The game tries to make the case that the problem with the rule "no vehicles in the park" isn't underspecification, but I feel it misses some important dimensions when it does that. Specifically, it only looks at specifying the subject of the rule i.e. what constitutes a vehicle. It doesn't consider the intent behind the rule, or the balance of interests affected by the rule's application.
Replace the rule with its intent - the grass shouldn't be damaged - and its balance of interests - the grass's short-term wellbeing should take less precedence than a person's - and you get a claim that is pretty straightforward to evaluate.
Instead of defending blanket propositions, perhaps content moderation should defend predicates - does X harm property Y? - and weights - does X injure Z?
Is this variation still subject to ambiguity? I don't know - I think it's subject to bias, but it's pretty much unambiguous.
Replace the rule with its intent - the grass shouldn't be damaged - and its balance of interests - the grass's short-term wellbeing should take less precedence than a person's - and you get a claim that is pretty straightforward to evaluate.
Instead of defending blanket propositions, perhaps content moderation should defend predicates - does X harm property Y? - and weights - does X injure Z?
Is this variation still subject to ambiguity? I don't know - I think it's subject to bias, but it's pretty much unambiguous.