Comment by seeknotfind

I interpreted the ambulance and police as breaking the rule, even though it wouldn't be persecuted. Of course the important thing isn't the rule, but people's reaction over time. A vehicle might cause unwanted noise or damage park grounds. Even without the rule, people might get upset if people use vehicles to degrade park quality. On the other end, if the park is many miles across and it has large paved trails, people might perceive the rule as unjust. So it's ultimately this negotiation and power between participants (including the park owners) that determines acceptability. An arbitrary rule which is easy to break but without real harm, in enforcing it, creates more harm than it prevents. So, I don't care about the rule but how it's enforced. Another concept useful to these situations is Taleb's intransigent minority: those who care will win over those who don't. With content moderation, we will always have a battle between those who perceive harm and those who don't. Problematic rules must be fought just as problematic content must be fought. A systems ability to adapt rules over time will ultimately determine its useful life. Change or be replaced.