81–90 of 256 posts
Why is there no mention of what he actually said? There's a big difference between calling someone a poopyhead and alleging he's a pedophile. How can the people stay informed about potential abuse when the press omits the most important part?
> 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…
"Despite this attempt to destroy his reputation with falsehoods, Mr Nolan has agreed not to name this individual, dependent on his future conduct ." I remember this same line from the CNN Trump WWE GIF guy - the cases are different, for one this is a legal case and it being in the UK. Here is what CNN said in that story[1]: CNN is not publishing “HanA*holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an…
> The identities aren't even relevant to their respective stories. I believe that depending on the situation and the individual or individuals allegedly responsible for these defamations, their identity might be very relevant. In the UK case, it seems it was someone noteworthy and rich enough that settling the case while paying 6 figures in damage was cheaper than the PR nightmare that would come with his identity be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I was primarily referring to Sally Albright (the example with the most publicly available evidence). She is a political mercenary who was outed as operating a large bot farm using identities of people who died. Funded by ShareBlue to attack people critical of HRC, then Biden. Arguably, she created the "donut twitter" faction - which grew past the bot accounts she controlled. Though I'm sure this tactic is used by eve…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's also an English word that can be used for the same kind of thing without the law being involved at all.
Talking about damages being paid, as the headline does, is especially indicative of the legal context.
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?
Or the people/organizations funding the troll agreed to pay the settlement
I get a feeling that the light is only being shed on the side of the story which makes the "victim" look like an alpha male. All this "message" and "tracing" crap.
I wonder how this "troll" was "traced". Specially trained Twitter-hound? You don't just "trace" people on the internet.
They way I see it (the way the article depicts the situation), they very well knew who could be the troll, and simply threatened the offender:
> There was immediate contrition and categoric statements of regret, with the individual pleading for anonymity due to his expressed personal security concerns
People usually say things like that when there is a presence of an immediate danger to their well-being.
I mean, fair enough, you play with the bull you get the horns. But don't make it look like a triumph of justice accompanied with an honourable act of mercy. You just blackmailed six figures out of a person for sending texts.
Reading the article is important here. The person that was being sued is settling (paying a 6-figure sum) and staying anonymous. They could have fought they case, but they apparently had enough money and were worried about being outed, that it was worth just paying and hiding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
maybe they did, but then the troll would have fought the case and probably won everything is a negotiation Edit: 1 downvote today and now I can't respond
Even if the case turns out your way, the laywer costs to fight the case in court may be large enough that settling is better for your. It doesn't matter which side of this you are on.