4 ms·

> I was relying on a very light social contract that was in place there This was never a social contract so I actually wonder how you or the original blog post

by dvt 3y ago

> I was relying on a very light social contract that was in place there This was never a social contract so I actually wonder how you or the original blog poster ever got to that idea. In fact, it's explicitly not the social contract if you ever read the Terms of Service of sites like Twitter and/or Reddit.

derefr 3y ago
You're thinking of a legal contract. A social contract is what two sides do in practice in order to not piss the other off.
- dvt 3y ago
  I know exactly what a social contract is, and it's always superseded by a legal contract (which the ToS sort-of is, though it would have to go through the courts if challenged). Given that the ToS explicitly says that Reddit et al. can do whatever they want with your data, the idea that there's a social contract there is wishful thinking.
  - digitalsushi 3y ago
    I get what simonw is saying though. Reddit: We could sell API access to your answers, per our TOS reddit poster: k Reddit: We're gonna sell API access to your answers, per our TOS reddit poster: then nevermind Both have a superseding TOS but the social contract is still appreciable
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    > wishful thinking It remains to be seen who is thinking wishfully. If Reddit dies because their users all go away, there really may have been a social contract which Reddit breached. Reddit has a ToS which may attempt to supersede such a social contract but it doesn't necessarily.
  - derefr 3y ago
    Uhh... I really don't think you do know what a social contract is. A social contract is a temporary state of affairs, where both sides are benefitting from being able to implicitly hold the other side to it; where either side can freely breach it, but where this dissolves the social contract that held until that moment; and where dissolving the social contract will (obviously) cause the other side to rescind all benefits they were granting the other, and instead revert to whatever it perceives as the game-theoretic global optimum — usually involving local indefinite defection, to "make an example of" the party that violated the social contract. A ceasefire during a battle is an example of a social contract. Neither side shoots until the other does. Once someone shoots, the other side responds with everything they have, to make an example of the side that shot first. Not eating your coworkers' food in the office fridge is another example of a social contract. Once someone violates it, people either stop putting food in the fridge, or start petty games of bringing random leftovers dosed with ex-lax to work and leaving them in the fridge. A social contract isn't "superseded by a legal contract"; a social contract is relied upon in preference to a legal contract. The legal system only applies when a given social contract is broken and dissolved by one party breaching it, thus leaving no recourse other than the underlying legal reality. The social contract for Reddit, that did exist until it was breached, was "Reddit lets people consume its data for free; and in exchange, users act to curate and maintain and grow the data, rather than actively polluting/destroying/lessening the data." Now that that social contract is dissolved, users are doing everything they can to make Reddit a shithole.
    - simonw 3y ago
      That's exactly what I meant by a social contract, thanks for clarifying it so well.
    - fswd 3y ago
      I have these thoughts about the homeless problem.
      - velp 3y ago
        Can you elaborate?
    - 3y ago
  - davorak 3y ago
    > I know exactly what a social contract is, and it's always superseded by a legal contract Legally sure, it is also legal to be a jerk but in most circles/societies there is social contract to not be. Social contracts are often built on top of legal contracts where you live by the social contract and fall back on the legal protections of the legal contract where that fails. Most ToSs and contracts with social media companies are one sided though so for the average user there is not much to fall back on. I think why people use social contracts on top of legal ones is because it is hard to get all of the details right in a legal document while in a social contract is normally more flexible and can change through time with iterative back and forth and therefore can make both sides better off compared to if they just stuck with the legal framework.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    The legal contract states that Reddit can do what it wants with the data, yes, but there is no consideration for production. That is where the social contract takes over. The social contract states (allegedly, at least; we shall see) that producers agree to produce content in perpetuity so long as Reddit plays nice with the data. With that contract broken, production may cease.
  - chc 3y ago
    I think you're confusing the term "social contract" with "oral contract." An oral contract will usually be superseded by a written contract, but saying a written contract supersedes a social contract seems like a category error. One determines your legal standing, the other determines your social standing, neither really supersedes the other.
  - halostatue 3y ago
    There’s still a social contract that is supra the ToS: treat me and my contributions well and we will stick around. Stop, and we won’t. Yes, Reddit can (try, at least) get away with anything they claim in the ToS — but community members have every right to step away and render Reddit valueless because they have been told that they are not valued. Pretending that a legal contract supersedes a social contract is wishful thinking. They are orthogonal.
  - evolve2k 3y ago
    You are thinking of a social agreement often called a “handshake agreement” or “verbal agreement”. Yes a verbal or social agreement at law is often superceded by a written agreement mainly because there’s a specific common clause in written agreements that say exactly this. The above legal concept is distinct from the term “social contract” that is a sociological term and has a wider definition that a mere legal meaning. Most of our laws are intended to capture concepts that have wider social and cultural relevance to the society to which they apply. “Marriage” by example is a term with both a distinct legal meaning in many legal jurisdictions as well as a wider sociological conception that can vary from culture to culture.

