Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure • Hacker News Board

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#51

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 9:24 PM UTC

alexandercrohde wrote: post #50

maxerickson wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You actually aren't free to threaten people, not even in glorious USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menacing (probably more) Something to keep in mind.

Sure, that's why I threw the word usually in there. My point isn't that what happened here is "Right" or "wrong" my point is, 10% of the internet freaks out about all of these things, and 10% trolls, and 80% shrugs. If you want to understand the other 90% you need to read all of what they say before you downvote it.

The rest of the paragraph betrays your usually.

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#52

Post by madgar » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 9:24 PM UTC

hkon wrote: post #45

sappapp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to keep the conversation away from his meltdown w/ Tucker Carlson

Wow. I looked into what you are mentioning. Just wow...

I see a host demanding a guest reduce their answer which might require many words down to either "yes" or "no". Clearly the guest's answer was not as simple as "yes" or "no" but the host required the answer be that simple. They clearly weren't pressed for time so I don't understand why the answer had to be only one word. Maybe the audience doesn't want to hear more than a one-word answer?

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#53

Post by alexandercrohde » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 9:27 PM UTC

praptak wrote: post #32

I wonder how hard would detection be for this kind of dangerous content. A basic detection for rhythmic spikes in frame brightness should not be very hard to implement.

Seems like the best solution to me would be an accessibility option on the device that prevents this type of flashing. May seem hard, but compare that against stopping people from being immature/malicious on the internet.

The added upside would be that it would prevent completely accidental cases of exposure to flashes (e.g. watching an episode of Pokemon).

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#54

Post by SomeStupidPoint » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 9:30 PM UTC

alexandercrohde wrote: post #37

For those here who don't understand why a lot of the internet doesn't care about this kind of thing (or sometimes tries to shows disdain in an immature way by trolling), here are the nuances. In America, usually freedom of speech is the basic law of what can be said. That means that I can say what I want to you, even if it's hurtful, even if I do it TO hurt you, no matter what. Message is message. The reason this wor…

Performance generally falls under speech, and hence is a protected right, but running up to an epileptic screaming I was going to cause a seizure while shining a strobe light at his face wouldn't be a protected "performance". It would be assault.

And so is this.

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#55

Post by keithrl » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 9:31 PM UTC

concinds wrote: post #21

The AssociatesMind article[0] on this is much better than the ArsTechnica link, and goes into detail in the legal dimension of this question. In this case, Kurt's situation likely constitutes assault; and this would also likely be considered assault even if you believe that Eichenwald lied about having a seizure, as I've seen some people question. Here's the conclusion of that article: "Just as someone can be held li…

I also happen to be a lawyer and not an automotive editor, which I think helps. ;)

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#56

Post by alexandercrohde » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 9:33 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #51

alexandercrohde wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, that's why I threw the word usually in there. My point isn't that what happened here is "Right" or "wrong" my point is, 10% of the internet freaks out about all of these things, and 10% trolls, and 80% shrugs. If you want to understand the other 90% you need to read all of what they say before you downvote it.

The rest of the paragraph betrays your usually.

No, what I mean by that is that it will always be legal to hurt people in certain ways with words. Those ways are not threats but emotional... such as:

What I had in mind was a mother saying "I never loved you" to her kid. Or a father suggesting it's the kid's fault that Mommy left/died/drinks. Or telling somebody they're a loser and will never amount to something. Or that they're ugly and unloveable.

When you go to the grocery store and you see a mother be really awful to her kid (or dog), you don't call the police (and you couldn't, unless it was physical). But instead you give them a dirty look-- you use social pressure instead of legal pressure.

And we do this because the legal system isn't well equipped to handle such injustices (these cases would often be heresay, too expensive, too long/convoluted). But the social-pressure system has its own limits, and gets abused too.

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#57

Post by bsder » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 9:40 PM UTC

unfathomable wrote: post #20

So precautions for preventing a death for a health condition you have are supposed to be put on everyone else? No one forced him to watch the gif. If anything it's twitters fault for autoplaying the images.

You can be convicted for expressing intent, as well, you know.

Both intent and crime are embodied in the message itself. Once they find the person, the case is pretty much a slam dunk.

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#58

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

alexandercrohde wrote: post #56

maxerickson wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rest of the paragraph betrays your usually.

No, what I mean by that is that it will always be legal to hurt people in certain ways with words. Those ways are not threats but emotional... such as: What I had in mind was a mother saying "I never loved you" to her kid. Or a father suggesting it's the kid's fault that Mommy left/died/drinks. Or telling somebody they're a loser and will never amount to something. Or that they're ugly and unloveable. When you go to…

This isn't good analysis:

So those people who have been the victim of politics (you used a gender-specific pronoun, now I will shun you, but I'm really doing it because I don't like you and want to hurt you but have a convenient social excuse to ostracize you and look like the good guy for doing it) often overreact and take out their anger anonymously online.

People aren't getting shunned for using gendered pronouns. They might think that's why people avoid them, but if that is the only thing they are doing, no.

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#59

Post by hkon » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 9:43 PM UTC

madgar wrote: post #52

hkon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. I looked into what you are mentioning. Just wow...

I see a host demanding a guest reduce their answer which might require many words down to either "yes" or "no". Clearly the guest's answer was not as simple as "yes" or "no" but the host required the answer be that simple. They clearly weren't pressed for time so I don't understand why the answer had to be only one word. Maybe the audience doesn't want to hear more than a one-word answer?

Yes I can see that, but do you think he would be telling his life story if he could substantiate his claims? I think not.

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#60

Post by alexandercrohde » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 11:42 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #58

alexandercrohde wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what I mean by that is that it will always be legal to hurt people in certain ways with words. Those ways are not threats but emotional... such as: What I had in mind was a mother saying "I never loved you" to her kid. Or a father suggesting it's the kid's fault that Mommy left/died/drinks. Or telling somebody they're a loser and will never amount to something. Or that they're ugly and unloveable. When you go to…

This isn't good analysis: So those people who have been the victim of politics (you used a gender-specific pronoun, now I will shun you, but I'm really doing it because I don't like you and want to hurt you but have a convenient social excuse to ostracize you and look like the good guy for doing it) often overreact and take out their anger anonymously online. People aren't getting shunned for using gendered pronouns.…

How can you say nobody is getting shunned for gender pronouns?

Did read the link I posted about people getting in trouble for the word "Niggardly?" The fact is, plainly that there are SOME people who use the guise of political correctness as a power game. Sorry if you don't want to believe that, but the evidence is pretty clear.

Now this doesn't invalidate all of political correctness, because the world isn't black and white. The fact is, there are bad people out there, and they are on both sides (and this is true for almost any issue), and if you cannot admit this then your tribalism is actually part of the problem.