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

Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

arstechnica.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 73 posts

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#41

Post by darkhorn »

conistonwater wrote: post #9
doctorpangloss wrote: post #4

What if the accessibility settings let you set a maximum framerate for automatically playing moving image content in Safari?

I'm looking at http://www.epilepsy.com/learn/triggers-seizures/photosensiti... , and it seems it's not just the framerate that matters. In particular, 5 to 30 frames per second might be enough, and it depends on the actual image contents. It also makes it sound like static images might also be triggers.

This explains why a guy had epilepsy in the metro few days ago. There are bulbs every few meters apart in the tunnel and while the train travels fast it looks like the windows of the metro train flash.

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#42

Post by CamperBob2 »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #37

For those here who don't understand why a lot of the internet doesn't care about this kind of thing (or sometimes tries to shows disdain in an immature way by trolling), here are the nuances. In America, usually freedom of speech is the basic law of what can be said. That means that I can say what I want to you, even if it's hurtful, even if I do it TO hurt you, no matter what. Message is message. The reason this wor…

However, the fact is, words often can hurt more than physical violence.

Spoken like someone who has never been the victim of meaningful physical violence.

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#43

Post by ern »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #37

For those here who don't understand why a lot of the internet doesn't care about this kind of thing (or sometimes tries to shows disdain in an immature way by trolling), here are the nuances. In America, usually freedom of speech is the basic law of what can be said. That means that I can say what I want to you, even if it's hurtful, even if I do it TO hurt you, no matter what. Message is message. The reason this wor…

While your analysis may be accurate, I don't think this case has anything to do with freedom of speech. If the attacker had walked up to the journalist with a strobe light with the intent of inducing a seizure, it would have no different to what happened here.

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#44

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

mmastrac wrote: post #18
unfathomable wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So to be clear, you want someone to be imprisoned because they sent a tweet.

Yes. This is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theatre [1] or phoning in a bomb threat. In the United States, freedom of speech is limited in certain cases where the harm caused by the speech outweighs the damage of limiting freedom. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

Please stop using the "fire in a crowded theatre" phrase, it's not actually part of law in the US. [1] The standard for restricting speech in cases like this is if it poses a "clear and present danger". That's likely the case here, as a premeditated attempt to cause a seizure is a clear and present danger to epileptics. There's plenty of law to cite that doesn't depend on over-broad censorious decisions that got overturned later on.

https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackne...

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#45

Post by hkon »

sappapp wrote: post #40
hkon wrote: post #39

I have a hard time believing he got a seizure from an image tweet. Sounds like fake news.

Trying to keep the conversation away from his meltdown w/ Tucker Carlson

Wow. I looked into what you are mentioning. Just wow...

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#46

Post by alexandercrohde »

ern wrote: post #43
alexandercrohde wrote: post #37

For those here who don't understand why a lot of the internet doesn't care about this kind of thing (or sometimes tries to shows disdain in an immature way by trolling), here are the nuances. In America, usually freedom of speech is the basic law of what can be said. That means that I can say what I want to you, even if it's hurtful, even if I do it TO hurt you, no matter what. Message is message. The reason this wor…

While your analysis may be accurate, I don't think this case has anything to do with freedom of speech. If the attacker had walked up to the journalist with a strobe light with the intent of inducing a seizure, it would have no different to what happened here.

Did you read all of what I wrote? I'm not suggesting the action is "justified" because of "Freedom of Speech." But you absolutely cannot deny that from a legal context, this absolutely comes into a freedom of speech discussion. For the history see (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#U...)

In the information age, we are still trying to figure out the murky boundary cases in a way that makes sense, both legally and socially. Those cases include: cyber-bullying, drawing mohammad, posting people's address online, trolling, cease-and-desist[1], fake news / pizza-gate, speech-codes [2], whistle-blowing

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBO5dh9qrIQ 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%...

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#47

Post by besselheim »

unfathomable wrote: post #12
iaw wrote: post #5

Wow, this is equivalent to sending someone a mail "bomb" that doesn't explode but electrocutes them severely. I hope the offender ends up with a reasonable length prison sentence. There's a clear line, and the intentional infliction of physical harm is well beyond it.

So to be clear, you want someone to be imprisoned because they sent a tweet.

I imagine if he'd been the victim of a deliberate hit-and-run, you'd be saying something like "so to be clear, you want someone to be imprisoned because they drove a car."

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#48

Post by maxerickson »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #37

For those here who don't understand why a lot of the internet doesn't care about this kind of thing (or sometimes tries to shows disdain in an immature way by trolling), here are the nuances. In America, usually freedom of speech is the basic law of what can be said. That means that I can say what I want to you, even if it's hurtful, even if I do it TO hurt you, no matter what. Message is message. The reason this wor…

You actually aren't free to threaten people, not even in glorious USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation#United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menacing

(probably more)

Something to keep in mind.

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#49

Post by maxerickson »

ern wrote: post #43
alexandercrohde wrote: post #37

For those here who don't understand why a lot of the internet doesn't care about this kind of thing (or sometimes tries to shows disdain in an immature way by trolling), here are the nuances. In America, usually freedom of speech is the basic law of what can be said. That means that I can say what I want to you, even if it's hurtful, even if I do it TO hurt you, no matter what. Message is message. The reason this wor…

While your analysis may be accurate, I don't think this case has anything to do with freedom of speech. If the attacker had walked up to the journalist with a strobe light with the intent of inducing a seizure, it would have no different to what happened here.

Their analysis is not accurate.

Re: Malicious tweet gives journalist Kurt Eichenwald an epileptic seizure

#50

Post by alexandercrohde »

maxerickson wrote: post #48
alexandercrohde wrote: post #37

For those here who don't understand why a lot of the internet doesn't care about this kind of thing (or sometimes tries to shows disdain in an immature way by trolling), here are the nuances. In America, usually freedom of speech is the basic law of what can be said. That means that I can say what I want to you, even if it's hurtful, even if I do it TO hurt you, no matter what. Message is message. The reason this wor…

You actually aren't free to threaten people, not even in glorious USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menacing (probably more) Something to keep in mind.

Sure, that's why I threw the word usually in there. My point isn't that what happened here is "Right" or "wrong" my point is, 10% of the internet freaks out about all of these things, and 10% trolls, and 80% shrugs.

If you want to understand the other 90% you need to read all of what they say before you downvote it.

Post reply on HN