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

161–170 of 239 posts

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#161

Post by sofixa »

kradeelav wrote: post #154
sofixa wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 unhin…

I can't speak for more than myself, but here's an alternative viewpoint: as a female that fits into other undisclosed minorities, and as an erotic artist who regularly gets threats (comes with the package) - I am far more afraid of the consequences of this dystopian line of thinking than I am of the occasional hate mobs. There are tools out there to deal with mobs/threats, even if it's unpleasant, but giving puritans…

> I feel like you mean the best in your heart, but would encourage anyone to think deeply before white knighting for minorities. A lot of times well meaning laws can have disastrous consequences in smothering less-powerful voices (laws against "immoral" content referring to anything sexual online regularly making things worse for actual sex workers, for instance). The ACLU has a long list of historical incidences where "legal" censorship ended up hurting civil rights activists, queer activists and creatives, and too many other groups to name.

Absolutely, especially in clown shitfests like the UK. That doesn't mean people who enjoy racially abusing teenagers on Twitter should just be left to do so. There's a middle ground between banning anything anyone might deem "offensive" (like erotica or BDSM) and the wild west.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#162

Post by sofixa »

sokoloff wrote: post #128
sofixa wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 unhin…

We already have a crime of assault (as distinct from battery or rape). A credible threat is already a crime of assault and that’s as it should be. “ is a poopyhead”, even if it provokes an outsized negative reaction on Foobar’s part, is nowhere near the same thing.

Someone hurling racial slurs on Twitter or sending rape threats, from the comfort of their home without any credibility, isn't a "credible threat", but isn't insignificant.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#163

Post by Levitz »

md8z wrote: post #80
SllX wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Language that is meant to intimidate?

So like "Eat the rich?" or is it more like "I hope antivaxxers actually get covid"? Does "Fuck you" count?

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#164

Post by sokoloff »

sofixa wrote: post #160
Levitz wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. They don't have higher priority than the rest of society, which enjoy an important lack of authorit…

> A person's freedom ends where another man's freedom begins I don't know why you think your freedom to offend/insult is higher than another person's freedom to not be offended/insulted.

I think inherent in the right to speak is the possibility to say things which risk some other person experiencing (or claiming) offense.

Perhaps I claim to be genuinely offended/insulted by speech in the form of a haiku. You can’t prove that my claimed offense/insult is not genuine, yet it would be ridiculous to ban such speech or prosecute it.

I think there is therefore a necessary middle ground of speech which is legal but for which someone claims it offends them. If it offends some people, see xkcd 1357.

https://xkcd.com/1357/

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#165

Post by [deleted] »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #159
Subsentient wrote: post #26

And this is why I'm never going to move to Europe. My jokes would be considered "obscene" or "indecent" or something and I'd be thrown in prison. At least here in the States, for now, the government is letting the private companies perform the censorship, and not imprisoning people for tasteless humor.

In my experience, the range of socially acceptable jokes is far wider, and people make fun of what the US counts as offensive.

[deleted]

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#166

Post by [deleted] »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #159
Subsentient wrote: post #26

And this is why I'm never going to move to Europe. My jokes would be considered "obscene" or "indecent" or something and I'd be thrown in prison. At least here in the States, for now, the government is letting the private companies perform the censorship, and not imprisoning people for tasteless humor.

In my experience, the range of socially acceptable jokes is far wider, and people make fun of what the US counts as offensive.

[deleted]

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#167

Post by grayhatter »

md8z wrote: post #69
grayhatter wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you... don't... go there. This isn't a hard concept. I don't willingly walk into a mine field, but some people do. I'd totally accompany them if I also had any of the dozens of mine detecting, or detonating tools, vehicles. You may have a moral obligation to stop people from being hurt, but you have no moral obligation to stop people who willingly choose to be hurt, or accept the risk it. You are in control of the me…

I've already been doing that for decades and I hope you can understand how it's impractical to do that. Social media has network effects, that's the whole purpose for it to exist and some people just expect you to meet them where they're at.

I totally understand that. I consider myself fortunate enough to have learned to ignore it while a teenager (thanks "I'm Offended", if you know, you know :D). That's not to say things don't bother me, or that there's no one living in my head rent free right now. Only that ignoring vast the majority of things I don't like is a learnable skill. Such that I can safely visit any website I want without worrying about it running my day, or causing other psychological harm.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#168

Post by msla »

sofixa wrote: post #96
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 unhin…

This proposed law is discriminatory against autistic people (of which I am one) and, possibly, other people who, due to difficulty in reading a room or difficulty in self-censoring or difficulty in separating fact from imagination, might say or post offensive things without intending to cause hurt. (Or, maybe, without intending to hurt anyone who actually exists, as opposed to their imagined enemies.) I could also add that it's discriminatory against people who were raised in certain environments, but I've noticed that "They were raised that way" isn't seen as a valid defense, as it's apparently viewed as axiomatic that everyone has a chance to revise all of their implicit biases before posting to Twitter.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#169

Post by chrismcb »

clairity wrote: post #144
umvi wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

as happens so often, basketball provides a microcosm. fouls are called (and varying penalties assessed) for illegal moves that lead to an unfair advantage. implicit in that is that intent matters . many times, a foul isn’t assessed for an illegal maneuver because the intent to gain advantage wasn’t there (contact was happenstance) or no advantage was gained. however, some fouls are so dangerous (e.g., undercutting a…

Uhm... Intent had nothing to do with a foul. The idea is the move is illegal because it can give you an advantage. It doesn't matter if you intend to or not. A lot of the fouls in basketball are not intentional. A common foul is attempting to block a shot and hitting the shooter's arm. No harm was intended, but a foul was called. About the only time intent matters in basketball is got a three point attempt.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#170

Post by akomtu »

md8z wrote: post #80
SllX wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The "is meant" part is unprovable. Trolling is often about sarcasm that obfuscates the intent. We can use the recently famous "let's go brandon" as an example - the intent is clear, but unprovable even with inquisition methods.
Post reply on HN