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

241–250 of 256 posts

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

#241

Post by moksly »

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…

I remember the internet before social media. I don’t think we would be worse of if Facebook prevented people from commenting on posts, I think we would be better of.

What you are describing is the dream scenario for me.

It’s not free speech when it has no consequences, because the consequence of total free speech has proven to make every reasonable voice leave. This is exactly why the comments on political social media posts are so terrible that neither you or I bother to read them.

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

#242

Post by moksly »

azinman2 wrote: post #62
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…

Seems like you’re saying contradictory things here. On the one hand you’re arguing for massive moderation, and on the other you’re suggesting a few people shouldn’t be able to de-platform a president. You can’t have both. What’s funny about this is we all act like Facebook/Twitter/YouTube are the only ways that politicians can talk to the public, yet somehow politicians have long campaigned well before the Internet e…

I’m not saying the platforms shouldn’t ban people for breaking their rules, I’m saying that they should be consistent and not just apply their rules when it is convenient for them to do so.

I use Trump as an example because it’s the example everyone knows. I personally think that he should have been banned when he first broke the rules, but since he wasn’t, then he shouldn’t have been banned at all.

I’m calling for more moderation, but for it to be removed from the hands of a few tech billionaires and put into the hand of the public. Is the social media platforms cannot do this, then I fully support the EU route or making them illegal.

I don’t see that as a free speech issue, as long as we democratically agree on it within the EU because the internet is still there and politicians have, as you point out, campaigned without Facebook. What I do see as a free speech issue is when a very select few non-EU billionaires can dictate who says what and when they do it on their platforms. That’s the most anti-democratic threat we face in the EU right now.

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

#243

Post by moksly »

Manuel_D wrote: post #59
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…

> I simply don’t get why we don’t hold the social media platforms accountable for the content that gets posted to them The scale of content being posted on social media is such that this liability makes running a social media platform effectively impossible. All user generated content would have to be manually reviewed before being posted. This would be prohibitively expensive. As for the Trump ban, freedom of speech…

> The scale of content being posted on social media is such that this liability makes running a social media platform effectively impossible.

I won’t miss social media, will you?

And I say this as someone who uses Facebook, YouTube and Instagram quite a lot for Blood Bowl hobby purposes, so it’s not that I dislike their platforms as such, but it’s hard to deny that they aren’t healthy for society. At least not if we want to continue valuing experts and science and not popularity and populism.

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

#244

Post by moksly »

diogenesjunior wrote: post #207
treeman79 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m not a Trump supporter, but in the most recent Danish election, the platform that saw the most campaigning funds by all Danish political parties (and we elect quite a few) was Facebook. Most campaigning funds by a lot, mind you. This has been an increasing trend since Obama.

We’ve even got studies that show, that Social Media are easily the platforms where you buy the most influence per money spent.

Of course with no oversight and no public record of what gets shown to whom, unlike all other forms of political campaigning in Denmark, we do kind of put our election results in the hands of a single American billionaire.

It’s no secret that I don’t think our elected officials should get off these platforms, but they are obviously not going to do so when they are so powerful mediums, which means we need to regulate them.

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

#245

Post by dragonwriter »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #240
dragonwriter wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not that it matters to anyone, but the Plantation of Ulster would likely be considered a war crime under article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention. Well, probably not, given that none of the states who were, or whose territory was, involved were parties to Geneva Convention (IV) of 1949 at the time.

I think the implication is that if it happened today it would be considered a war crime.

But that's hardly noteworthy; any internal or international conflict from the 1600s is chock full of what would be, in modern terms, war crimes and crimes against humanity, usually on all sides unless one of them simply lacked capacity.

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

#246

Post by iso1631 »

meepmorp wrote: post #228
iso1631 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Volunteer_Force

Did you intend your post to be an endorsement of NI paramilitaries? I didn't read it like that, but everyone else seems to be doing a round of IRA whataboutism in response.

I was linking to a loyalist paramilitary. Many Americans have a very strange view of Northern Ireland, seem to think that one bunch of terrorists are lovely people and the other bunch don't exist

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

#247

Post by wccrawford »

anm89 wrote: post #105
wccrawford wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also an English word that can be used for the same kind of thing without the law being involved at all.

I see people make this absurd argument applied to various subjects constantly on HN. So a guy hits a triple, should I then say, "wow that guy hit a home run" because in business meetings "hitting a home run" means "doing a good job". Or can we agree that when talking about baseball we probably shouldn't use the term home run to mean good job because that would be incorrect in this context specific setting. Well, usin…

This isn't a euphemism, though. In both situations, the loser is paying for damages they caused to the other party. It's the same thing, just settled out of court instead of being ordered by the court.

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

#248

Post by meepmorp »

iso1631 wrote: post #246
meepmorp wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you intend your post to be an endorsement of NI paramilitaries? I didn't read it like that, but everyone else seems to be doing a round of IRA whataboutism in response.

I was linking to a loyalist paramilitary. Many Americans have a very strange view of Northern Ireland, seem to think that one bunch of terrorists are lovely people and the other bunch don't exist

That's what I thought; you were merely pointing out the existence of paramilitary groups on the loyalist side, in addition to the more familiar (to those in the US) IRA.

Guess the comment strife is to be expected.

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

#249

Post by actually_a_dog »

antihero wrote: post #232
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

UK news sources are subject to injunctions.

More context on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_l...

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

#250

Post by aaron695 »

Here's what seems like a level headed twitter thread of people defending BBCs "Troll" in Feburary.

You'll note, they consider a comment from another journalist calling him a provo (Provisional Irish Republican Army) being close to a serious threat of causing harm.

https://twitter.com/squinteratn/status/1364596254509047815

A subthread of note on the above thread - https://twitter.com/GregoryRasputin/status/13645841898200965...

Post reply on HN