Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 239 posts

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#91

Post by toast0 »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #19
FundementalBrit wrote: post #3

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.

> Isn't this indicative of a serious problem though?

Mostly, saying mean things doesn't rise to the level of legal interventions. There are plenty of IRL venues where people will say mean things (sports, comedy clubs, reproductive health clinics), and many venues where saying mean things will get you asked to stop or forced to leave.

If you say mean things on HN, you'll likely be asked to stop or forced to leave; but some sites don't make that part of their platform. Personally, I'm not going to participate in places where there's a lot of meanness, but that means I don't participate in a lot of popular sites.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#92

Post by umvi »

_fat_santa wrote: post #84
concinds wrote: post #68

A society where: - you are held responsible for other people's feelings, and for their feelings as a result of your words and actions, and: - anything that causes anyone to feel bad, is looked down upon by the collective Is tyranny by the emotionally stunted. The fundamental problem with it, is it makes society more enmeshed (a pathological relationship dynamic). People start caring more about going with the grain, t…

> The proposed law change will shift the focus on to the “harmful effect” of a message rather than if it contains “indecent” or “grossly offensive” content, which is the present basis for assessing its criminality. I'm feeling very harmed after reading your comment. I realize the content's of your message are objectively harmless, but I "feel" harmed. So...off to jail you go. --- But on a more serious note. Like you…

> we have come to the point where what you actually say, you intentions, are completely irrelevant, it's all about how your message is perceived

The way this is typically framed is "impact matters more than intent". Like if you weren't watching where you were walking and accidentally stepped on someone's foot. You didn't _intend_ to harm them, but the overall _impact_ was that you did harm them.

As you rightly point out though, the elephant in the room is that impact in this context is not falsifiable. Unlike stepping on someone's foot where you could use instruments to measure how many capillaries were broken or if the bone is cracked, with words and feelings you can't actually empirically prove harm was done which is why I think enacting laws and policies that directly correlate with impact is a recipe for disaster...

IMO the best way to deal with impact has to be at the cultural level. "Hey, I find swear words offensive, can you stop?" "Oh sure, sorry about that, I won't swear around you". Bam, problem solved.

A society that transitions to: "Hey, I find swear words offensive, I'm going to report you to the psychological harm police" is one on the fast track to dystopia.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#93

Post by KittenInABox »

concinds wrote: post #68

A society where: - you are held responsible for other people's feelings, and for their feelings as a result of your words and actions, and: - anything that causes anyone to feel bad, is looked down upon by the collective Is tyranny by the emotionally stunted. The fundamental problem with it, is it makes society more enmeshed (a pathological relationship dynamic). People start caring more about going with the grain, t…

> You are responsible for making yourself happy, for asserting yourself, for setting any boundaries you choose. People on Twitter can just block, or mute, or turn off their DMs for people they don't follow.

This solution does not account for the following ways a troll can harass you:

* sockpuppets pinging you,

* sockpuppets impersonating you,

* sockpuppets mass reporting you, thereby suspending your accounts

* finding people you are friends/family with and sending them rape/death/bomb threats or doing the above,

* finding where you work and sending your workplace similar threats,

* putting up websites involving your legal name and face to make allegations you're a child predator/criminal optimized for search engines.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#94

Post by cute_boi »

batch12 wrote: post #11
lbriner wrote: 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…

On the flip side, the more laws you have, the more impossible it is to not violate those laws. Then it's easier to arrest someone you just don't like.

I think this is how dictatorship works. Make subjective laws and arrest anyone who stands in your way? Looks like freedom is fading away slowly.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#95

Post by pessimizer »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #86
pessimizer wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 enthusia…

>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? I'm suggesting that if I were in a public place and had a person shouting obscenities at me everywhere I went... it's illegal harassment, and the person can be identified and prosecuted. I've experienced both IRL and online harassment, and managed to stop IRL harass…

> I'm suggesting that if I were in a public place and had a person shouting obscenities at me everywhere I went... it's illegal harassment, and the person can be identified and prosecuted.

