Live data from Hacker News

Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

twitter.com

71–80 of 239 posts

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#71
post #36

subjectivity is loved by the powerful rule of subjectivity is, at the end of the day, rule of the powerful: when two parties disagree and the situation can be defined in primarily subjective terms, the most powerful party wins by hiding behind outcast, oppressed or unpopular groups with often legitimate (though perhaps subjective, to an extent) grievances, the powerful are able to push through the subjective zeitgeis…

You already have subjective offences in the UK: The CPS uses definitions agreed with the National Police Chiefs' Council to identify racist or religious incidents/crimes and to monitor the decisions and outcomes: "Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race" or "Any incident/crime which is perceived by the…

Wow, talk about presumption of innocence... there are blasphemy laws in some countries that make "public actions committed with the express purpose of insulting religious beliefs" a crime which is actually a very sensible definition per se: first of all, it excludes personal correspondence and private blogs (unless the blog is particularly popular), and second, go and try to prove that intent. That requires linguistic expertise and the experts, except in very egregious cases, tend to write opinions of "nope, they just were emotionally expressing their opinions without specifically addressing anyone or any group in particular" kind.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#72

Oh boy well this is another nail in the coffin for free speech in the UK. Back in my day it was just a given people said mean things on the internet.

>Back in my day it was just a given people said mean things on the internet. Isn't this indicative of a serious problem though? If there were places IRL where the average person is subjected to a constant barrage of callousness it wouldn't continue to exist, would it? Can we have free speech without accountability? In the past accountability seemed like a major factor.

> If there were places IRL where the average person is subjected to a constant barrage of callousness it wouldn't continue to exist, would it?

Are you suggesting that there are populated places that you can visit in real life where loudly shouting an arbitrary statement could not attract abuse?

If I went to a model train convention, carrying a giant sign explaining how childish and stupid I think model train enthusiasts are, do you think I would be subjected to a "constant barrage of callousness" until I left?

In the UK, "trolling" has been entirely defined (by a media and political class full of blue checks) as any angry response of the public against the wise observations of blue checks. It's entirely class-based. You don't have to threaten, you don't have to swear, you don't have to be ethnically, religiously, or sexually bigoted. You just have to strongly disagree. In fact, the more biting and incisive the comment, the bigger the perceived offense.

Entirely about nobodies embarrassing somebodies in public.

edit: this is a special meaning within the UK media and political classes. Generally, "trolls" are people who like to cause arguments online, and who can be judged by the ratio of the number of characters they type to the number of characters they cause to be typed. "Trolls" are not people who have an honest belief in what they are saying. It's only in the UK (AFAIK) where "troll" is defined by disagreement and exacerbated by tone.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#74
post #9

I call BS. We already have about 100 times more laws than we have the capacity to prosecute so it's just noise. We already have laws about malicious communications but yet social media is still swimming with incredibly malicious content. Insulate Britain had a number of injunctions taken against them to not block main roads and when they do, they get arrested - 1 of them saying they had been arrested 11 times. Now re…

Inconsistent application of unjust laws is maybe even worse than them being applied to everyone, now you have a great reason to discount the people being abused if they don't agree with your politics.

Inconsistency is terrible regardless of how high-quality the law is. Law is about setting boundaries but if you see everyone else breaking a law and then you get prosecuted for breaking it yourself, you don't create anything except resentment.

I think poorly written and inconsistently applied laws is a big part of why the UK has become so selfish. Easier just to worry about me and mine rather than what I think society wants.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is why the trend is to remove factual information from trials rather than add some. For example, in many Western countries, it is now forbidden to present during a trial the SMS exchanged with a “victim of rape” before meeting, and to seize the messages between her and her friends, because it would cause psychological harm to this person. So the only remaining evidence is he-said-she-said, which is prone for…

I'm happy i'm too old for this s*t. So what happens now? If some guys ends up on the receiving end of regret charges, what can they do to defend themselves? Wear body cams to record all intercourse and save as a proof of consent?

The solution to that is to have multiple passports, and have a relatively location-independent lifestyle. Not ideal, but given many Western countries are now classified as failing democracies, it's getting increasingly less optional.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#76

Oh boy well this is another nail in the coffin for free speech in the UK. Back in my day it was just a given people said mean things on the internet.

