"Hi there, folks! It’s me, Bees in My Head Benson, and boy, oh boy, do I have some un-bee-lievable deals for you today! I—OW!—can barely think with all these bees buzzin’ around in here, but that just means my prices are as WILD as my brain! You want a blender that doubles as a flamethrower? BAM! $19.99! Want a lamp that leaks honey when you turn it on? BOOM! Only $8.50, and it probably won’t attract more bees—OW!—probably!

Now, don’t even get me started on this thing—what is this thing?—it’s a… uh… a honey-coated shovel! Great for digging or swatting away bees, like the ones in my head! It’s yours for $3.00! Three dollars! I’m losing money here, folks! But who cares, right? I’ve got BEES! IN MY HEAD! CONSTANTLY! Buzz, buzz, buzz, right? OW!

So come on down before the bees take over entirely—OH NO, THEY’RE IN MY EARS! That’s bad! That’s REALLY bad! Don’t miss out on these sweet deals before I end up in the hospital or, uh, a beekeeper’s nightmare!" ^[1]

Ha, punishable on summary conviction (it’s mentioned in the post’s cited law).

Canada had anti-fraudulent witchcraft laws.

I’ll update the title accordingly. I think it’s important to specify what you’ve stated, for clarity.

Also, imo, regular anti-fraud laws, and regular tort law can take over for the nonexistence of this specific law. For example, if someone is advertising a business, even if it’s something of an occult nature, and then they don’t deliver what they promise, I’d argue that that’s standard false advertisement.

Factorio

Hollow Knight

[…] no definition on the context of economics.

Do you mean that, in your opinion, it has definitions in other contexts? If so, what would it be, and what would the contexts be?

[…] It’s a nonsensical economical theory, with no definition on the context of economics.

Hrm, if it has no definition in the context of economics, how could you know argue that, by its definition, it is a nonsensical economic theory? That seems to fail modus ponens.

I don’t understand how exactly this differs from something like Tor.

When I actually post something informative, it seems crazy to not include the links I already have anyway. And make sure it’s viewable in the wayback machine if it’s something so predictably ephemeral…

Citing sources is a practice that I think is sorely lacking in public discourse currently. I appreciate all efforts to quell misinformation and disinformation.

[…] for […] brevity. […]

I don’t agree that citing sources affects that. For example, anecdotally, a citation can just take the form of a footnote in the document.

[…] for practicality […]

Imagine having to document every bit of background research in a presentable way.

Well, presumably, that’s their job ^[1]. Being responsible takes effort /s.

Their reputation and past reporting is supposed to back up things they state as facts […]

Imo, this in an example of an appeal to authority — an argument isn’t sound because it should be, but because it is. I believe that it’s a disservice to the truth and constructive public discourse to not cite one’s claims.

Good catch. Given that that it’s currently still available ^[1], I would guess that it’s likely not the case that Google is purging reviews. Imo, one review is hardly review bombing, but at least that’s proof of one claim made by a news outlet ^[2] (It’s terrible, imo, that we have to be the ones fact checking claims being made by news organizations. Doesn’t that make us the journalists?).

Instead of broken windows needing replacement, we have broken CEOs needing protection.

Hm, but a possible effect, imo, is that this incentivizes those companies to start being more consumer-friendly — perhaps they make a connection that predatory policies are a risk to their safety so, to mitigate that risk, they take more consumer-friendly position. However, I think where that idea may break down and become more like the broken window fallacy is if people get the idea that policies will keep improving if CEO’s keep getting killed — I think that would just make it so that insurance companies are too scared to operate, which would shift the supply curve to the left ^[1].

If it had a definition, it wouldn’t be nonsense, would it?

It would depend on the definition in question. The term in a vacuum is just a collection of words — what those words mean is rather important, imo.

If you’re willing to believe a couple of random news outlets:

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/09/altoona-mcdonalds-luigi-mangione-unitedhealthcare

https://www.ibtimes.com/altoona-mcdonalds-flooded-angry-1-star-reviews-after-arrest-suspected-unitedhealthcare-ceo-3754683

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/dec/9/altoona-pennsylvania-mcdonald-reviews-go-negative-/

Thanks for the sources! I wish that news articles would actually cite how they know things — it’s annoying to me that their statements regarding the reviews are essentially conjecture — I don’t want to have to feel like I need to just take their word for it.

Not hard to imagine thag G**gle would be on the case, deleting reviews by now.

Fair point.

[…] what do you think it is?

Note that your shifting of the burden of proof is not a sound argument for the veracity of your claims. At any rate, imo, exactly what it means depends on the context; however, it’s generally accepted as the theory that certain economic policies favoring those on the upper tier of the economic spectrum will trickle down to benefit the masses ^[1][2].

I’m not […]

What do you mean? Are you saying that you don’t have a definition for the term that you are using?