3 ms·

I'll freely admit to complete ignorance, but this seems like a bad idea. Much like we use well-defined but somewhat arcane terminology to talk about computers,

I'll freely admit to complete ignorance, but this seems like a bad idea. Much like we use well-defined but somewhat arcane terminology to talk about computers, because precision is important, I'm skeptical about the implications of "plain" language in laws. Precision and comprehensibility to an uneducated person seem like they would always be at odds.

cowpig 2y ago
To add to this, language models are now quite good at explaining legalese, so that limits the positive impact of pushing for plainer language.
jandrese 2y ago
The laws are basically jargon. There is a good reason behind the wording, it rests on centuries of case law of people hammering out exactly what each work or phrase means exactly, but it does add a layer of obfuscation for the layman. The law is a huge machine, and the laws are the code. Could it be better? Definitely. Lots of decisions were made that were a good idea at the time but are now pain points, but the system is too big to make systematic changes. You have to work within the framework.
- vlovich123 2y ago
  > the system is too big to make systematic changes This seems like a flawed argument to me that if applied would see technology stagnating. The reason it’s flawed is the assumption that the system is at a fixed max size. However, if it’s growing quickly, you can always come up with new systemic ways of doing things that are divorced from the past and over time most of the things are done the new way. You can even refactor/replace the old stuff over time. Law isn’t quite like code which is where this analogy breaks down a bit but something to think about.
  - nradov 2y ago
    In a common law system, like what we use in the USA and most of the Anglosphere, it is impossible to divorce from the past.
f1shy 2y ago
I'm not going to fine or send somebody to jail with my computer jargon... that is a huge difference. I'm not agains jargon, in other disciplines, even internally between lawyers in procedures for example. But the law that applies to ME, I have to be able to parse it.

cowpig 2y ago

To add to this, language models are now quite good at explaining legalese, so that limits the positive impact of pushing for plainer language.

jandrese 2y ago

The laws are basically jargon. There is a good reason behind the wording, it rests on centuries of case law of people hammering out exactly what each work or phrase means exactly, but it does add a layer of obfuscation for the layman. The law is a huge machine, and the laws are the code. Could it be better? Definitely. Lots of decisions were made that were a good idea at the time but are now pain points, but the system is too big to make systematic changes. You have to work within the framework.

vlovich123 2y ago
> the system is too big to make systematic changes This seems like a flawed argument to me that if applied would see technology stagnating. The reason it’s flawed is the assumption that the system is at a fixed max size. However, if it’s growing quickly, you can always come up with new systemic ways of doing things that are divorced from the past and over time most of the things are done the new way. You can even refactor/replace the old stuff over time. Law isn’t quite like code which is where this analogy breaks down a bit but something to think about.
- nradov 2y ago
  In a common law system, like what we use in the USA and most of the Anglosphere, it is impossible to divorce from the past.

f1shy 2y ago

I'm not going to fine or send somebody to jail with my computer jargon... that is a huge difference. I'm not agains jargon, in other disciplines, even internally between lawyers in procedures for example. But the law that applies to ME, I have to be able to parse it.