Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 256 posts

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#51

Post by ttt0 »

cwkoss wrote: post #30
seaish wrote: post #12

This happens to basically all the women of enough notoriety that I follow on Twitter. It's usually a single individual, but often it's someone being extremely offensive and not technically defamatory. I don't think there's much legal action to take in those cases.

There are also several (known) political mercenaries who operate bot farms specifically to attack leftists and signal boost those attacks to astroturf popularity.

Everyone does that since forever and this isn't limited to a single political affiliation or even politics at all. By now this is a standard practice and I hope this isn't news for anybody.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#52

Post by GavinMcG »

barbegal wrote: post #41
NoboruWataya wrote: post #28

It seems misleading for the headline to talk about "damages" when the case settled. "Damages" to me suggests court-ordered compensation.

Most damages are settled out of court. Going to court is more expensive so lawyers on both sides try to avoid this.

Damages is a legal term of art that implies a finding of fault in a judicial proceeding and a corresponding award by the court/arbitrator/etc. This is not that: no fault/guilt need be admitted (though it was here). It's just a contract to accept a certain amount of money and in exchange to not proceed with a lawsuit.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#53

Post by xxpor »

meowface wrote: post #32
echelon wrote: post #2

I'm a fan of free speech, but defamation is one of the limits I agree with. The UK has a stricter framework than the US, but I think these cases should happen in the US too. It's good to see precedent being established for prosecuting those that abuse social media for evil. I'm interested in who the guilty party is in this case. They can afford a six figure penalty and want to remain anonymous.

I think it just has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If someone anonymously tweets something knowingly false along the lines of "[X] is a rapist/pedophile and I have proof", I agree you should be able to sue that person. A false, defamatory accusation like that can easily ruin your career and life. But I can imagine plenty of things that someone could argue are defamatory which fall into a much grayer area wh…

That is an example that US defamation law would cover as well.

For public figures, normally you have to demonstrate actual malice to win a defamation case. But there are certain things that are defamation per se, in other words are always considered defamation unless they're true. The list differs per state, but things like calling someone a pedophile is always on it.

Fun fact: saying someone was gay used to be considered defamation per se.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#54

Post by NoboruWataya »

AlexandrB wrote: post #7
echelon wrote: post #2

I'm a fan of free speech, but defamation is one of the limits I agree with. The UK has a stricter framework than the US, but I think these cases should happen in the US too. It's good to see precedent being established for prosecuting those that abuse social media for evil. I'm interested in who the guilty party is in this case. They can afford a six figure penalty and want to remain anonymous.

Defamation is a great way for those with money to silence dissent and avoid any consequences. Say our product sucks? Defamation. Claim you were sexually assaulted? Defamation. Even if what you said is true, would you be willing to spend the money to go to court and try to fight a defamation lawsuit?

I'm not sure that's true - or rather, I think it's exaggerated. First, truth is generally a defence to defamation, and costs follow the cause in the UK so a losing party would generally be required to pay both parties' costs. Now, defamation suits can still be costly and painful even if you are in the right, so they do surely have some chilling effect. But the risk and likely cost of trying to silence legitimate criticisms with frivolous defamation lawsuits is quite high.

Second, defamation suits are public, and often make for juicy headlines. If you really want to silence your critics, dragging them into a public forum to repeat their claims in front of a load of reporters is probably not the best way to do it.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#55

Post by krapp »

xxpor wrote: post #42
dangerface wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are famous, they can deal with and expect to be trolled. Citation needed I don't think any one on youtube or twitch has the resources or interest in dealing with lies being spread about them. I can't think of any legitimate reason the law should protect liars at the expense of every one else. I can't think of any legitimate reason that popular people should be subject to a different set of laws from the rest o…

>I can't think of any legitimate reason the law should protect liars and the expense of every one else. You're advocating for the government to become the arbitrator of true and fiction for private speech. Seems like an absolutely terrible idea to me.

Every government in existence, including that of the United States, arbitrates speech and fact. That's why perjury and false advertising are illegal, for instance.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#56

Post by xxpor »

moksly wrote: post #37

> The individual admitted running a campaign which "involved the systematic dissemination of false and defamatory allegations" against Mr Nolan. I think that it is good that someone got to own up for the turdslinging they do online, but why are we ok with platforms that aren’t held accountable for the “systematic dissemination of false and defamatory allegations” they enable? What if you don’t have BBC lawyers and re…

>it’s a democratic issue that it is a select few tech-billionaires that can remove someone like Donald Trump from my life

This is largely due to the fact that DT is, frankly, an idiot.

He was still the president on Jan 10. The American President has PLENTY of ways to get their message out... if they want to. Trump refused to adapt to changing circumstances.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#57

Post by rrrazdan »

moksly wrote: post #37

> The individual admitted running a campaign which "involved the systematic dissemination of false and defamatory allegations" against Mr Nolan. I think that it is good that someone got to own up for the turdslinging they do online, but why are we ok with platforms that aren’t held accountable for the “systematic dissemination of false and defamatory allegations” they enable? What if you don’t have BBC lawyers and re…

I was in the “libertarian” camp on this. But now looking at all the damage caused (including killings in India on false social media rumors) I certainly think “mainstreaming of social media” is warranted.

For one remove anonymity from social media. That in itself should clean up half this mess with existing laws.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#58

Post by throw_m239339 »

cwkoss wrote: post #30
seaish wrote: post #12

This happens to basically all the women of enough notoriety that I follow on Twitter. It's usually a single individual, but often it's someone being extremely offensive and not technically defamatory. I don't think there's much legal action to take in those cases.

There are also several (known) political mercenaries who operate bot farms specifically to attack leftists and signal boost those attacks to astroturf popularity.

> There are also several (known) political mercenaries who operate bot farms specifically to attack leftists and signal boost those attacks to astroturf popularity.

You mean harassers and bullies from hexbear AKA chapotraphouse who target radical feminists? Yes, it's leftists attacking women who disagree with them.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#59

Post by Manuel_D »

moksly wrote: post #37

> The individual admitted running a campaign which "involved the systematic dissemination of false and defamatory allegations" against Mr Nolan. I think that it is good that someone got to own up for the turdslinging they do online, but why are we ok with platforms that aren’t held accountable for the “systematic dissemination of false and defamatory allegations” they enable? What if you don’t have BBC lawyers and re…

> I simply don’t get why we don’t hold the social media platforms accountable for the content that gets posted to them

The scale of content being posted on social media is such that this liability makes running a social media platform effectively impossible. All user generated content would have to be manually reviewed before being posted. This would be prohibitively expensive.

As for the Trump ban, freedom of speech also means freedom from compelled speech. The government can't force a store to sell a particular newspaper, or force a newspaper to run a particular story. Same applies to internet websites. If you have a blog with a comments section, the government can't force you to host certain comments.

Post reply on HN