Talk:Internet law/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 8 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Okay

Okay guys, own up: http://clanbase.ggl.com/blog.php?blog=1231 or is it a case that RW is now the source of choice for such internet tomfoolery? ArmondikoV^bomination 09:27, 4 December 2008 (EST)

See also here for an internet article on internet laws. Sterile mitten 16:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ackerman's Law

Civility varies inversely with length of contact.

Corollaries:

1. Previous agreement is no bar to current rudeness.
2. Misunderstanding breeds superiority.
3. Soft data drives out hard.
4. Good faith is a liability.

Uniquerman (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

New Law Proposal

Desteni's Law.

Named after the eponymous cult.

"The likelihood of an organisation being a cult is proportional to the number of videos produced ridiculing or parodying the claim." ^{— Unsigned, by: Welsh / talk / contribs} 16:26, 19 August 2010‎

May I propose my own?

Faunas's law nº 1: "If your only refutation to an argument consists on claming alone your oponents are hypocrites or liars, that probably means that either you're out of good arguments to spend or you don't really know how to argue with your opponents."

Faunas (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Corrected my law a bit. I added the word "probably" to the law. Faunas (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I shall change the name of that other law and add this new one:

Faunas's law nº 2: "If your only refutation to an argument or ideology is heavily dependent on or uses exclusively your own argument or ideology, then your argument or ideology - and thus your refutation - is deemed wrong." Faunas (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Bohdan

The sentence "Internet law is upheld by various people with sysop powers or similar. Oh shi-" seems to be some kind of RW in-joke which I don't get. Permission to remove?--Krej^talk 01:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, fuck it, I'm going alpha-male.--Krej^talk 02:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

EXCamation LAw!!!!!!

I OriGinatED teh PHRSAE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Scherben (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)!!!!!!!!!!!

Talk: Pommer's Law

Original talk page copied here to explain the subtle nuances of the "law"

This is genius

This is genius.-αmεσ (soldier) 01:15, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I thought there was no such thing as a "wrong" opinion. 69.120.4.173 17:16, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes there is. Ask Andy:-) --Bob^{bing up} 08:30, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

This "law" shows that the perception of the "end-user" is always going to be different depending on WHOM the "end-user" is.
While there are no "wrong" opinions, (if, by that, one means an opinion that has been reached through data-derived research and can be supported with the rhetorical tools at one's disposal), it is ultimately the responsibility of the brain's owner to understand that somewhere, out on the internets, someone, someplace holds the exact and diametrically opposite view: One of the two is (obviously) "wrong". Since no-one can believe something that is obviously false the implication is clear, The other guy holds the wrong opinion.
This here, is (naturally enough) my opinion, hence it is wrong, somewhere.
Your question is merely confirmation of the Law in effect. CЯacke® 09:14, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

I disagree

I know someone who went from believing his white supremacist parents to actually coming to learn that people who are "different" are actually some of the best people ever. Kwsn 13:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

But this only proves the Law's validity...Your friend's ex-compatriots will now hold that he has the "wrong opinion", conversely he (probably) sees them holding their views in error. CЯacke®

What kind of backwards logic is that? That just makes the law meaningless, since any opinion you form is inevitably wrong in someone's eyes. No, it should mean that when you form an opinion due to the internet, there is a high chance of it being the absolute wrong opinion, assuming that there is a wrongness that is not relative. Nullahnung (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Twaddle

This law has a few exceptions, of course. Some people may well find extra information on the internet that counteracts their prejudice and turn it into something more positive and based in reality. However, Pommer's Law is a commentary on the amount of shit out there and the number of people who will believe it at the drop of a hat, which is far, far higher figure.

On any question (under the sun) there will be those that argue X and those that see X as insane, holding rather to Y.

Whether one holds either one or the other isn't germane to the Law, only that someone else holds the exact and diametrically opposite view:clearly someone is WRONG.

Take (for example) the above ==I disagree== section head, the person who comes to the "enlightened" view merely agrees with those who also hold that view, those that hold oppositely will view the "enlightenment" as befuddlement.

Again as above...this is MY opinion, as such it is WRONG thus proving the Law.

11:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC) CЯacke®

Good point, I have added it in. ^bomination 18:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is backwards logic and makes the law meaningless. There should be an absolute wrong and an absolute right somewhere out there, as in matters of science for example. Nullahnung (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

There's already a name for it

It's called confirmation bias 24.215.166.162 (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Really not the same thing as confirmation bias is a methodological flaw in your search and testing procedure, this is a silly quip about the internet. ^theist 09:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Internet case is not Special

This law, as stated, may be correct as far as it goes. But it is clearly a limited example of the more general law that replaces "internet", with "source containing many errors." Those sources would include the vast majority of all texts and media.Ariel31459 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Fedrick's Law

Does this law appear anywhere other than this page? --SpecialFFrog (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Not that I can find. In a minute it will disappear from this page too. Slurm und Drang (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at UD.--Arisboch (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I found that but "Fedrick"!="Frederick" and the definition is not the same. If it was I would have assumed a typo and fixed it. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Muphry's law

The law that any published comment correcting someone else's language will itself contain an error, is known to me as Muphry's law. Though I haven't investigated the history. I wasn't sure how to insert mention of it into this page.^{— Unsigned, by: 110.20.158.134 / talk / contribs} 20:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Godwin's Law

Wasn't it originally implied or stated in Godwin's Law, that whoever brought up Hitler or Nazis first, had lost the argument? Or is this an addendum? I'm just drawing from memory here, most likely from talk.origins — sorely missed, but they are still here, or should be, I tried to have a look at it just now, and the connection expired. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot: Had lost the argument unless it was necessary in context. You can't discuss much of 20. century history without referring to Hitler, Stalin, Mao and all sorts of other less than likable characters. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Godwin's Law was originally stated by Richard Sexton, 'round about the time of Linux 0.89, or maybe it was Java 0.89. I was distracted by the Christians riding around on dinosaurs outside my window, so it could have been both. I don't know, but that's how long ago it was. (Is. It is now long ago. At the time it was then now.)

Mike Godwin was in the conversation someplace, and his quotation a few days later went viral. Acquired eponymousity syndrome.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The version or first derivative I heard was 'Whoever brings Hitler or Stalin (or other such negatively viewed person) unnecessarily into a discussion has automatically lost the argument.'