Live data from Hacker News

Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

bbc.co.uk

111–120 of 256 posts

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

#111

It should be noted: Stephen Nolan is a Northern Irish presenter, and the trolling in question concerned whether his show gives an unfair amount of coverage to unionist positions, as opposed to nationalists. Personal security concerns are a big deal in this case, regardless of whether the anonymous figure is well-known or not. Settling here isn't necessarily just a PR move.

In that case, maybe the content was political rather than trolling? Settling like this is a slippery slope if you’ve said something to offend someone rather than simply libel and troll them.

Firstly, political posting and troll posting aren't mutually exclusive. Secondly, it appears that there was strong evidence that this poster actually tried to harm the presenter's reputation and career. To that extent, libel charges are fair and it's a good thing he was able to be traced and admonished.

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

#112
post #108

It should be noted: Stephen Nolan is a Northern Irish presenter, and the trolling in question concerned whether his show gives an unfair amount of coverage to unionist positions, as opposed to nationalists. Personal security concerns are a big deal in this case, regardless of whether the anonymous figure is well-known or not. Settling here isn't necessarily just a PR move.

Wow that introduces a whole different dimension to this. That makes it sound like the "trolling" may have been a legitimate political criticism (unfounded or not), and the "troll" paid out due to a threat to their personal safety. Even darker that the threat was made by the national broadcaster of the occupying nation.

WTF are you on about "occupying nation"

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

#113

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.

Is it? It seems like “damages” is more of an umbrella term for the value of the harm caused. When I write “your client’s breach of contract resulted in my client suffering damages of $X” no one (OC or layperson) would be under the false impression a court or a jury has awarded my client a judgment for $X.

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

#114

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?

Fighting to the bitter end might involve lawyer fees > the settlement amount.

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

#115

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.

No. I’ve never seen that term used except for a court ordered payment. Anything else is called a “settlement,” or “settled for $x” or even more explicitly “settled out of court for $x”

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

#116
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow that introduces a whole different dimension to this. That makes it sound like the "trolling" may have been a legitimate political criticism (unfounded or not), and the "troll" paid out due to a threat to their personal safety. Even darker that the threat was made by the national broadcaster of the occupying nation.

WTF are you on about "occupying nation"

You might want to look into the history of Northern Ireland during the 20th century, and local attitudes to British rule.

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

#117

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.

Those are settlements, not damages.

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

#118
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow that introduces a whole different dimension to this. That makes it sound like the "trolling" may have been a legitimate political criticism (unfounded or not), and the "troll" paid out due to a threat to their personal safety. Even darker that the threat was made by the national broadcaster of the occupying nation.

WTF are you on about "occupying nation"

England is occupying part of Ireland. I have no personal opinion about this, or links to Ireland, but it seems pretty obvious to anyone looking at it from the outside.

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

#119
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, maybe the content was political rather than trolling? Settling like this is a slippery slope if you’ve said something to offend someone rather than simply libel and troll them.

Firstly, political posting and troll posting aren't mutually exclusive. Secondly, it appears that there was strong evidence that this poster actually tried to harm the presenter's reputation and career. To that extent, libel charges are fair and it's a good thing he was able to be traced and admonished.

I don't see any details as to what the alleged "troll" said on which you are basing this. The only evidence I see is the this was settled out of fear of being doxed amd nothing indicating the strength of the legal claim of libel.

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

#120
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 have a lot of sympathy for your Scandinavian viewpoint. But it's noteworthy that this is in the UK, which sets a relatively low bar to proving libel. Some say much too low.

I don't know how it is in Scandinavia, but in the US it would almost certainly be difficult to prosecute this. A lot of harassment is simply legal unless you can prove that deliberately false things were said with the intent to harm people -- which is very hard to prove.

Not that these platforms should hold themselves to a legal standard. Indeed, I've said before that it's long past the time for people to be thinking of moderation as an afterthought. New social networks -- even just discussion boards -- need to think from the beginning what kind of conversation they want. Otherwise, there's a very good chance it will be dominated by those who wish to hurt others, because the others will leave.

FB and Twitter are in a rare position where they own the natural monopoly (or, perhaps natural oligopoly) on general social media. You go there because your friends are there. You may want to leave, but you really can't because no other place can offer you the same connectivity even if they have a vastly improved feature set.

I don't really know what can legally be done to rein these two in. The UK is the lowest bar to set on prosecuting trolls, and this case was expensive and rare. It doesn't put trolls on warning because nobody else will have this person's resources. And it's harder everywhere else.

Even if you and I and all our friends left Twitter and FB for greener pastures, as long as they have that oligopoly, we'll still have to live with people using them to defame us. Everybody will know, even if we're not there.

I'm not actually worried about Trump. He was an exception. Let there be an exception for sitting Presidents; I don't care. He's still just one loud asshole. The problem is that anonymous jerks of all kinds can pursue defamation campaigns. They have to work harder to get traction, but they can also be more focused.

They, I think, are the real problem, and I don't really know what to do. I don't know what laws I'd pass even if I could. The vaunted power of the Internet has made it possible to be mean on a scale never before seen, and nothing I've seen in the past gives me a guide to that.

Post reply on HN