>Back in my day it was just a given people said mean things on the internet. Isn't this indicative of a serious problem though? If there were places IRL where the average person is subjected to a constant barrage of callousness it wouldn't continue to exist, would it? Can we have free speech without accountability? In the past accountability seemed like a major factor.

> If there were places IRL where the average person is subjected to a constant barrage of callousness it wouldn't continue to exist, would it?

Did you not go to school with other children? Name-calling, exclusion, and what adults would call assault and physical abuse are par for the course among small children. Human beings have an instinctive ability to empathize with other people, but consistently applying that to all other people, even when it conflicts with other desires, is not part of our genetic programming, which is why it is a backbone teaching of all major religions. We start as tiny children who reflexively, instinctively hit and call names to express their desires, and we don't grow out of these tendencies so much as reduce them (on the one hand) and refine them.

Habitual bullies discover that they enjoy it when their bullying earns positive attention from other people, and they adjust their targets and tactics accordingly. In a setting where people like seeing sexual minorities persecuted, that's who they will target. In a setting where people like seeing racial minorities persecuted, that's who they will target. If you harbor any aggressive itch you are too timid or too "civilized" to scratch, you can bet the bullies in your social milieu will seek your approval by scratching it for you, and if we're against bullying, that's who it matters to call out, the people who are working for our approval.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#77
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I don't think these places (Twitter, Facebook, etc) need to be places where people are too abusive. My impression is that a lot of people who are there aren't happy with the abuse there either.

So you're trying to make the world a better place? In which Twitter becomes the better version of Twitter that you believe it can be? I wish you the best of luck.

Well no, I'm just trying to get the conversation started because the article mentioned that this was a pain point for people. If you have suggestions I'd love to hear it. I don't have all the answers, as I mentioned before this is something that needs to be decided collectively.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#78
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Back in my day it was just a given people said mean things on the internet. Isn't this indicative of a serious problem though? If there were places IRL where the average person is subjected to a constant barrage of callousness it wouldn't continue to exist, would it? Can we have free speech without accountability? In the past accountability seemed like a major factor.

> Isn't this indicative of a serious problem though? If there were places IRL where the average person is subjected to a constant barrage of callousness it wouldn't continue to exist, would it? Haha, "if"? You must live in a very different world than I do. Junior high school, the old guys running the local hardware store, almost every cubicle farm in the financial services industry, the city of New York... I could gi…

When they cross certain lines they become illegal harassment, and there are ways to handle them.

I've worked with people who have been fired for "cubicle farm in the financial services industry" type of behavior, and it's becoming less and less acceptable as time goes on.

In high school a group of boys was expelled for writing homophobic slurs on another student's locker.

I lived in NYC for a period of time, and it's a cake walk compared to spending time on social media. I did feel in danger at one point on the subway, but I was also helped out of that situation by a bystander... and the police were able to ID the individual with security footage (who had a history of causing problems and who I later provided testimony against in court).

With the anonymity of the internet, levers like this are often non-existent. Local police often don't even have the capability to understand it, let alone investigate it. I attempted to report death threats (which contained my home address) at one point and was referred to the FBI (which as far as I know, did nothing).

The mechanisms we have for handling problems like this IRL certainly aren't perfect, many people fall through the cracks, and mechanisms like the police can be very problematic in their own right... but the only time I've felt entirely helpless was when dealing with anonymous online harassment. It became very clear early on that no one was going to do anything about it, and the only way out was to attempt to "not exist" online.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#79
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please have a conversation with me instead of accusing me of trolling? If you want to change my mind then I'm open to it, but this isn't the way to be convincing.

No more conversation allowed. jails you for trolling

I get that you are trying to make me the butt of a joke, but you'll notice my original question was if we could come up with a objective definition. If you don't think we can then you could just say so.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#80
post #50
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's subjective about it though? Do you think it is not possible by now for us to collectively come up with an objective definition of what trolling and abusive language is? To me it's pretty clear after spending just a few minutes on Twitter...

Throw one out. What’s an objective definition of trolling and abusive language that you could write into law? Separate definitions or together. Just give it a shot.

Language that is meant to intimidate? It seems pretty clear to me that the purpose of that is to stifle discussion.
Post reply on HN