> did you get to the end Yes, I did. The end is precisely the annoying part, and is making the same ‘it’s hopeless’ argument as the blog post here. The author

> did you get to the end Yes, I did. The end is precisely the annoying part, and is making the same ‘it’s hopeless’ argument as the blog post here. The author said “Some people think there could be simple rules […] I want to problematize this.”, and “ pinning down a definition is usually impossible”, and “You might think you can add enough epicycles to your rules to avoid this problem”. He concedes that one can reduce the problem in the middle of paragraph 5 after stating over and over that the problem is insurmountable. I think some folks are misunderstanding my comment; I’m aware that moderation and laws are hard, and that edge cases are fractal whack-a-mole. I’m pushing back on the summary take-away message, on the framing. It’s a subtlety, but I think an important one. I don’t think the right message to send as the top and foremost idea is that it’s impossible, and making it any better is a complete and total slog that introduces exponential problems. I think a better message is that words can be interpreted in many ways, so care is required, and with effort it’s possible to make significant improvements. And I think the ‘no vehicles’ in the park could have easily demonstrated that just a few words would have fixed the bulk of the issue, but the author chose not to in order to serve the framing he intended.