Comment by bhaney

That is a pretty clear distinction. A separate site has separate administration, can be blocked separately, etc. Otherwise you have additional rules: disallow direct links to forbidden content that causes it to render on the page, disallow linking to specific forbidden content, disallow links to on blacklisted domains, allow only whitelisted domain links.

This is why Reddit is banned in Indonesia; because there's a bit of porn. Now laypeople just use Twitter instead...

Interestingly, some people added others that weren't explicit in the rule. For example, the person riding a skateboard was considered a violation by roughly twice as many people as the person carrying one, despite both being identical on the "is a vehicle" and "in the park" axes. I suppose unless someone's definition of vehicle depends on it being in use.

It is funny that you say so because for me the primary axis was about whether the rule was violated or not.

This is why some people (including myself) chose that an ambulance driven into a park wouldn't be a violation of the rule.

The instructions explain that, so it shouldn't interfere with the decision making, but the thing that the instructions don't talk about is whether the park extends indefinitely into the sky. One need not even consider the legal aspect of this (airspace rights: historical versus modern) but merely consider what it means to be in the park! Personally, I think that if the vehicle is making contact with the ground then it's "in" the park, but if it's not making contact with the ground then it's "above" the park.

> in the real world there are always multiple conflicting rules that apply

I think it might be worse than that, there are sometimes rules which aren't actually rules which can still (sometimes!) override rules which are.

No, you missed the point entirely. The question was whether the scenario is a violation but the answers were not labeled accordingly.

For an exercise that is, by it's own admission, pedantic by design that's a pretty glaring fault

> But you can fly a plane across the globe without going through 15 separate immigration rituals, so for most practical purposes (obviously excluding things like no-fly zones or bomber planes) the plane is not "in" any of the areas it passes over.

But you were specifically instructed to not use any laws local to your jurisdiction, and that's why this can happen. The 15 countries it flew over are members of the ICAO, which delegated some of their sovereignty to the common good of easy air travel. It could have easily worked out some other way; fly over our country without stopping for immigration, and we blow up your plane. (You can see this in action if you fly your plane from Canada to do a low approach over the White House. You probably won't be home for dinner.) Similarly, in the US, the FAA decides who can fly over your property and how low. These are not universal constraints on existence, just actual laws that people wrote down because nobody could agree on the details. I'd venture a guess that if you asked the average property owner if airplanes could fly over their property and stare at them in their hot tubs, they'd say "no". However, the law simply doesn't agree with them, and a satellite is photographing your underwear as we speak!

You can fly a plane across the globe but the plane's flight path must be approved by each of the 15 countries before it is allowed in their airspace.

The countries often ask for passenger lists and manifests before they allow your plane to do so and have, in the past forced planes to land to get to passengers or suspected passengers on the plane they have an interest in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

Funnily enough, by your wide standard, any footwear would also be considered a vehicle.

Even for no-fly zones, we don't say 'in' the place. We say in the zone. We're over the place, but in the zone.

Is an airplane in your park if you put a roof over it? Is an airplane in your house?

The plane question stated the plane was `over` the park which implies it is not in the park. If the question instead said `through` the park, the answer would differ.

Humans carry all kinds of goods and often carry people. Even if we limit "goods" to exclude our personal effects, someone carrying takeout across a park—especially for someone else—could be considered a vehicle by that definition.

Additionally strollers, wagons, and other baby or child conveyances would also qualify.

So that includes wheelchair?

Backpack? Dog? Dog with a backpack? Horse? Riding a horse?

I say none are vehicles but I could see how one might.

Let's say that in your opinion: (a) it's a vehicle, (b) it's in the park, (c) but the park authority doesn't have jurisdiction over the activity.

Is the correct resolution to deny (b)?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what "in the park" represents within the analogy.

I didn’t get that question.

The instructions beforehand were very clear that you should answer whether the scenario violated the rule, not whether it should be allowed.

I suppose that's the beauty, intentional or not, of this exercise... Since the point was to highlight human behavior your response is still a valid, important datapoint despite you "failing" to complete the exercise according to the instructions.

Ha, so they have

If "in the park" is meant as an analogy for "on the platform" in content moderation, then curiously enough Twitter suspended @RealDonaldTrump for off-park action (Jan 6).

Yes, defined terms are critical. As the exercise went on, I kept refining my mental model of what a “vehicle” was in the context of the park sign.

I eventually came up with a mental model that was something like “an artificially powered or mechanically advantaged means of conveyance or transport, especially one that creates negative externalities to other park goers inconsistent with typical use and enjoyment of public park space.” But that wasn’t absolute - the non-functional tank was, in my mind, quite obviously a vehicle, and so was prohibited. Someone at a higher pay grade is going to have to make an exception there. The skydiver - ehhh, it was a stretch to call him a vehicle, but by my heuristic he broke the sign’s rule.

I don't think it really matters. The point I guess was that an ambulance or police car is obviously a vehicle, and obviously in the park. And yet enforcing this seemingly simple and logical rule becomes so absurd that some people would decide that a police car is not a vehicle just because it should be allowed in.

If I bring a box of chocolate cars into the park and eat them, that's a violation too, right?

(If Schrodinger brings a backpack into the park but doesn't know what's in it, is that a violation? Did you pack your own luggage today, sir/maam?)

This lead me to question about size. Clearly a traditional animal dragged sized one is a vehicle. But those small ones pulled by hand are not.

Same goes for things like kites and quadrocopters.

Wagons are vehicles in the strictest since.