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

BBC confronts Facebook troll

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 133 posts

Re: BBC confronts Facebook troll

#51

Post by zedshaw »

betawolf33 wrote: post #11

I saw the whole episode this snippet came from, and I feel it should be mentioned that the whole thing was very much an assault on online anonymity. The angle was that people can be very immature and very nasty via the Web when their identity is obscured, which is hardly something to dispute. However, the programme seemed to be hinting that public forums should be more regulated to prevent this being possible, which…

Everyone who's for anonymity or pseudo-anonymity wants an all-or-nothing solution where they are totally hidden. The people who propose making everyone known want everyone to totally put all their information online with no protections.

What annoys me is there's a very simple middle solution: You are anonymous to other users, but not the company running the site. If you do something like this, then the company has the right to out you, similar to a DMCA takedown.

With that you could have those people who want to stay hidden from others, but you'd prevent idiots like this because it'd be easy for someone to report them and have them outed. It would only take a couple of bad trolls getting their "troll bit flipped" for the behavior to be reduced.

Re: BBC confronts Facebook troll

#52

Post by sellandb »

raganwald wrote: post #37
lucisferre wrote: post #35

It's good to see Facebook has it's moderating priorities straight. Just for the record its: Holocost Deniers: Tolerated Breastfeeding Mothers: Not OK

This is an incredibly important point. There are two stances to take. First, FB can claim they are a “common carrier,” does not censor, and not responsible for what people post (just as the telephone company is not responsible for what people say on the telephone). Second, FB can pick and choose what is allowed but bears responsibility for what it allows to be posted. Whether you like or dislike their particular choi…

From Facebook's standpoint I would imagine that these are viewed as completely independent policies. On one hand Facebook does not want to censor discussion, on the other Facebook does not want to host explicit images. The distinction that you draw above simply has to do with their definition of what is an explicit image.

Would you make the same argument if we were talking about Holocaust deniers and personal pornography? Because I am pretty sure that is the distinction that Facebook is making. You just disagree on what constitutes pornography. (I am not agreeing or disagreeing with either of you around that definition either way, just saying that I think you are arguing a different argument).

Re: BBC confronts Facebook troll

#53

Post by zedshaw »

rdouble wrote: post #50
zedshaw wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. I'd defend his right to say it if he weren't anonymous. In the US you do not have a right to anonymous speech. In most countries you don't have this right. You can mostly say whatever you want in public because the people around you will know who you are and can respond.

You do have the right to anonymous speech in the USA as upheld by the Supreme Court in McIntosh vs. Ohio in 1995: http://www.acluohio.org/about/historicacluohiolitigation.asp... and again in Watchtower Bible vs. Stratton in 2002 http://epic.org/free_speech/watchtower.html

Wrong again. First case she didn't have to put her full address on, but everyone knew who she was because she was actually walking around giving them out and she didn't mislead them.

Second case is about religious freedom and the government not having the right to out members of a religion.

Neither of the cases are about a person being totally anonymous, or someone spewing hate speech anonymously, or someone bullying someone anonymously.

But hey, people will spin this into "I now have the right to troll a guy's dead grandma."

Additionally, these are just court cases. Sure they have a slight force of law if applied narrowly to similar cases. When I say a right I mean in the constitution or an amendment. People say like to say the constitution allows anonymous speech but it doesn't by any stretch.

So, if I were to be exact: I stand corrected, there are two obscure cases that relate to two small situations not related to the internet which allows for a small amount of anonymous speech, which does not give people a total right to be anonymous all the time.

Re: BBC confronts Facebook troll

#54

Post by rhplus »

maeon3 wrote: post #26

I do not agree with the statements of the troll but will defend his right to say it. The internet is making the world like a small town. Piss on people on the internet will be like pissing on people in line at Walmart. You can, but people are going to hate you, and you will never be forgiven by anyone for anything bad you do unless you hire a professional to erase your histories.

This particular guy was located in Wales. Speech is protected under European and UK law, but I'd say that it's not quite the same extent as in the US. For example, there are particular laws against defamation, harassment or racism in speech. One particular law his actions may violate is this:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he: (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_harassment,_alarm_o...

Re: BBC confronts Facebook troll

#55

Post by rdouble »

zedshaw wrote: post #53
rdouble wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do have the right to anonymous speech in the USA as upheld by the Supreme Court in McIntosh vs. Ohio in 1995: http://www.acluohio.org/about/historicacluohiolitigation.asp... and again in Watchtower Bible vs. Stratton in 2002 http://epic.org/free_speech/watchtower.html

Wrong again. First case she didn't have to put her full address on, but everyone knew who she was because she was actually walking around giving them out and she didn't mislead them. Second case is about religious freedom and the government not having the right to out members of a religion. Neither of the cases are about a person being totally anonymous, or someone spewing hate speech anonymously, or someone bullying…

Supreme court and most lower courts have consistently ruled for anonymous speech rights. It's kind of ingrained into the national character with the Federalist Papers and all that.

