it's still a vehicle. If a truck is dropping it off, still a no-no
What if it's fired from a cannon and lands in the park?
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#547Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Now you're assuming the intent. The park could contain loose soil on the edge of a cliff, so any vehicle drivi…
>Now you're assuming the intent. That's true but without assuming intent you end up blindly following rules. Something struck me when first moved to UK from Turkey: Every rule in UK seemed to have an intent and that's why I think Turkey is full of rules which no one follows but in UK the rules are less numerous but followed. In Turkey, Turks like to think that the rules are not followed because the fines are too smal…
You might be interested in reading the classical book about cultural difference by Geert Hofstede as it provides another perspective on this.
He describes what he calls uncertainty avoidance cultures that try to reduce uncertainty by making lots of rules. These end up being impossible to follow, so it's generally expected that you don't. He contrasts this with cultures that are low on uncertainty avoidance that have fewer rules, but on the other hand it's expected that they are followed.
This is probably to some degree a caricature.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#548I'm fascinated by the fact that my takeaway is the precise opposite of what the author intended. To me, the answer to all of the questions was crystal-clear. Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) do…
Exactly. There is a clear majority in the answers. Sure, there are edge cases, but they are edge cases. But I also want to say this is a really cool website. I love how he used this experience to set the table for what is otherwise essentially a blog post. Very cool. But to hone in a bit more: > It was about content moderation. Specifically, some people think that there could be simple rules for Internet content that…
> Once you stop using moderation to implicitly endorse speech you aren't as responsible for anything that is said. This is the entire point of section 230.
Are you suggesting that section 230 is meant to discourage Internet intermediaries from moderation?
The original intent of this law was to stop requiring intermediaries to choose between adopting a passive conduit role and having legal responsibility for content. The legislators hoped that providing a general protection from liability for user-generated content would encourage more moderation by intermediaries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Background_and_pas...
That might not have been the most pro-speech policy option overall but it was notionally very pluralist (with different platforms potentially having very different standards, purposes, goals, rules, communities, etc.) and it did manage to temper the previous somewhat paradoxical incentives, as well as providing a lot of legal certainty to facilitate the creation of new platforms of various sizes and models.
Pretty much everyone on the Internet is frustrated by moderation and sees pathologies and biases of moderation, intermediaries putting their thumb on scales, and so on. On the other hand, what we haven't seen is the enormous volume of litigation against intermediaries that would occur without §230. I expect people would literally be suing Y Combinator over HN moderation decisions. I can think of HN moderation decisions that I really disagree with, but it's impossible for me to imagine that having had those turn into lawsuits would somehow have been better for anyone.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#549Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, you can academically wonder whether an orbiting space station is a vehicle and whether it's in the park, but the obvious intent of the sign couldn't be clearer. Cars/trucks/motorcycles aren't allowed, and obviously police and ambulances (and fire trucks) doing their jobs don't have to follow the sign. Now you're assuming the intent. The park could contain loose soil on the edge of a cliff, so any vehicle drivi…
> Now you're assuming the intent. No, it's not assuming, it's interpreting based on prior experience in communication. > The park could contain loose soil on the edge of a cliff. Then the sign would mention that, simple as that. > But the larger point is that people can adopt the "obvious intent" version of the rule when it suits them and the pedantic version of the rule when it suits them. I agree with you here, it…
> No, it's not assuming, it's interpreting based on prior experience in communication.
It's assuming the intent without sufficient context to know what it actually is. Because very little context was provided. And the context that was provided strongly implied that the rule was important.
> Then the sign would mention that, simple as that.
We don't even know if there was a sign. None of that was specified.
Re: The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”
#550Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's not really a local thing; I'd be shocked if there was a park which meaningfully controlled it's airspace. Practically the bounds of a park only go so high.
I mean, while it's not technically just the park, I'm sure there are several parks on US Military bases where the airspace is restricted. Also, we can be the change we wish to see in the world: any park can be a park with a controlled airspace if you bring enough surface-to-air missiles into the park.
That hypothetical airspace is restricted due to it being a military base... Which means you're applying other rules beyond what's written