
Facebook has been running ads on its platform (and elsewhere) with the following text: “Technology has changed a lot since 1996. Shouldn’t internet regulations change, too? While intended mainly as a rhetorical appeal, it can be presented as an argument:
Premise 1: Technology has changed a lot since 1996.
Conclusion: Internet regulations should change.
On the face of it, the argument has some appeal. It is true that technology has changed a lot since 1996 and these changes might have made some aspects of the internet regulations obsolete. One could even make the obvious argument from analogy: just as dial up modems are now obsolete, the laws created to govern technology at that time are now also obsolete. However, that argument by analogy would be weak (laws age very differently from technology) as is the argument advanced by Facebook.
Facebook’s argument can be seen as a reversed version of the classic Appeal to Tradition fallacy. This is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or “always has been done/always been believed.” This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
Premise 1: X is old or traditional.
Conclusion: Therefore, X is correct or good.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microorganism cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true. But this is clearly not the case. The age of thing does not, in general, have any bearing on its quality or correctness (in this context). In the case of tradition, assuming that something is correct just because it is considered a tradition is poor reasoning. For example, if the belief that 1+1 = 56 were a tradition of a group of people it would hardly follow that it is true.
Obviously, age does have a bearing in some contexts. For example, if a person concluded that properly aged cheese would be better than brand new cheese, they would not be committing an Appeal to Tradition. This is because, in such cases the age of the thing is relevant to its quality. Thus, the fallacy is committed only when the age is not, in and of itself, relevant to the claim. What is needed is evidence that age is relevant to the truth or quality of something—that is what is lacking with the fallacious Appeal to Tradition. Interestingly, Facebook is taking an anti-tradition approach: they are concluding that the laws are bad because they are old.
One way to present this is by taking the argument to imply that new regulations would be better because they would be new. This would be the Appeal to Novelty fallacy. This is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is new(er). This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
Premise 1. X is new(er).
Conclusion: Therefore, X is correct or better.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because the novelty or newness of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something older. This is made obvious by the following example: Joe has proposed that 1+1 should now be equal to 3. When asked why people should accept this, he says that he just came up with the idea. Since it is newer than the idea that 1+1=2, it must be better.
This sort of “reasoning” is appealing for many reasons. The notion of progress (which seems to have come, in part, from the notion of evolution) implies that newer things will be superior to older things. Media advertising often sends the message that newer must be better. Because of these factors (and others) people often accept that a new thing (idea, product, concept, etc.) must be better because it is new. Hence, Novelty is a somewhat common fallacy, especially in advertising.
It should not be assumed that old things must be better than new things any more than it should be assumed that new things are better than old things. The age of a thing does not, in general, have any bearing on its quality or correctness (in this context).
Obviously, age does have a bearing in some contexts. For example, if a person concluded that his day-old milk was better than his two-month old milk, he would not be committing an Appeal to Novelty. This is because in such cases the newness of the thing is relevant to its quality. Thus, the fallacy is committed only when the newness is not, in and of itself, relevant to the claim. It might be pointed out that Facebook is not explicitly claiming that new laws would be better because they are new (and one can easily imagine new laws being passed that are worse than the existing laws). So, it might be best to just go with the Anti-Tradition Fallacy. This is the opposite of the Appeal to Tradition fallacy. This is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is inferior or wrong because it is older, traditional, or “always has been done/always been believed.” This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
Premise 1: X is old(er) or traditional.
Conclusion: Therefore, X is incorrect or wrong.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it wrong or incorrect. For example, moral thinkers have long taken murder to be immoral, but the fact that this rule is ancient does not entail that it is incorrect or wrong.
Facebook (and anyone else) could make a reasonable case that the existing laws should be changed; but merely referencing their age as the foundation of the argument is a fallacy.