What does "hiding" mean here? Not posting on twitter?

Is this a law that will regulate bad words and not content? People would have far fewer objections to a blacklist of words you can't use in public.

Is the problem with somebody following you around IRL shouting obscenities at you the content? Is somebody following you around all day shouting positive affirmations not objectionable?

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#96

Post by sofixa »

concinds wrote: post #68

A society where: - you are held responsible for other people's feelings, and for their feelings as a result of your words and actions, and: - anything that causes anyone to feel bad, is looked down upon by the collective Is tyranny by the emotionally stunted. The fundamental problem with it, is it makes society more enmeshed (a pathological relationship dynamic). People start caring more about going with the grain, t…

> The most fundamental piece of applicable psychology is the idea that you are responsible for your own thoughts, feelings, and actions, period. You are responsible for making yourself happy, for asserting yourself, for setting any boundaries you choose. People on Twitter can just block, or mute, or turn off their DMs for people they don't follow. What's wrong with that? Now there's a human right to use Twitter unhindered? They just spent the last decade telling us there wasn't!

You should try telling this to those who get abused online. I think people who regularly get rape threats and racial abuse, many of whom are calling for such legislation ( recently there have been numerous cases with black footballers and also some with female journalists), have a slightly higher priority than people who just want to insult freely without fear of consequences. Considering people have committed suicide over online harassment, it's not as simple as "just block the baddies".

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#97

Post by wait_a_minute »

md8z wrote: post #79
wait_a_minute wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Burden is on you. If you think one can exist, go ahead and try offering it so we can evaluate it.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#98

Post by hypersoar »

drost wrote: post #38
mandmandam wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is getting thrown in to prison for jokes? Assange was thrown into jail for basic journalism, but that was at America's behest.

> Meechan was arrested on suspicion of breaching the Communications Act 2003.[20] On 19 March 2018, Meechan was convicted of breaching the act by Sheriff Derek O'Carroll at Airdrie Sheriff Court.[21] The court ruled that Meechan's claim that the video was a joke intended for his girlfriend "lacked credibility" as Meechan's girlfriend did not subscribe to the YouTube channel to which the video was posted. https://en.w…

> On 23 April 2018, Meechan was sentenced to a fine of £800, with no prison sentence.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#99

Post by floatingatoll »

concinds wrote: post #68

A society where: - you are held responsible for other people's feelings, and for their feelings as a result of your words and actions, and: - anything that causes anyone to feel bad, is looked down upon by the collective Is tyranny by the emotionally stunted. The fundamental problem with it, is it makes society more enmeshed (a pathological relationship dynamic). People start caring more about going with the grain, t…

Is it morally appropriate to get together a group of your friends and pressure someone to commit suicide on social media? By your logic, it seems that it is; their suicidal reaction to malicious and intentional verbal abuse is not anyone else's problem but their own.

Many people seem to feel otherwise, and there are laws in place in various regions as a result. Are they wrong to choose to restrict your speech in favor of the collective good? If not, then what is the dividing line between "verbal abuse is okay" and "verbal abuse is not okay"? If it merely drives them to self-harm rather than suicide, is that morally acceptable, in some way that causing suicide is not?

Societies have a long-standing tradition of restricting individual behaviors for the collective good. Wishing that societies wouldn't this is hopeless, because it seems like every society that doesn't restrict individual behaviors to some degree ends up becoming a textbook example of how not run a society.

I read your moral position here as "if you are too frail to resist someone's words, you don't deserve protection from their verbal abuse with malicious intent". If I have misunderstood how your moral reasoning applies to the topic under discussion — trolls willfully causing psychological harm on the Internet — please help me understand where I've misapplied your logic.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#100

Post by tonyedgecombe »

chmod775 wrote: post #39

In any other place a headline like this would be used by a satirical publication to elicit laughs - successfully. I was laughing until I realized it's The Times, did a double take, and continued laughing.

I'll reserve judgement until I can see the actual bill rather than what The Times prints.
Post reply on HN