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

141–150 of 256 posts

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

#141

Post by zentiggr »

criley2 wrote: post #61
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…

Because once FB/Twitter/every other large forum limits themselves to only doupleplusgoodposters, there will be a few billion people looking for somewhere else that they can speak, and other services will arise.

And we'll finally see who the blessed of the FB or Twitter or truly are.

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

#142

Post by Marazan »

wutbrodo wrote: post #22
duxup wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be just the type of stories I happen to see. But I feel like I run into more cases where UK defamation laws have some absurd outcomes ... and I'm not sure the result is that there's less defamation in the UK.

There's no question that the UK's speech laws are abusive, especially to American sensibilities. You can find stories of people being arrested for calling a police horse "gay", or saying "woof" to a police dog, or the guy who taught his girlfriend's dog to respond to Seig Heil to troll her, or the 19 y/o who quoted a Snoop Dogg lyric on her Instagram page, or the guy sent to _jail_ for leaving anti-religion cartoons…

With regards to the Nazi dog your facts are wrong.

He taught the dog to respond to the phrase "Do you wanna gas the Jews"

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

#143

Post by zentiggr »

treeman79 wrote: post #75
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…

He was banned in order for Joe Biden to win. Plain and simple. Same as why Hunter Biden stories were being blocked on Facebook as untrue, even though they were true. It made one candidate look bad. It’s important to remember there is a narrative that stories must fit. The next Republican candidate will be declared mean, dumb, all-phobic to everyone. Everything they say will be “fact checked” and proven false. Doesn’t…

So, not worth arguing the point with you? Already decided that Trump's a victim? Sigh.

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

#144

Post by cwkoss »

Smithalicious wrote: post #134
cwkoss wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Saying shareblue/CTR, a leftist astroturf organization, is "attacking leftists" is incredibly misleading. They attack towards both sides of the political spectrum from themselves, but there's much more to the right of them than these is to the left.

I think it's misleading to call ShareBlue "leftist" - they are 'left' to the extent that Joe Biden is 'left', but leftist typically refers to "the radical left" or marxists or democratic socialists in modern political discourse.

Yes, they attack to both sides, but their anti-right operations are pretty transparent. Their anti-leftist operations tend to be clandestine, presumably because DNC funds used to attack "their own" voters would be politically toxic.

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

#145

Post by Synaesthesia »

stevebmark wrote: post #16

Sounds like a fairly standard defamation lawsuit. The only thing that stands out to me is the instant meme of: > This should be a warning to all trolls

Defamation suits in the UK are obviously under their defamation laws which have a lot of problems with them. They're open to abuse by rich and powerful entities.

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

#146

Post by perihelions »

xdennis wrote: post #72

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?

See my sibling comment. One of the allegedly defamatory claims was "[Stephen Nolan's] show regularly platforms unelected representatives and apologists for paramilitary organisations".

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27700339

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

#148

Post by ceejayoz »

n4bz0r wrote: post #87

Disclaimer: I have no idea who Stephen Nolan is, and I'm not aware of the context. The reaction is based solely on the article. 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…

> You don't just "trace" people on the internet.

I mean, there's doxxing, which is often effective, or getting a court to issue a subpoena to Twitter for an IP that you can then go subpoena an ISP for.

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

#149

Post by GavinMcG »

barbegal wrote: post #129
GavinMcG wrote: post #52

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.

In England, part 36 uses the term damages to refer to the monetary value of the settlement. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rule...

Yes, where the context is a settlement offer. You'll notice it refers to a "claim for damages", i.e. the claim that would be made in court, but will not be if settled instead.

In the headline, on the other hand, there's no context at all to suggest a settlement, which is why the commenter called it misleading.

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

#150

Post by kingsuper20 »

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…

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

I think that's probably too crude a concept, although you can argue that probably 10% of Twitter needs a lawsuit being horrid people and all.

My own guess is that the ability of social media is strong and subtle enough to avoid any rule you might cook up. Their ability to steer enough votes to win an election is obvious and their own bias is clear.

You're not going to get your relatives to leave Facebook, it's too handy for trading baby pictures, so I have no clue what should be done. There'll always be some sort of editorial control.

Post reply on HN