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

61–70 of 256 posts

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

#61

Post by criley2 »

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…

We don't hold social media companies accountable for things that are posted there because then they will perform a cost/benefit analysis on the risk and liability of comment sections, free speech, posting news and political content, and most of them will engage in the most draconian reduction of free speech online in the internets history.

Why would Facebook let you talk about politics on their platform if you could defame a politician or celebrity and Facebook was on the hook? What's cheaper, banning you and/or algorithmically controlling your speech, or paying major dollars to an employee in a high cost of living who wants deep benefits just to review your speech.

I mean they'd need law staff reviewing every potentially defamatory post.

They'd honestly need lawyers reviewing every post made on social media, or else they could be sued into oblivion.

I can't imagine how any company could run a business allowing people to speak anything remotely close to freely online if that business is financially liable for the truth and veracity of every statement made.

What would happen is social media would turn into a situation where the only people allowed to post would be the Blue Checkmarks -- those who the service verifies as being Goodthinkers who won't create liability, and who may have signed an agreement with the company absolving the company of that liability.

I just can't imagine how free speech could survive online if the big guy could make the newspaper pay for a letter to the editor.

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

#62

Post by azinman2 »

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…

Seems like you’re saying contradictory things here. On the one hand you’re arguing for massive moderation, and on the other you’re suggesting a few people shouldn’t be able to de-platform a president. You can’t have both.

What’s funny about this is we all act like Facebook/Twitter/YouTube are the only ways that politicians can talk to the public, yet somehow politicians have long campaigned well before the Internet existed, let alone these 3 specific platforms. It’s not like news media has stopped writing about Trump (in fact big news just yesterday about the trump org & taxes). Plus the news media was writing about how Trump is now on some new Gab-alternative, to which Gab is suggesting he’s not on there because they want to allow anti-Semitism and Kushner blocked it. So new platforms easily can come up and acquire various demographics.

It’s also not like Facebook etc is the only source for systemic dissemination of propaganda. Trump used to have extremely frequent calls with Fox News hosts, for example, which commands a very large set of the GOP eyeballs. Probably more than Twitter could ever hope for.

All of this is effectively protected by the first amendment. You could revoke 230 which would quickly lead to mass moderation or complete changes of platform behaviors/features, but you’d be very hard pressed to find a way to force any news org to shape their messaging.

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

#63

Post by edgyquant »

azinman2 wrote: post #44
bpodgursky wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a _ton_ of people would come up with 6 figures if the alternative was jail time. It doesn't have to be cash in the bank -- take out debt, remortgage your house, sell your car, borrow from friends and family, etc.

I don’t know UK law, but can a libel suit end in jail? Isn’t this civil versus criminal?

No it is a civil matter in the US at least.

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

#64

Post by pc86 »

bpodgursky wrote: post #38
londons_explore wrote: post #20

Not many people have 6 figures lying around to pay... I think most regular people, faced with the offer of a 6 figure settlement, would probably fight it to the bitter end in court, before claiming bankruptcy. I wonder if this might have been someone famous for whom 6 figures is expensive but not worth the PR damage?

I think a _ton_ of people would come up with 6 figures if the alternative was jail time. It doesn't have to be cash in the bank -- take out debt, remortgage your house, sell your car, borrow from friends and family, etc.

It could also simply be a legal contract for the anonymous individual to pay Nolan directly. Whatever the court settlement equivalent of seller's financing is!

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

#65

Post by logicalmonster »

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.

It's hard to judge this specific case from the article because it's limited in its details of what actual criticism about this person was expressed.

But to me, the problem inherent in defamation (as well as "fake news") isn't that people are able to utter false statements. The real issue is that many people are conditioned to believe that whatever they see or hear is true. Somebody believing something negative is the only thing that might cause harm to another person.

Why do people believe that whatever they read or hear is true? I believe it's because we have active defamation/slander laws, "fact checkers", and other things designed to combat false information. Their very existence and strength is what keeps people conditioned to believe that everything they see is true. And the stronger they get, the stronger that people believe that everything they read is true. It's a feedback loop that worsens the problem it's supposed to solve.

Paradoxically, things like strong defamation laws may worsen the real problem they're ostensibly designed to solve. I strongly believe that the approach that should be taken with things like defamation isn't harsher and harsher punishment, it should be telling everybody that nothing you read online is true and having the weakest possible defamation laws (or even no laws in this regard) to get people to understand that nothing that they see or read should be considered true until they verify it. A society that understands that no facts should be considered true until they verify it would be immune from false information.

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

#66

Post by iratewizard »

crazydoggers wrote: post #47
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…

You hit the nail on the head! And I’m from the US, so it’s not too Scandinavian. :) What I found interesting was the spectacle of Mark Zuckerberg in front of congress. And yet no action whatsoever has come from it. I think part of the issue is that the very people who could push for legislation (the voters) are also the unwitting products of these companies (sold to their real customers the advertisers). So the manip…

Being subject to every imaginable form of psychological manipulation has become the norm. Advertising has had a race to the bottom as far as ethics go. News media needs to gaslight its viewership in order to maintain its flimsy position as an authority. The once subtle undertone of propaganda in entertainment is far from subtle. I don't know the reason for why people rarely notice, but I suspect they just want to enjoy their shows. If they were to think too deeply about what their shows have become, it would be hard to enjoy them.

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

#67

Post by benrbray »

xxpor wrote: post #43
benrbray wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have plenty of both kinds :). "Truth" being a valid defense against defamation laws protects some whistleblowers, but for the big stuff we play the "national security" card.

When was the last time the federal government asserted national security privilege in a defamation suit?

Last I heard, Snowden is still not welcome here.

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

#70

Post by azinman2 »

rrrazdan wrote: post #57
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.

This is my issue with the libertarian stance. It’s easy to make arguments in abstract that sounds really good about personal liberty and responsibility, preventing authoritarianism etc. But humans can be really crappy and bad actors will always try to ruin something good (see Internet, environment, poverty programs, insurance, banking, etc), which is then why we end up with regulations.

What I don’t get is this idea that we shouldn’t learn from our mistakes because the #1 thing is to hold onto some kind of immutable ideal. Isn’t that why we continue to have legislation despite constitutions having been already written? That the world changes and thus government should change with it?

Post reply on HN