7. The Law of Exclamation
The more someone uses exclamation marks in a post or mail to enhance the “truth”, the more likely it is anything but! Law goes the same for excessive usage of UPPERCASE WRITING!
Easy one. If someone is using excessive markings to accentuate their own information or opinion, you should probably double or triple check that, chances are, it won’t be true or even close.
For example, if one gets a message like – “OMG!!!! You are so great!!!! LOL!!!!!”
Suffice it to say that the receiver probably isn’t great and the sender isn’t actually laughing loudly.
8. Rules of the Internet
There is an online forum called 4chan where people can come together to talk on a multitude of topics. Topics are categorized by sections called boards and each board’s chat is called a thread.
In the early 2000s, under the random topic board /b/ there were about 47 rules of the internet, much of those don’t hold much today. But some of them have prevailed the test of time! A few of those are –
- #14 don’t argue with trolls, it means they win.
- #19 the more you hate it, the stronger it will become.
- #26 any topic can very easily be turned into something entirely else.
- #29 on the internet, all girls are men and all kids are undercover FBI agents.
- #34 or Rule 34, as it’s now known, it states that if something exists, there is a porn of it!
- #35 if the porn isn’t there, give it some time, there will be, it’s inevitable!
- #36 if you think you just saw something so horrible that cannot be matched in its degeneration, you are thinking wrong!
- #43 the more beautiful or pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt it.
9. Shaker’s Law
Those who egregiously announce their imminent departure from an Internet discussion forum almost never actually leave.
An adage coined by a forum user named Shaker, it states that if a public song and dance is made with threats of departure from an online forum, it actually won’t happen or last long!
10. Pommer’s Law
A person’s mind can be changed by reading information on the internet. The nature of this change will be: From having no opinion to having a wrong opinion.
On RationalWiki, in early 2007, Rob Pommer made this rule in order to point out that there is so much stupid stuff on the internet and so many stupid people on the internet who will believe those stupid things at the drop of a hat that it suggest nothing but harrowing glimpse of mankind’s doom.
We think this law is very much applicable now in 2019. Only replace Stupid stuff with Fake news and we’re good to go.
While there is growing awareness about fake news there are still a huge number of people who would believe just about anything seen on Twitter and Facebook.
We ask that do you do your bit and bring awareness to this issue. The least you could do is correct that uncle of yours who cannot shut up about the UNESCO awards we’ve won on WhatsApp. Only takes a couple of minutes, but will go a long way.
11. The 1% Rule
Only 1% of the users of a website actively create new content, while the other 99% of the participants only lurk.
Compared to the other laws and their implication this one’s a sweet summer dream. Yes, very few people actually contribute towards all the good (or bad) stuff you see on the internet.
12. Cunningham’s Law
The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it’s to post the wrong answer.
If no one is answering your questions, then post a wrong answer and people will hoard up to give you the right one.
13. Cohen’s law
Whoever resorts to the argument “whoever resorts to the argument that… has automatically lost the debate” has automatically lost the debate.
Proposed by Brian Cohen in 2007, this recursive law states that if you claim someone lost an argument just because he/she said something, you have automatically lost the debate.
14. Layne’s Law
Every debate is over the definition of a word. OR.
Every debate eventually degenerates into debating the definition of a word. OR
Once a debate degenerates into debating the definition of a word, the debate is debatably over.
A software developer Layne Thomas coined this law and how accurate this one is as you can see it in any thread with topics such as Secularism, Feminism etc.
15. Shank’s Law
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.
The conspiracy nuts on the internet often try to rationalize or give credibility to their theories citing the “findings” of scholars or Ph.D. Professors.
They of course interpret their researches their own pre-defined ways but not all of those Ph.D. professors are right in their upper floors, as well.
16. Skarka’s Law
On internet message boards, there is no subject so vile or indefensible that someone won’t post positively/in defence of it.
Defined by Gareth-Michael Skarka, a user from RPG.net, Skarka’s Law pretty much defines the Internet Hate Machine and the modern online experience.
From neo-nazis to the snuff films, there are people who defend those…stuffs. Some are just being a douchebag, some are testing the waters but eh, oh well.
17. Streisand Effect
An attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the internet
Coined by Mike Masnick in 2005, a magical year full of hope and whatnot, the rule is named after Barbara Streisand case wherein she sued a photographer who took some pictures of her home.
Fearing people will see it, she sued him, but this only made people download and share the picture even more than it could have been cared about!