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

171–180 of 256 posts

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

#171

Post by anonAndOn »

n4bz0r wrote: post #137
ttt0 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder how this "troll" was "traced". Specially trained Twitter-hound? You don't just "trace" people on the internet. Look up Kurt Eichenwald. He found and sued an anonymous Twitter troll who send him a GIF "you deserve a seizure" in 2017. I'm not sure exactly how, I think the authorities helped him, so Twitter just might've gave them the information.

Good point. That's possible and could've made the things easier. I tend to forget that authorities can request personal information from companies (and that the companies don't mind sharing most of the time).

FTR, it happens ALL... THE... TIME. Court issues subpoena saying give us everything you have on this tweet/message/posting or be held in contempt. Company then responds with all info on account IPs, logins, timestamps, etc. Unless your OPSEC is impeccable, it's usually quite easy to identify a user and only requires the permission of a court.

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

#174

Post by n4bz0r »

ceejayoz wrote: post #169
n4bz0r wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 complet…

> Not only that sounds ridiculous... I'm not sure why. Doxxing is quite easy to do in many cases. Upload a photo that's geotagged, have an unusual name, analysis of your network of friends/followers, linkages to other social profiles, etc.

Although possible, it doesn't make much sense to use a personal account in this scenario, especially given the political nature of the messages which the article fails to mention along the other contextual details.

I'm assuming a perfect offender here, who is sitting on a throwaway account, on a burner phone, and behind a VPN or three, all via public WiFi spot. Why? Because it makes sense, but most importantly because the article leaves a lot to the imagination, especially using the terminology such as "troll".

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

#175

Post by bof_ »

vl wrote: post #170
barneygale wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ireland#Public_opinion The people of Northern Ireland disagree, and we ought to leave it to them.

Essentially it's a piece curved out of a country where descendants of occupants exceed in number native population. Of course it's occupied for so long that now it's "their own", still doesn't change the fact that it was occupied and not treated equally historically in the first place.

Hacker News on Northern Ireland is worse than Hacker News on CSS. Which is saying a lot.

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

#176

Post by bof_ »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #156
Strom wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And the alpha_3 for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is GBR.

The Western European Archipelago is a complex place.

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

#177

Post by AQuantized »

vl wrote: post #170
barneygale wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ireland#Public_opinion The people of Northern Ireland disagree, and we ought to leave it to them.

Essentially it's a piece curved out of a country where descendants of occupants exceed in number native population. Of course it's occupied for so long that now it's "their own", still doesn't change the fact that it was occupied and not treated equally historically in the first place.

Not to be pedantic, but isn't that true of almost any place if you go back far enough? There's a reason those with 'British' ancestry are called Anglo-Saxons; The Angles (French) and Saxons (Germans) that conquered and occupied the land of the Celts eventually become the de facto inhabitants. Of course the Celts themselves didn't evolve there, but also dominated pre-Celtic peoples.

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

#178

Post by criley2 »

zentiggr wrote: post #141
criley2 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those services will not be able to afford the lawsuits. That's the point. New services will be one of two things:

1) Pirate media in open and flagrant violation of the legal requirement to ensure the legality and veracity of all user content. In which case the government will shut it down or admit non-enforcement of the bogus law.

2) Or they are soon-to-be-former media sued into oblivion because someone lied on their service in a manner which the service is liable for. The service either vets the statements or pays the damages.

This is before we consider the implications of a hostile actor using this mechanism to tank businesses. Write bots to spread misinformation, lies and slander. What are you going to do, sue some unknown operator ten thousand miles away? Good luck. The service will pay damages for it and they'll keep paying until they restrict free speech sufficiently.

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

#179

Post by walshemj »

vl wrote: post #163
walshemj wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lol, "Para military" on one side being actual British Army?

Your not familiar with the term ?

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

#180

Post by bluGill »

alasdair_ wrote: post #91
bluGill wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s worth noting that in the UK the loser pays the costs (subject to various standard and maximum rates etc.)

That doesn't matter - when going to court you might lose even if your case seems perfect. The rates things are subject to help to limit how bad things can get, but you still need to have some protection just in case you lose and have to pay up.
Post reply on HN