Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

What you describe gets far closer to why moderation is tricky. The interesting question--to me at least--is whether some subset of people can apply such reasoning consistently.

Danluu is arguing that because a set of randomly chosen people cannot agree how to apply a simple statement like "No vehicles in the park" that moderation is impossible. If so, the same would no doubt be true of the following language in an NDA:

> Each Receiving Party shall: (a) maintain all Confidential Information in confidence; and (b) exercise at least the same degree of care to safeguard the Confidential Information that it uses to safeguard its own Confidential Information (but no less than reasonable care).

Yet, US courts would not have a lot of problems interpreting this language consistently because terms like "reasonable care" have definitions that anyone trained in the law would understand. [0] The fact that uninitiated people may not be able to do so is not relevant.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_care



>Danluu is arguing that because a set of randomly chosen people cannot agree how to apply a simple statement like "No vehicles in the park" that moderation is impossible.

I don't think this is correct, I think they're arguing that uncontroversial moderation is impossible. That moderation will inevitably lead to drama.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: