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

FSE meets the FBI

blog.freespeechextremist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 159 posts

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#121

Post by mrguyorama »

underyx wrote: post #36

Great read. I have a tiny, inconsequential, possibly wrong correction. You had assumed that the “Negative” word on the internal search engine screenshot was sentiment analysis. I think it was instead a button to report the post in the internal system as a “negative” result as in, not actually matching the search they were trying to do. Sentiment analysis doesn’t seem like it would be very useful in this scenario.

I disagree. The icon of "Negative" is of a red human head. Who would choose that icon for "False positive"? IMO it makes more sense as "Negative sentiment"

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#122

Post by mrguyorama »

lmm wrote: post #62
gosub100 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

notice the incorrect conclusion he makes. the fbi emails him asking for info about a user, with a screenshot that includes a threat of violence. FSE guy jumps to the conclusion that it's just innocent braggadocio (despite the fact that another CEO was murdered just 6 months ago). jump to end of article: guy has already committed countless acts of violence (by proxy). I'm glad that FSE guy engaged with the feds, but i…

Anyone could be violent, but that screenshot is total weaksauce. Is it even the same guy or just someone random blowing off steam?

The problem is entirely that you cannot tell a baseless threat from a real one from just the forum post.

Just like for credit card fraud, you can only improve your heuristics so far. At some point, you either treat every single possible as real for investigative purposes, or you accept that you find a threat, ignored it, and people die as a result.

Plenty of real world crazy terrorist bullshit had a pointless online threat component!

More importantly, depending on the threat, it's probably a crime itself. Bomb threats are criminal even if it's clear that it wasn't a realistic threat.

So no, that screenshot is not "total weaksauce", for law enforcement. Hell, even here, that screenshot was demonstrably from a guy running a criminal enterprise!

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#123

Post by os2warpman »

kstrauser wrote: post #71
DoctorOW wrote: post #40

> I'd like to also thank fediblock for never fact-checking anything ever Nitpicking time: The link in the blog post just goes to a list of instances that have chosen to defederate. The reason it's not going to any sort of official Fediblock list is because Fediblock was shut down years ago. The author of Fediblock expressed the specific intention of not being definitive in any way and for people to thoroughly cross r…

I run a medium sized Mastodon server. I blocked them because one of their users called me the n-word, I reported them to their admin, and nothing happened. It had zero to do with fediblock or any other communal mechanism. Their users acted like assholes, their admins did nothing about it, so I decided I didn’t want to talk to them anymore. The notion of FSE whining about being blocked by some cabal is hilarious to me…

>Their users acted like assholes, their admins did nothing about it, so I decided I didn’t want to talk to them anymore.

It has been my experience that the more vocal someone is about free speech rights the more likely it is that they are only vocal because they want to use those rights as a shield against criticism of their bigoted, annoying, or anti-social behavior and they want to criticize people for distancing themselves from the bigotry.

To them free speech is mandatory listening-- to them, no matter what.

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#124

Post by Peacefulz »

gosub100 wrote: post #60
roenxi wrote: post #4

There is really quite a lot to like about this post: 1) Gentleman is doing citizen science figuring out a small part of the FBI's intelligence gathering/spying apparatus. 2) Random Fediverse drama tidbits. 3) Interesting sysadmin tactics for small server operators. 4) This torswats fellow sounds like a piece of work and gets arrested which adds an interesting subplot. 5) Seems like quite an intelligent writer, I just…

notice the incorrect conclusion he makes. the fbi emails him asking for info about a user, with a screenshot that includes a threat of violence. FSE guy jumps to the conclusion that it's just innocent braggadocio (despite the fact that another CEO was murdered just 6 months ago). jump to end of article: guy has already committed countless acts of violence (by proxy). I'm glad that FSE guy engaged with the feds, but i…

I personally think that the fact that violent people exist shouldn't diminish our values regarding privacy and/or anonymity. I don't think you should accommodate messages such as the one WitchKing shared...but I think if you value privacy, your priority should be removing the user and the content, and not appealing to the Feds. Don't make it a safe space for either party, because neither of them are on your side.

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#125

Post by mrguyorama »

lmm wrote: post #67
gosub100 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this remark about the threat is incredibly presumptuous: "it was also clearly absurd, an obvious joke, not a credible threat."

That is a completely accurate description of that screenshot IMO. Even if the guy who posted it was making phone calls to get thugs to beat people up and hoping they'd take it further, that post is still clearly absurd, an obvious joke, not a credible threat. This is "96% of serial killers have used bread" stuff.

