Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

Post by cousin_it » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:07 PM UTC

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…

Post by micromacrofoot » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:08 PM UTC

cain wrote: post #31

micromacrofoot wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> 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? Is this not why the real issue is related to social media itself, rather than generalised "trolling"? This isn't as much of an issue in niche forums or niche-dedicated social sites. We are free to make our accounts private, block/sign out/delete/not partake in social media, ye…

Post by throwawaylinux » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:09 PM UTC

laurent92 wrote: post #22

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…

And this is why the trend is to remove factual information from trials rather than add some. For example, in many Western countries, it is now forbidden to present during a trial the SMS exchanged with a “victim of rape” before meeting, and to seize the messages between her and her friends, because it would cause psychological harm to this person. So the only remaining evidence is he-said-she-said, which is prone for…

Post by md8z » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:09 PM UTC

furgooswft13 wrote: post #40

md8z wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trolling, I've personally suffered psychological harm from online abuse. There are many places on the internet that I'd like to go but can't because people are too abusive and nobody does anything about it. What am I supposed to do if people don't even want to talk about this or acknowledge that it's a real problem that we can solve?

Definitely trolling

Post by cal5k » Mon, Nov 01, 2021, 4:10 PM UTC

mathverse wrote: post #23

ljm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK has arguably had an authoritarian bias for a long time, under the guise of being paternalistic. I wouldn't say it's always a bad thing, as many times this does work in the society's favour (e.g. consumer protection laws, various other regulations), and the loosening of the restriction works against it (e.g. the course of events that led to the Grenfell Tower fire). Of course, you also get stuff like this, the…

It is not only UK. It is NZ and Australia as well. It is really weird to watch these countries to mimic CCP controlled China without all the benefits that CCP managed to pull off.