Poe's Law, and Other Internet Laws

The internet is in constant flux. What appears written today may disappear tomorrow, resurface, change its format, vanish again, or be completely replaced. And yet, there are certain guidelines... unwritten laws that have managed to withstand the test of time. Naturally, most users are unaware of the existence of these internet laws, and it's never a bad idea to briefly review them. One of the most interesting is Poe's Law, which describes the impossibility of parodying an extreme point of view without someone taking it too seriously…

The Unwritten Laws of the Internet

Every law requires some resistance to change and the passage of time, but the internet is a whirlwind that constantly reinvents itself. For this reason, it's difficult to talk about "internet laws". While certain governments would love to more intensely regulate what happens on the network of networks, its nature is volatile, and anything that seems eternal or indestructible at first can lose validity within days, even hours.

Still, there are isolated examples of unwritten internet laws. A classic example: Regardless of the tone you wish to convey, IF YOU WRITE IN ALL CAPS, YOU ARE SHOUTING. The laws we're sharing today are more profound, and we're sure you've already come across them.

Poe's Law

Based on a comment made by Nathan Poe in a Christianity forum in 2005, the law states that without an obvious signal of humor or sarcasm (read emoticon, emoji, or something similar), it is impossible to parody an extreme vision or expression without someone taking it seriously. However, the concept isn't that new. Its origins trace back to the Usenet system, and as early as 1983, Jerry Schwarz had published:

“Avoid sarcasm and humorous comments. Without the inflection of voice and body language of personal communication, both can be easily misinterpreted.”

He also highlighted the smiley :-) as a joke indicator, and added:

“If you post a satirical item without this symbol, no matter how obvious the satire to you, don't be surprised if people take it seriously.”

Godwin's Law

Proposed by lawyer and author Mike Godwin in 1990 (the same Mike Godwin who created the concept of the “internet meme”), his law has a very close relationship with Reductio ad Hitlerum. What does that mean? That if an online discussion goes on long enough, sooner or later one of the participants will compare something or someone to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. The law began as an experiment in memetics, but over the years it has undergone broad generalization.

An old custom in various internet discussion forums and newsgroups is that as soon as the Hitler comparison appears, the thread is closed and the responsible party is declared the loser of the debate automatically. However, Godwin himself has criticized excesses in applying his law, since the original goal is to reduce inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons. In Godwin's mind, the law should start conversations and not end them when the comparison is appropriate.

Cunningham's Law

Ward Cunningham is an American programmer and the mastermind behind the concept of the 'wiki', but he is also credited with a very special expression: “The best way to get a correct answer on the internet is not to ask a question, but to post a wrong answer”. Now, the most interesting thing is that Cunningham rejects its authorship, calling it “a misattributed quote that refutes itself”. The true author of the law would be Steven McGeady, a colleague of Cunningham at Intel.

Of course, there's more. Pommer's Law, the Streisand Effect, Rules 34 and 35... Do you remember any others? Leave a comment!