by dvt 3y ago

derefr 3y ago

You're thinking of a legal contract. A social contract is what two sides do in practice in order to not piss the other off.

dvt 3y ago
I know exactly what a social contract is, and it's always superseded by a legal contract (which the ToS sort-of is, though it would have to go through the courts if challenged). Given that the ToS explicitly says that Reddit et al. can do whatever they want with your data, the idea that there's a social contract there is wishful thinking.
- digitalsushi 3y ago
  I get what simonw is saying though. Reddit: We could sell API access to your answers, per our TOS reddit poster: k Reddit: We're gonna sell API access to your answers, per our TOS reddit poster: then nevermind Both have a superseding TOS but the social contract is still appreciable
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > wishful thinking It remains to be seen who is thinking wishfully. If Reddit dies because their users all go away, there really may have been a social contract which Reddit breached. Reddit has a ToS which may attempt to supersede such a social contract but it doesn't necessarily.
- derefr 3y ago
  Uhh... I really don't think you do know what a social contract is. A social contract is a temporary state of affairs, where both sides are benefitting from being able to implicitly hold the other side to it; where either side can freely breach it, but where this dissolves the social contract that held until that moment; and where dissolving the social contract will (obviously) cause the other side to rescind all benefits they were granting the other, and instead revert to whatever it perceives as the game-theoretic global optimum — usually involving local indefinite defection, to "make an example of" the party that violated the social contract. A ceasefire during a battle is an example of a social contract. Neither side shoots until the other does. Once someone shoots, the other side responds with everything they have, to make an example of the side that shot first. Not eating your coworkers' food in the office fridge is another example of a social contract. Once someone violates it, people either stop putting food in the fridge, or start petty games of bringing random leftovers dosed with ex-lax to work and leaving them in the fridge. A social contract isn't "superseded by a legal contract"; a social contract is relied upon in preference to a legal contract. The legal system only applies when a given social contract is broken and dissolved by one party breaching it, thus leaving no recourse other than the underlying legal reality. The social contract for Reddit, that did exist until it was breached, was "Reddit lets people consume its data for free; and in exchange, users act to curate and maintain and grow the data, rather than actively polluting/destroying/lessening the data." Now that that social contract is dissolved, users are doing everything they can to make Reddit a shithole.
  - simonw 3y ago
    That's exactly what I meant by a social contract, thanks for clarifying it so well.
  - fswd 3y ago
    I have these thoughts about the homeless problem.
    - velp 3y ago
      Can you elaborate?
  - 3y ago
- davorak 3y ago
  > I know exactly what a social contract is, and it's always superseded by a legal contract Legally sure, it is also legal to be a jerk but in most circles/societies there is social contract to not be. Social contracts are often built on top of legal contracts where you live by the social contract and fall back on the legal protections of the legal contract where that fails. Most ToSs and contracts with social media companies are one sided though so for the average user there is not much to fall back on. I think why people use social contracts on top of legal ones is because it is hard to get all of the details right in a legal document while in a social contract is normally more flexible and can change through time with iterative back and forth and therefore can make both sides better off compared to if they just stuck with the legal framework.
- randomdata 3y ago
  The legal contract states that Reddit can do what it wants with the data, yes, but there is no consideration for production. That is where the social contract takes over. The social contract states (allegedly, at least; we shall see) that producers agree to produce content in perpetuity so long as Reddit plays nice with the data. With that contract broken, production may cease.
- chc 3y ago
  I think you're confusing the term "social contract" with "oral contract." An oral contract will usually be superseded by a written contract, but saying a written contract supersedes a social contract seems like a category error. One determines your legal standing, the other determines your social standing, neither really supersedes the other.
- halostatue 3y ago
  There’s still a social contract that is supra the ToS: treat me and my contributions well and we will stick around. Stop, and we won’t. Yes, Reddit can (try, at least) get away with anything they claim in the ToS — but community members have every right to step away and render Reddit valueless because they have been told that they are not valued. Pretending that a legal contract supersedes a social contract is wishful thinking. They are orthogonal.
- evolve2k 3y ago
  You are thinking of a social agreement often called a “handshake agreement” or “verbal agreement”. Yes a verbal or social agreement at law is often superceded by a written agreement mainly because there’s a specific common clause in written agreements that say exactly this. The above legal concept is distinct from the term “social contract” that is a sociological term and has a wider definition that a mere legal meaning. Most of our laws are intended to capture concepts that have wider social and cultural relevance to the society to which they apply. “Marriage” by example is a term with both a distinct legal meaning in many legal jurisdictions as well as a wider sociological conception that can vary from culture to culture.