But it was never a joke! It was a guy basically running harassment enterprise, including swatting people and other false flag style crimes.

He wasn't being silly or lampooning anything or creating satire, he was trying to make conversation worse. That's not a joke.

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#126

Post by kstrauser »

os2warpman wrote: post #123
kstrauser wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run a medium sized Mastodon server. I blocked them because one of their users called me the n-word, I reported them to their admin, and nothing happened. It had zero to do with fediblock or any other communal mechanism. Their users acted like assholes, their admins did nothing about it, so I decided I didn’t want to talk to them anymore. The notion of FSE whining about being blocked by some cabal is hilarious to me…

>Their users acted like assholes, their admins did nothing about it, so I decided I didn’t want to talk to them anymore. It has been my experience that the more vocal someone is about free speech rights the more likely it is that they are only vocal because they want to use those rights as a shield against criticism of their bigoted, annoying, or anti-social behavior and they want to criticize people for distancing t…

That's been my observation. "Freedom to... say what exactly?"

I'm A-OK with people saying constructive, civil things I disagree with. I might reply with my disagreement but that's OK. We're talking! I have zero patience with someone jumping in with trolling, harassment, or other abuse.

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#127

Post by mrguyorama »

lmm wrote: post #41
FilosofumRex wrote: post #15

FSE {free speech extremists}, why would one have to be an extremist in country where free speech is enshrined in its Constitutional Law.

You're asking that on a story specifically describing how the FBI is either avoiding or directly violating the constitutional restrictions they are supposed to follow?

I'm sorry, how did the FBI violate anyone's First Amendment rights here? Where in this story did they take down content? Where did they compel speech or silence or association?

LMAO you do not have a first amendment right to not be investigated for making threats in public, even if those threats are baseless! You do not have a right to baselessly threaten people!

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#128

Post by soygem »

kstrauser wrote: post #71
DoctorOW wrote: post #40

> I'd like to also thank fediblock for never fact-checking anything ever Nitpicking time: The link in the blog post just goes to a list of instances that have chosen to defederate. The reason it's not going to any sort of official Fediblock list is because Fediblock was shut down years ago. The author of Fediblock expressed the specific intention of not being definitive in any way and for people to thoroughly cross r…

I run a medium sized Mastodon server. I blocked them because one of their users called me the n-word, I reported them to their admin, and nothing happened. It had zero to do with fediblock or any other communal mechanism. Their users acted like assholes, their admins did nothing about it, so I decided I didn’t want to talk to them anymore. The notion of FSE whining about being blocked by some cabal is hilarious to me…

[dead]

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#129

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

jchw wrote: post #114
GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The past few decades have seen a lot of debate and legal back-and-forth regarding what to do with lolicon and shotacon illustrations wild that of all the examples you could choose to bring up, this is the one. not saying the conversation doesn't need to happen, but i think there are a lot more concrete examples that affect many more people that come to mind first. for GP, there are a lot of other contested ideas ar…

As far as protected speech as it relates to the Internet and American law though, I don't think I've really seen anything that has been debated quite as much, and not only that, it actually seems to have picked up considerable heat over time rather than quieting down. It first came around (at least in any way that I noticed it) with the Chris Handley case in 2008 and has become a serious point of debate online especi…

> Citizen's United isn't even really about free expression IMO

unfortunately, it is about free expression in the opinion of the supreme court:

'the Court found that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.' [0]

BDS is a topical instance of a bottom-up movement recommending boycotting, divestment and sanctions against organizations that are considered to materially support the israelli government. naturally, you can imagine this attracts strong opinions from many sides. in some cases, states/municipalities have deemed this to be unprotected speech. [1]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sancti...

Re: FSE meets the FBI

#130

Post by jchw »

GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #129
jchw wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as protected speech as it relates to the Internet and American law though, I don't think I've really seen anything that has been debated quite as much, and not only that, it actually seems to have picked up considerable heat over time rather than quieting down. It first came around (at least in any way that I noticed it) with the Chris Handley case in 2008 and has become a serious point of debate online especi…

> Citizen's United isn't even really about free expression IMO unfortunately, it is about free expression in the opinion of the supreme court: 'the Court found that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.' [0] BDS is a topical instance of a bottom-up movement recommending boycotting, divestment and…

Oh that is a good point, I have heard of some free expression debate going on around the Israel/Palestine conflict lately.

I think the reason those don't come to mind is because even though they really do regard the interpretation of free speech law, they don't actually feel like they're about expression. When it comes to the Israel/Palestine conflict though, even the opinion that it isn't really about free expression might be controversial, so clearly it is.

Post reply on HN