Godwin's law should not be confused with Goodhart's law.
Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule), short for Godwin's law of Nazi analogies,[1] is an Internet adage asserting: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2]
Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990, Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions.[3] He stated that he introduced Godwin's law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics, specifically to address the ubiquity of such comparisons which he believes regrettably trivialize the Holocaust.[4] [5] Later, it was applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and social-media comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric[6] [7] where Latin: [[reductio ad Hitlerum]] occurs.
In 2012, Godwin's law became an entry in the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.[8]
Godwin's law can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, a diversion, or even censorship, when miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole even when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate.[9] Godwin has criticized the over-application of the adage, claiming that it does not articulate a fallacy, but rather is intended to reduce the frequency of inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons:[10]
In 2021, Harvard researchers published an article showing that the Nazi-comparison phenomenon does not occur with statistically meaningful frequency in Reddit discussions.[11] [12]
Godwin's law has many corollaries, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself) than others. For example, many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums have a tradition that, when a Nazi or Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress.[13] This idea is itself sometimes mistakenly referred to as Godwin's law.[14]
Godwin rejects the idea that whoever invokes Godwin's law has lost the argument, and suggests that, applied appropriately, the rule "should function less as a conversation ender and more as a conversation starter."[15] In an interview with Time Magazine, Godwin said that making comparisons to Hitler would actually be appropriate under the right circumstances:[16]
In August 2017, while commenting on the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Godwin himself endorsed and encouraged social-media users to compare its "alt-right" participants to Nazis.[17] [18]
Godwin has denied the need to update or amend the rule. In June 2018, he wrote, in an opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times: "It still serves us as a tool to recognize specious comparisons to Nazism – but also, by contrast, to recognize comparisons that aren't."Additionally, when a potential subject of Godwin's law seems "intent on making the Hitler comparison",[19] the comparison with fascism may be appropriate rather than devaluing the argument; a "MAGA" corollary to the Law recognizes the pernicious embrace of Nazi-inspired tropes and phrases by the "alt-right".
In 2023, Godwin published an opinion on The Washington Post stating "Yes, it's okay to compare Trump to Hitler. Don't let me stop you." In the article, Godwin says "But when people draw parallels between Donald Trump’s 2024 candidacy and Hitler’s progression from fringe figure to Great Dictator, we aren’t joking. Those of us who hope to preserve our democratic institutions need to underscore the resemblance before we enter the twilight of American democracy."[20]