Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by Zuider » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 6:41 PM UTC

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #89

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.

While I agree it is a little misleading, websites do not have to use the legal definitions of words. If they said "Twitter 'troll' settles to pay six-figure sum in damages" Then it would have been fine, with no confusion.

A national news outlet such as the BBC is obliged to be accurate and clear, factually and in its use of legal terminology. Both the BBC headline and the amended one above encourage a partisan interpretation of the case that is not clearly supported by the given facts, sparse as they are.

1) The word "troll," for example. That invokes a specific meaning of an individual who deliberately provokes strife for the sake of it. A heated disagreement may be deeply unpleasant for one or both parties, but we do not normally understand the actions of either party to be "trolling."

2) The word "damages" is generally taken to mean compensation decided by a judge or jury following a verdict. It appears that this was an out of court settlement without admission of liability. There can be many reasons apart from genuine liability for which a party may opt to settle.

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

#152

Post by walshemj » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 6:43 PM UTC

woah wrote: post #108

opheliate wrote: post #50

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.

You are aware of the "troubles" ?

I am assuming good faith here but there are para militaries on both sides that make Trumps most headbanging supporters look like boy scouts.

Their idea of "legitimate political criticism" goes a bit further than you would like.

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

#153

Post by soren_dahl » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 6:43 PM UTC

woah wrote: post #118

iso1210 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your first sentence is a personal opinion.

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

#154

Post by barneygale » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

woah wrote: post #118

iso1210 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ireland#Public_opinion

The people of Northern Ireland disagree, and we ought to leave it to them.

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

#155

Post by walshemj » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #71

dangerface wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely free speech doesn't mean you are free to use your speech to attack people and spread lies.

>Absolutely free speech doesn't mean you are free to use your speech to attack people and spread lies. Yes it does, that's exactly what it means. People disagree on what "free speech" means, on what limits can legitimately be placed on that freedom and by whom, but the implications of "absolutely free" speech are unambiguous.

Go in the wrong pub in NI and shout up the RA (PIRA) /UDA and see what happens.

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

#156

Post by lifeisstillgood » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 6:48 PM UTC

Strom wrote: post #138

shellac wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

England?

If you want them to say United Kingdom, then say it. Obscure one word comments aren't useful or transparent.

Sadly even UK is not right here. We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

If we do not include NI, then we are just Great Britain.

Most of us are confused about it too.

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

#157

Post by lifeisstillgood » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 6:55 PM UTC

arp242 wrote: post #49

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.

I don't think "offensive" and "defamatory" are really the same thing though. If I say "seaish is an asshole" then that's not very nice, but ... you know, I'm allowed to have that opinion for whatever reason ("everyone with two s's in their username is an asshole!") But if I say "seaish is a pedophile and went to Asia for rentboys" then that's quite another thing (and these were among the claims that were made). Not t…

I think that, while its clear it is an example, it would be preferable to use "XXX is a paedophile" as the example text than the parents username.

It would come off as less aggressive and less directed at the parent, which with such an accusation, even as an example, is rather jarring.

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

#158

Post by n4bz0r » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 6:58 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #148

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.

I must admit, writing the comment I didn't take into account authorities being able to request personal information. But my initial thought was about something else, and I could've communicated it better.

> The BBC radio and TV presenter traced the identity of the person who was behind an online campaign against him.

The wording in the article can be seen as the man and his colleagues did all the tracing of a completely random internet-troll themselves. Not only that sounds ridiculous, but also falls in line with the display of power I mentioned.

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

#159

Post by dec0dedab0de » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 7:05 PM UTC

Zuider wrote: post #151

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree it is a little misleading, websites do not have to use the legal definitions of words. If they said "Twitter 'troll' settles to pay six-figure sum in damages" Then it would have been fine, with no confusion.

A national news outlet such as the BBC is obliged to be accurate and clear, factually and in its use of legal terminology. Both the BBC headline and the amended one above encourage a partisan interpretation of the case that is not clearly supported by the given facts, sparse as they are. 1) The word "troll," for example. That invokes a specific meaning of an individual who deliberately provokes strife for the sake of…

A national news outlet such as the BBC is obliged to be accurate and clear, factually and in its use of legal terminology.

I don't know anything about UK law and editorial standards. However, I would always expect a news outlet targeting the general public to use the common meanings of words, instead of abiding by the nuanced jargon of whatever field they are covering. It's the same reason I don't get mad when newspapers use the word hacker to mean criminal.

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

#160

Post by dahfizz » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 7:10 PM UTC

barbegal wrote: post #130

jtbayly wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”

In England it is used in the context of a settlement. E.g. in part 36 https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rule...

That page refers to claims of damages, not actual damages (as decided by a court). It makes sense that the settlement is in relation to the damage the plaintiff claims (i.e. what they would have sued for in court).