The Fake Internet Court of Australia
THE PEOPLE v OCTOTHORPE ABUSERS (HASHTAGS) CLASS ACTION [2022] - Judgement
H3053/1
It has come to the attention of this fake internet court that there are too many of you out there in the land, who abuse the octothorpe as though it was like leaves. Granted that the tree of ideas has many branches and you are free to clamber about the tree however you feel like, however there comes a point where running around in the jungle and pulling octothorpes from every single branch is not only impractical but it makes you look like a gorilla with a hoarding problem. You do not need that many leaves. You also do not need to strip the tree of ideas of all the octothorpes you can find.
What is an octothorpe? An octothorpe is this: #
I have heard it incorrectly called the "pound sign". I know of zero instances where # is used to denote pounds. Pounds Sterling are marked with the symbol £, which is derived ultimately from the word 'esterling' which has to do with silver. Nominally one pound of money in the days well before ye olde days, was backed by one pound of silver; hence the reason why the currency is named. Likewise the symbol lb. is drawn from the Latin 'libre' which also has to do with scales and the weight of things. # has nothing to do with pounds sterling or pounds of weight; so if you are tempted to call # the 'pound symbol' then please aske yourself why.
The other common name for # is "hash". The reason for this is that it does indeed look like a wee ickle set of hashes. I have no problem with calling this a hash. If a pineapple can be called that because it is an apple (all fruits were once called 'apples' in English) that happens to look like a pinecone, then calling # a hash because it looks like one, is sensible.
On most social media networks, # is called hash and is is uses to flag various items as being connected to a broad platform wide idea. The # tags these social media posts and hence why we have an equally sensible name of a hashtag. #hashtag
Consider the following post:
(photo not included)
Me and Muzz doing our thang.
#cats #pets #cute #dad #dadlife #blessed #grace #winning #catdad #catboss #Thursday
- Twitter Handle Withheld.
Muzz was indeed a fine cat. Actually, the ratio of fine cats to not fine cats is about 999,999:1. There is a non-zero number of not fine cats but they are edge cases.
The problem with blurting out hashtags is that it is pretty obvious that this person has simply used them for cross exposure. This court very much is appreciative of the fact that English is a dynamic and quickly changing language and long may it be so but this is not a question of the use of language but of the use of etiquette. This court also realises that etiquette and manners have very much been the weapons of exclusion in the past and so making a ruling about manners simple on the grounds of preference is improper. Rather, this ruling needs to be made upon the grounds of logic, uncommon sense and utility.
The general principle is that for every hashtag you use, the degree of connectedness to the topic at hand (if there ever was one) will become less and less. That is, there is a marginal utility of connectedness to the topic at hand and this marginal utility decreases with every new hashtag. Unlike the marginal utility of money or honey, the marginal utility of a hashtag can decrease to a point which is below zero. When that happens, they become less than useless and actually begin to hinder their only purpose; which is to facilitate communication.
Logically 1 hashtag will tell people that that thing at hand is the central topic. 2 hashtags says that they are connected and/or opposing each other. 3 hashtags is acceptable if there are two competing hashtags and the third one is connected to the two as though they are one. 4 hashtags starts to get silly. 5 hashtags beings the process of the connection becoming ever more tenuous. If you are using any more than 9, then I can guarantee that the 10th and 11th will be off in the land of irrelevance; dancing about like cows in a field. Does anyone care about the 10th hashtag? Do you care about the 10th hash tag? If it can not justify itself, why is it even there?
The 11th hashtag which was posted with this man and his cat Muzz, was #Thursday. I like Thursdays. Thursdays are the traditional night for late night shopping because this was the day that Pensions, Government Payments, and Wages were paid out from the week before. Thursdays are also the traditional night of the week for European Cup Winners Cup, UEFA Cup or whatever it is they call them now.
Now I have no idea exactly why this man and Muzz especially needed to tell the world that this was Thursday (although maybe there is important Thursday cat business) but my suspicion is that #Thursday is irrelevant and unnecessary. Why it is it even there? Does Muzz car about it? Probably not.
Also, #blessed #grace #winning ? What now? Granted that thankfulness and gratitude are virtues that should be signaled and practiced on a regular basis but exactly how they are connected to a picture of a man and his cat, has evaded my logic. What did they win which warranted #winning?
I think that possibly, the number of sensible things that an idea can be reasonably connected to, for a thing to make sense, is three. I say this as someone who is self-aware and throws about commas in places like they were grapeshot and so I realise my own hypocrisy here but I usually end up asking if sentences can be broken up and proper full stops used. I will use short sentences for effect. I will also use very long meandering ones with many dependent clauses, sometimes side thoughts and diversions, as a stylistic choice. A hashtag is not a question of style or grammar but one of filing.
In the above example, the most number of hashtags needed is two. In order #catboss and then #catdad. The central idea is that Muzz is a fine cat. Maybe Muzz was #winning but a point of fact always remains that cats are always the boss. #catdad is a subordinate hashtag to #catboss in the same way as this man is a subordinate to Muzz.
Final Judgement:
Having looked at the principle and the evidence, it is the opinion and ruling of this court that the number of hashtags allowed in any social media post is three. For example, in official settings such as #SWEvNEF #SWENEF #GoSweetness (where the forces of Sweetness and Light are playing Nefarious FC (Sweetness and Light won 1-0 thanks to an 87th minute strike from Lovely)) where you have two competing hashtags and a generic marker, this is perfectly sufficient.
Yet again we find ourselves dealing with a similar principle in The Holy Hand Grenade Of Antioch v Counting [1975] in which Maynard J said:
"Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out."
- The Holy Hand Grenade Of Antioch v Counting [1975]
In this case, something less that three is allowable and indeed preferrable but three is the upper bound.
Anyone caught using a fourth hashtag will be forced to withstand tutting, a very hard stare, and very possibly a wagging finger of shame. This court realises it impotence in actually having any authority whatsoever to hand down punishments for violating this ruling but you know who you are. It isn't wrong but we just don't do it. Don't do it. It's dangerous. Stay safe.
- ROLLO75 J
(this case will be reported in FILR as H3053/1 - Ed)
No comments:
Post a Comment