AFAIK, there's never been a supreme court ruling against anonymous speech rights. There have been lower court rulings against them, usually in cases that look like stalking.

Re: BBC confronts Facebook troll

#56

Post by rhplus »

lamby wrote: post #23
bioskope wrote: post #14

Is it just me or does that BBC dude come off as pro-censorship?

Not just you. I facepalmed at "...and possibly illegal".

As commented above, yes, it is possibly illegal under UK law. For example:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he: (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_harassment,_alarm_o...

Re: BBC confronts Facebook troll

#57

Post by cq »

zedshaw wrote: post #47
maeon3 wrote: post #26

I do not agree with the statements of the troll but will defend his right to say it. The internet is making the world like a small town. Piss on people on the internet will be like pissing on people in line at Walmart. You can, but people are going to hate you, and you will never be forgiven by anyone for anything bad you do unless you hire a professional to erase your histories.

Wrong. I'd defend his right to say it if he weren't anonymous. In the US you do not have a right to anonymous speech. In most countries you don't have this right. You can mostly say whatever you want in public because the people around you will know who you are and can respond.

That's not true. As a topical example: In the US, you have a right to anonymously donate money to Super PACs, and donating money anonymously for political causes is considered protected under free speech.

Re: BBC confronts Facebook troll

#58

Post by IanDrake »

joering2 wrote: post #48
IanDrake wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a real world example to back you up: One of my projects was shut down by Craigslist (NotifyWire.com). I took down the site and posted the details explaining why NotifyWire was going off-line. Six months later, while attempting to refinance my house, I was told to take my name off the mortgage application because my corporation was under legal threat by Craigslist and thus was a liability that the underwriters migh…

wow thats actually crazy! designing a simple bootstrap website that "failed" and later on Craiglist reported it somewhere that your future may depend on?? can you share some more details?

No, the mortgage broker did a google search on me, my wife, and my corporation. They found NotifyWire.com where I released the details of the Cease and Desist letter sent by Craigslist.

Since my income comes from my company (though mostly from consulting activities) the broker thought the underwriters might think my income future was in jeopardy.

He told me mortgage underwriters are doing web searches on applicants, which is the scary part.

Re: BBC confronts Facebook troll

#59

Post by raganwald »

sellandb wrote: post #52
raganwald wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an incredibly important point. There are two stances to take. First, FB can claim they are a “common carrier,” does not censor, and not responsible for what people post (just as the telephone company is not responsible for what people say on the telephone). Second, FB can pick and choose what is allowed but bears responsibility for what it allows to be posted. Whether you like or dislike their particular choi…

From Facebook's standpoint I would imagine that these are viewed as completely independent policies. On one hand Facebook does not want to censor discussion, on the other Facebook does not want to host explicit images. The distinction that you draw above simply has to do with their definition of what is an explicit image. Would you make the same argument if we were talking about Holocaust deniers and personal pornogr…

Yes I absolutely would make the same argument. The moment you begin to moderate your medium, you accept responsibility for it. I’m not saying anything in this discussion about whether FB is right or wrong to allow hate material, just that they cannot hide behind “We abhor it but believe we should not censor discussion.”

UPDATE: I have no idea, but I am curious: Can you write porn on FB? Soft-core? Hard-core? As suggested by another respondent, I’m pretty sure you can post a picture of yourself with skinhead tattoos. Can you post a hateful picture? Is this just words vs. pictures? Or is it ideas vs. so-called porn?

Re: BBC confronts Facebook troll

#60

Post by blahedo »

sellandb wrote: post #52
raganwald wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an incredibly important point. There are two stances to take. First, FB can claim they are a “common carrier,” does not censor, and not responsible for what people post (just as the telephone company is not responsible for what people say on the telephone). Second, FB can pick and choose what is allowed but bears responsibility for what it allows to be posted. Whether you like or dislike their particular choi…

From Facebook's standpoint I would imagine that these are viewed as completely independent policies. On one hand Facebook does not want to censor discussion, on the other Facebook does not want to host explicit images. The distinction that you draw above simply has to do with their definition of what is an explicit image. Would you make the same argument if we were talking about Holocaust deniers and personal pornogr…

So maybe it's a photo/text distinction. Is anyone posting Nazi/skinhead photos on FB? Are they getting blocked?
Post reply on HN