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

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

#201

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

n4bz0r wrote: post #174

ceejayoz wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 becaus…

Most people doing this kind of thing are doing so from their ordinary smartphone.

If someone has set up that much opsec just to post abuse, they definitely know they're doing something wrong. Few vulnerable activists have that level of security.

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

#202

Post by mcguire » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 9:31 PM UTC

rovolo wrote: post #161

wutbrodo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think you're giving a great summary of these stories. The first two are related to personal defamation: * Police horse and dog: people could be arrested for "threatening, abusive or insulting" speech in public at the time. The police, being wankers, overused their discretion on "insulting" speech and so the law was changed in 2013 to remove "insulting" as a criterion. https://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/16/you-…

Thanks for the details!

Any news on Simon Singh and the British Chiropractic Association or the Church of Scientology?

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

#203

Post by Manuel_D » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

InitialLastName wrote: post #188

Manuel_D wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just a question if expenses but also responsibility. If I post a post-it note on my schools bulletin board making defamatory statements who is at fault? Me? Or the school, because it was their bulletin board?

The first time, it's your responsibility. If you kept doing it but the school knew you were doing it and not only left it up, but put copies on bulletin boards across their entire global network, and never asked you to stop, maybe they have to take some responsibility.

Right, the person who authored the defamatory content - not the platform - is responsible. That's how the law works.

The school might not even know whether the content is defamatory. If someone posts an accusation of sexual assault and the accused denies it what happens? Does it have to immediately side with the accused?

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

#204

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

kyrra wrote: post #13

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.

> paying a 6-figure sum

I wonder where that came from.

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

#205

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 9:56 PM UTC

kyrra wrote: post #13

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.

Or - something else happened.

The plaintiff is a radio presenter, and it's easy to Google him.

It's one thing to make a personally defamatory accusation.

It's something else to launch a high profile libel trial with alleged political overtones in a very tense and scarred part of the world with recent riots.

Clearly, we're not going to get the full details of this story.

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

#206

Post by drdeca » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 9:57 PM UTC

arp242 wrote: post #181

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't really see the problem to be honest? I don't see how it's aggressive? (and it's too late to edit it now anyway, so not all that much I can do about it now anyway).

I agree that using as an example the person you are talking to is permissible, but I also agree that it is a bit preferable to instead either use a generic placeholder, or instead of saying “If I said [X] about [someone], that would(n’t) be libel”, instead saying “If [someone] said [X] about me, that would(n’t) be libel.” I don’t think this is obligatory though. I think that no one should feel pressured to make this change in how they phrase things, but I do think it is an improvement in phrasing.

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

#207

Post by diogenesjunior » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 9:59 PM UTC

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…

If they couldn't win an election without a blue bird app, they didn't deserve to win period.

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

#208

Post by Steko » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 10:00 PM UTC

akersten wrote: post #14

echelon wrote: post #2

I'm a fan of free speech, but defamation is one of the limits I agree with. The UK has a stricter framework than the US, but I think these cases should happen in the US too. It's good to see precedent being established for prosecuting those that abuse social media for evil. I'm interested in who the guilty party is in this case. They can afford a six figure penalty and want to remain anonymous.

No, the US gets this right, and this case would be thrown out promptly were it in American jurisdiction (well, presumably - I don't know the extent of the "trolling" since the article is scant on detail, but I assume it's nothing over-the-top or they would have brought it to light to support their case). There's a much higher bar to establish defamation against Public Figures in the US -- as there should be. They are…

> but I assume it's nothing over-the-top or they would have brought it to light to support their case

Or maybe they assume that repeating the "false and defamatory allegations" wouldn't be a good idea?

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

#209

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

AlexandrB wrote: post #7

echelon wrote: post #2

I'm a fan of free speech, but defamation is one of the limits I agree with. The UK has a stricter framework than the US, but I think these cases should happen in the US too. It's good to see precedent being established for prosecuting those that abuse social media for evil. I'm interested in who the guilty party is in this case. They can afford a six figure penalty and want to remain anonymous.

Defamation is a great way for those with money to silence dissent and avoid any consequences. Say our product sucks? Defamation. Claim you were sexually assaulted? Defamation. Even if what you said is true, would you be willing to spend the money to go to court and try to fight a defamation lawsuit?

So the guy who had six figures lying around to pay off a twitter lawsuit doesn't have money?

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

#210

Post by Steko » Thu, Jul 01, 2021, 10:06 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.

Hard to sympathize with that troll when he is doing the same thing repeatedly:

https://itsstillonlythursday.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/scr...

https://itsstillonlythursday.wordpress.com/2021/04/29/dial-d...