Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’ • Hacker News Board

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#231

Post by CountDrewku » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

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.

The accountability is you have the option to block trolls, leave the site, or just ignore them. Pretty awesome because you surely couldn't so easily be rid of someone in physical life.

There's no requirement for you to subject yourself to a troll.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#232

Post by floatingatoll » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 5:58 PM UTC

CountDrewku wrote: post #229

floatingatoll wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect. Judges regularly evaluate the intentions of non-criminals where no crime has been committed in family courts and in cases of contract law (disagreement is not unlawful), and juries have the ability of jury equity (UK) or nullification (US) to declare someone's actions as non-criminal even if the actions they are accused of are accepted as fact and are (by definition of law) unlawful. There is also "contemp…

Then explain why a new law needs to be passed. Things like slander and libel require clear demonstration that you've been damaged monetarily etc. I don't see how you can clearly show damages from a person deciding to commit suicide or feeling bad because of trolls. Prove it. Regardless, at the end of the day I don't really care whether there's a legal framework in place. I don't agree that it's helpful to society at…

I've laid out my concerns about the arguments presented by HN commenters, and laid out how societal structures permit such a new law to be passed.

The original article does a credible job of explaining why a new law may be passed. You may agree or disagree, or you may require more information than is yet available, but that's for you to determine on your own.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#233

Post by floatingatoll » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 7:32 PM UTC

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #193

floatingatoll wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? You are mistaking morality with legality. Morally its wrong, legally it shouldn't be. >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". Again, mistaking morality with legality. I'm not…

> That doesn't mean that these restrictions should be dependent on entirely subjective things like thoughts and feelings.

That doesn't necessarily mean that restrictions should be dependent on entirely subjective things.

Subjectivity alone is not sufficient cause to refuse considering whether the benefits of a proposed legal restriction on behavior outweigh the drawbacks. Subjectivity is a drawback, not a deal-breaker, and must be evaluated in full context alongside the benefits of the proposal. Subjectivity is a serious concern, and should never be glossed over or minimized in such evaluations. Subjectivity carries great risk, and should be revisited and reevaluated over time to ensure that the outcomes are considered against the intentions.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#234

Post by kfprt » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #195

kfprt wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK tolerated child rape gangs for decades, arguably still do. Yet they want to prosecute hurt feelings. Joke of a country. edit for the flagger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_child_sex_abuse_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huddersfield_grooming_gang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_child_sexual_exploitat... https://en.wikipedia.org/w…

We've banned this account for posting unsubstantive comments and using HN primarily for political/ideological/nationalistic battle. We ban accounts that do those things (regardless of what they're battling for) because they destroy HN for its intended purpose. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're he…

This is hardly unsubstantiated as it is a widespread acknowledged problem. [1] It should also be noted that this is not the first time I criticized the UK's 'unique' take on justice. The reception then was quite different however. Is moderation at the whim of the mob? Perhaps 'joke of a country is a bit harsh' but I can't think of a better description of such lopsided priorities.

[1] https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/839509/Britain-towns-citie...

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#235

Post by dang » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 10:41 PM UTC

kfprt wrote: post #234

dang wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've banned this account for posting unsubstantive comments and using HN primarily for political/ideological/nationalistic battle. We ban accounts that do those things (regardless of what they're battling for) because they destroy HN for its intended purpose. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're he…

This is hardly unsubstantiated as it is a widespread acknowledged problem. [1] It should also be noted that this is not the first time I criticized the UK's 'unique' take on justice. The reception then was quite different however. Is moderation at the whim of the mob? Perhaps 'joke of a country is a bit harsh' but I can't think of a better description of such lopsided priorities. [1] https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk…

I didn't say it was unsubstantiated—rather that your comment was unsubstantive—because you swerved into a classic flamewar topic with a provocative swipe. That's clearly against the site guidelines.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#236

Post by seoulmetro » Tue, Nov 02, 2021, 11:32 PM UTC

mathverse wrote: post #216

seoulmetro wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't actually understand China or Australia if you think they are similar. They are not. They have similar puppets they put on their hands to make the general population think a certain way, they may follow the same single act, but they're not similar.

You just described one trait they have in common in terms of similarity. Of course they are different but have certain similarities. The EU? Not so much.

Everyone has a couple traits in common. For example the EU regulate several very minute things that anyone in the EU must follow. Like how the Chinese regulate the sale (or ban of) certain luxuries.

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#237

Post by grayhatter » Wed, Nov 03, 2021, 2:07 AM UTC

wait_a_minute wrote: post #97

md8z wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're not wrong, you're just an asshole. They're asking in what is obviously good faith for a cooperative conversation. To which you respond with an attempt to distract, followed up with "Burden is on you." Something they've already admitted given they're seeking input on the topic. I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to offer a solution for your evaluation. You're clearly trying to help them out right? You know by suggesting solutions or opinions about problems that will need to be solved? Oh no wait... you're explicitly taking no position at all. Very brave...

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#238

Post by kfprt » Wed, Nov 03, 2021, 10:16 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #235

kfprt wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is hardly unsubstantiated as it is a widespread acknowledged problem. [1] It should also be noted that this is not the first time I criticized the UK's 'unique' take on justice. The reception then was quite different however. Is moderation at the whim of the mob? Perhaps 'joke of a country is a bit harsh' but I can't think of a better description of such lopsided priorities. [1] https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk…

I didn't say it was unsubstantiated—rather that your comment was unsubstantive—because you swerved into a classic flamewar topic with a provocative swipe. That's clearly against the site guidelines.

Provocative yes but not unprecedented. As I said, in the past I had virtually the same commentary, UK legal specific and certainly inflammatory, but then it was popular and unmoderated. What conclusion should be drawn but that moderation is by mob?

Re: Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

#239

Post by CountDrewku » Wed, Nov 03, 2021, 1:08 PM UTC

floatingatoll wrote: post #232

CountDrewku wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then explain why a new law needs to be passed. Things like slander and libel require clear demonstration that you've been damaged monetarily etc. I don't see how you can clearly show damages from a person deciding to commit suicide or feeling bad because of trolls. Prove it. Regardless, at the end of the day I don't really care whether there's a legal framework in place. I don't agree that it's helpful to society at…

I've laid out my concerns about the arguments presented by HN commenters, and laid out how societal structures permit such a new law to be passed. The original article does a credible job of explaining why a new law may be passed. You may agree or disagree, or you may require more information than is yet available, but that's for you to determine on your own.

Whether there are already societal structures in place isn't relevant. If there weren't they would just create them anyway.