3 ms·

So much for "but DRM plugins are the better solution, because you can decline to install them." eg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7058004 https://news.yc

So much for "but DRM plugins are the better solution, because you can decline to install them." eg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7058004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7058004 This is exactly why 'slippery slope' arguments are not as fallacious as people make them out to be. Humans are not rationally acting robots. Spreading out an unacceptable change into a series of gradual and individually acceptable changes does work (even though logically it shouldn't), because it slowly shifts people's baseline expectations.

vetinari 10y ago
This concept is being called either boiling frog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog or Overton window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window (in political sciences)
thehardsphere 10y ago
> This is exactly why 'slippery slope' arguments are not as fallacious as people make them out to be. "Slippery slopes" are only fallacious when you don't actually describe a mechanism from reaching the top of the slope to the bottom. "If we let women vote, next thing you know there will be gays in the military." That's fallacious because there's no connection at all between women's sufferage and gays in the military. Many slippery slope arguments take that form. "If we allow DRM plugins, we will eventually have DRM in the browser always on," could be considered fallacious because it's not made explicit how one gets from DRM plugins to DRM always on, even if it may be implicitly obvious. "If we allow DRM plugins, we will eventually have DRM in the browser always on because that is the endgame Netflix et al wants and they are spreading out the implementation of their evil master plan to gain compliance" isn't fallacious as a slippery slope because the mechanism is made explicit.
- matt4077 10y ago
  It doesn't work like that. "Slippery slope" is, by itself, a mechanism. It means exactly what you're describing in your last paragraph, except it does not require someone explicitly planning the progression. "Spreading out the implementation..." does not improve the argument because it's just restating the definition of "slippery slope". The statement that Netflix has some "evil master plan" is an assertion without proof and doesn't add anything to the argument, either.
  - thehardsphere 10y ago
    I'm sorry, but I think you're simply incorrect. The premise that Netflix is acting with mallace could be false or true. If that premise is stated and false, then the argument is valid yet unsound because it has a false premise. Valid meaning, the conclusion would follow from the premises if all of them were true. If you remove discussion of the mechanism from the argument, so that it reads like the arguments stated in the first and second paragraphs, then the argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. That's what a fallacy is.
Klathmon 10y ago
This was an oversight not removal. If you read the bug report they have already resolved this by putting the option in another place to disable this.

vetinari 10y ago

This concept is being called either boiling frog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog or Overton window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window (in political sciences)

thehardsphere 10y ago

> This is exactly why 'slippery slope' arguments are not as fallacious as people make them out to be. "Slippery slopes" are only fallacious when you don't actually describe a mechanism from reaching the top of the slope to the bottom. "If we let women vote, next thing you know there will be gays in the military." That's fallacious because there's no connection at all between women's sufferage and gays in the military. Many slippery slope arguments take that form. "If we allow DRM plugins, we will eventually have DRM in the browser always on," could be considered fallacious because it's not made explicit how one gets from DRM plugins to DRM always on, even if it may be implicitly obvious. "If we allow DRM plugins, we will eventually have DRM in the browser always on because that is the endgame Netflix et al wants and they are spreading out the implementation of their evil master plan to gain compliance" isn't fallacious as a slippery slope because the mechanism is made explicit.

matt4077 10y ago
It doesn't work like that. "Slippery slope" is, by itself, a mechanism. It means exactly what you're describing in your last paragraph, except it does not require someone explicitly planning the progression. "Spreading out the implementation..." does not improve the argument because it's just restating the definition of "slippery slope". The statement that Netflix has some "evil master plan" is an assertion without proof and doesn't add anything to the argument, either.
- thehardsphere 10y ago
  I'm sorry, but I think you're simply incorrect. The premise that Netflix is acting with mallace could be false or true. If that premise is stated and false, then the argument is valid yet unsound because it has a false premise. Valid meaning, the conclusion would follow from the premises if all of them were true. If you remove discussion of the mechanism from the argument, so that it reads like the arguments stated in the first and second paragraphs, then the argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. That's what a fallacy is.

Klathmon 10y ago

This was an oversight not removal. If you read the bug report they have already resolved this by putting the option in another place to disable this.