Five So-called Internet Laws to Remember

Dealing with game journalism is not an easy task. The medium is so diluted that the previously deep journalism in even the shallow enthusiast press has devolved into a cesspool of clickbait articles and Buzzfeed lists.

With that in mind, it's important not just for journalists but readers to remember these five internet "laws" that will inform how you view argumentation on the internet.


1. Cohen's Law - This was framed originally by Brian Cohen, and is phrased like this:

Whoever resorts to the argument "whoever resorts to the argument that... has automatically lost the debate" has automatically lost the debate.

It is generally accepted that claiming this argument only insists that you are correct and your opponent is wrong, and is obviously not a good argument to make.


2. Poe's Law - Originally phrased by Nathan Poe. This law is an interesting one, especially in light of Godfrey Elfwick, the notorious Twitter hoaxer who has appeared to actually hold transracial and highly radical feminist views. He was so good at it that the BBC had him on one of their programs to describe how Star Wars was anti-woman and racist. Poe's Law is in full effect. This was previously mentioned in 1983 by Jerry Schwarz. He wrote:

Avoid sarcasm and facetious remarks.

Without the voice inflection and body language of personal communication these are easily misinterpreted. A sideways smile, :-), has become widely accepted on the net as an indication that "I'm only kidding". If you submit a satiric item without this symbol, no matter how obvious the satire is to you, do not be surprised if people take it seriously.

People can not distinguish satire, parody, and sarcasm on the internet without some indication of it. The modern usage is (sarcasm) or /sarcasm.

Generally, Poe's Law is written as:

Without a clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extremism are indistinguishable from sincere expressions of extremism

3. Godwin's Law - Originally phrased by Mike Godwin. This one is particularly poignant given recent events in gaming. Generally, it is used in internet debates to acknowledge the desire by people to compare their enemies or people they disagree with Hitler or Nazis:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1

As internet "controversies" rage, the internet press machine has resorted to this time and again in regards to gamers. It never makes your argument look good to compare a group to Nazis, it only makes your position look weak.


4. Shank's Law - This one is rather obscure, but it nonetheless important. Having been in academia myself, I can verify it's claims:

The imaginative powers of the human mind have yet to rise to the challenge of concocting a conspiracy theory so batshit insane that one cannot find at least one Ph.D holding scientist to support it.

Many sites use it as a form of an appeal to authority fallacy, which is accurate.


5. Danth's Law - This law is one that fascinates me. Apparently the users of RPG.net had a user named Danth who got into arguments and one such argument led to the creation of this law.

If a person has to insist they won the argument, they have probably lost it.

This one is particularly telling given the nature of online discussion. As these gaming controversies rage people insist they're "winning" and "have won". Never announce your own victory, it looks foolish when you do it.

So there you have it. Five internet laws that are helpful to understand not only human nature but the modern climate in gaming.