“Communohazard” seems more likely. Or “communoinfohazard”; I’d be inclined to object to the implied claim that, when we think of the category of things that are hazardous to a community, what comes to mind should be “information that (allegedly) should be suppressed”.
For some reason I have trouble stating explicitly (which frustrates me, but my intuition has a good track record with this sort of thing), I place very low comparative probability of “outfohazard” becoming a widely used term.
I agree. In the context where someone has just said “infohazard” and you say “I think you mean out-fohazard”, the meaning is clear and it’s an excellent retort; but if someone just said “outfohazard” by itself, I think I’d say ”… what?”. Every time someone used the word alone, I’d be confused by what “outfo” is and have to remind myself (or, the first few times, be reminded by someone else or by Google) that it’s a play on “info”, and I’d resent this… “out-fo-hazard”, “out-fo hazard”, possibly “outfo hazard” might be better in that respect.
I like how “communohazard” combined “community hazard” and “communicable hazard”. (Whereas “commuhazard” sounds like it would occur with terms like “cultural marxism”, and hence does not work).
But I agree, not having “info” in the word anymore makes it less intuitively understandable. “Communohazardous info, aka CHI”?
Though honestly, is the jargon actually necessary? Can’t we just say “I think this information spreading is bad (for the individual / for the community)”, and have it be instantly comprehensible?
“Communohazard” seems more likely. Or “communoinfohazard”; I’d be inclined to object to the implied claim that, when we think of the category of things that are hazardous to a community, what comes to mind should be “information that (allegedly) should be suppressed”.
I agree. In the context where someone has just said “infohazard” and you say “I think you mean out-fohazard”, the meaning is clear and it’s an excellent retort; but if someone just said “outfohazard” by itself, I think I’d say ”… what?”. Every time someone used the word alone, I’d be confused by what “outfo” is and have to remind myself (or, the first few times, be reminded by someone else or by Google) that it’s a play on “info”, and I’d resent this… “out-fo-hazard”, “out-fo hazard”, possibly “outfo hazard” might be better in that respect.
I think “communohazard” sounds a lot better than my suggestion, and is probably the best so far that I’ve seen.
I like how “communohazard” combined “community hazard” and “communicable hazard”. (Whereas “commuhazard” sounds like it would occur with terms like “cultural marxism”, and hence does not work).
But I agree, not having “info” in the word anymore makes it less intuitively understandable. “Communohazardous info, aka CHI”?
Though honestly, is the jargon actually necessary? Can’t we just say “I think this information spreading is bad (for the individual / for the community)”, and have it be instantly comprehensible?