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

121–130 of 239 posts

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#121

Post by scotuswroteus »

floatingatoll wrote: post #99
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 favo…

>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.

Did you intend to pressure them to do that? If you acted with that INTENT, and external evidence proves it, then NO, by OP's logic, that abuse is the perpetrator's problem.

>Societies have a long-standing tradition of restricting individual behaviors for the collective good.

In the UK? Come off it.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#122

Post by NikolaeVarius »

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.

Then don't engage with them.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#123

Post by NikolaeVarius »

md8z wrote: post #77
recursive wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't go to places if you can't deal with the environment.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#124

Post by slowmovintarget »

md8z wrote: post #17
recursivedoubts wrote: post #6

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…

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...

It is so difficult, and so easy to get wrong, that several hundred years ago a collection of law makers had to get together and write down in no uncertain terms that the government should never do it.

This was far from a universal sentiment because many world governments want no part of a system where the governed can object to the governance. Worse, understanding of the idea, which requires a certain level of specific historical education, has diminished greatly in recent years. Worse still is the active attack on the idea by those that stand to gain from creating yet another power structure.

That's not to say that Twitter, for example, shouldn't moderate it. But woe to us if some committee ("tribunal?") in Congress be given that power.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#125

Post by Verdex »

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.

What are you in for?

Grand theft auto. You?

Bank robbery.

New guy. What are you in for?

Er, I suggested that the UK's new social media harassment law was a satirical publication. Apparently it hurt one of the author's feelings.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#126

Post by Mindwipe »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #100
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.

The Times has been consistently full of shit on this legislation and I'd ignore their witterings entirely.

It is not the paper it was in terms of reporting, and it's quality is pretty low nowadays.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#127

Post by Zigurd »

mdp2021 wrote: post #117

From TFA: > A “knowingly false communication” offence will be created that will criminalise those who send or post a message they know to be false with the intention to cause “emotional, psychological, or physical harm to the likely audience”. Government sources gave the example of antivaxers spreading false information that they know to be untrue. One sinister side: how does one prove something is «know[n] to be unt…

how does one know? The same way the actual malice standard is applied in, for example, libel cases.

The law is not self-executing. That's why we have judges and trials.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#128

Post by sokoloff »

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…

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.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#129

Post by teakettle42 »

floatingatoll wrote: post #99
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 favo…

> 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"

I’m not the original parent, but I read (and share) the position as:

Barring intent by the speaker to inflict direct and immediate physical harm, if you are too frail to maintain your mental health in the face of someone else’s speech (or you pretend to be), then you are not served — and neither is justice, fairness, or truth — by the state applying its monopoly on violence to forcibly silence others at your behest.

Instead, each individual is personally responsible for their own mental well-being, while the state’s responsibility extends no further than offering services and support to help enable your own individual resiliency.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#130

Post by mdp2021 »

KittenInABox wrote: post #93
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 * findin…

Surely there must be independent legislation against at least part of that behaviour.
Post reply on HN