[raynr]

> I propose that the differences in opinion are likely differences in understanding the ill-defined context of the question.

The whole point of the article is that *on large platforms* it is impossible to have policies on moderation, etc. that people agree on. Not small, interest-specific, geographically and linguistically focussed niche platforms.

The example is further perfectly illustrated by users here dropping their confident, just-so how-tos that would accomplish difficult tasks like moderation easily, and other users disagreeing with their equally confident, personally experienced difficulties in executing such just-so plans.

If you can define the question so narrowly as to make the answers obvious, you're not talking about the same problem anymore.

[crystaln]

Maybe that is the point of the article, however that is not the finding of the experiment the article is based on.

If the experiment was, "When should a park in your neighborhood apply the rule 'no vehicles in the park'?" I believe the outcome would have been very different with near universal agreement on the most important questions.

Maybe someone should try such an experiment.

[noqc]

"pretend you are an enforcement official, and your only official guidance is this sign, the purpose of this rule is to keep the park safe, but you might get reprimanded if you kick someone out of the park and you can't convince your boss that they were breaking this rule"

This is all absolutely implicit context for many real world rules enforcers. I would bet money that if you reran this experiment with that prompt you would get over 60% of people in 100% agreement.