[HN Gopher] Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum
___________________________________________________________________
Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum
Author : iechoz6H
Score : 176 points
Date : 2021-07-01 15:45 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| jokoon wrote:
| Defamatory laws could be used way more often, seen how much
| disinformation there is out there.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| They hurt my feelings :( must file defamation lawsuit.
|
| Just kidding, but here in the US you have harassment which is
| usually a criminal matter and then libel/slander. You can pretty
| much say whatever you want about a public figure like a
| politician ad long as it isn't threats, unless your AOC cause she
| thinks saying she has bad hair is a threat. One of the things a
| lot of people think from being naive is that if people are saying
| it online and not getting sued then it must me true, which is how
| some conspiracies spread.
| spoonjim wrote:
| This is not your feel-good story about a Twitter abuser getting
| their just deserts. Stephen Nolan is a pro-UK commentator in
| Northern Ireland. The "troll" criticized him saying that he was
| presenting a biased view with biased numbers of guests. That is
| the "defamation" here and the reason there is a settlement here
| is that people involved in these issues have had a long history
| of turning up dead.
| stevebmark wrote:
| Sounds like a fairly standard defamation lawsuit. The only thing
| that stands out to me is the instant meme of:
|
| > This should be a warning to all trolls
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Defamation suits in the UK are obviously under their defamation
| laws which have a lot of problems with them. They're open to
| abuse by rich and powerful entities.
| YinglingLight wrote:
| "instant meme" is a crude way of saying, threat to freedom of
| speech.
| n4bz0r wrote:
| Disclaimer: I have no idea who Stephen Nolan is, and I'm not
| aware of the context. The reaction is based solely on the
| article.
|
| I get a feeling that the light is only being shed on the side of
| the story which makes the "victim" look like an alpha male. All
| this "message" and "tracing" crap.
|
| I wonder how this "troll" was "traced". Specially trained
| Twitter-hound? You don't just "trace" people on the internet.
|
| They way I see it (the way the article depicts the situation),
| they very well knew who could be the troll, and simply threatened
| the offender:
|
| > There was immediate contrition and categoric statements of
| regret, with the individual pleading for anonymity due to his
| expressed personal security concerns
|
| People usually say things like that when there is a presence of
| an immediate danger to their well-being.
|
| I mean, fair enough, you play with the bull you get the horns.
| But don't make it look like a triumph of justice accompanied with
| an honourable act of mercy. You just blackmailed six figures out
| of a person for sending texts.
| ttt0 wrote:
| > I wonder how this "troll" was "traced". Specially trained
| Twitter-hound? You don't just "trace" people on the internet.
|
| Look up Kurt Eichenwald. He found and sued an anonymous Twitter
| troll who send him a GIF "you deserve a seizure" in 2017. I'm
| not sure exactly how, I think the authorities helped him, so
| Twitter just might've gave them the information.
| jimbob21 wrote:
| So for anyone else that found that completely odd, the whole
| story is that he sued someone who sent him a DM with a gif
| that purposefully triggered his epilepsy and caused him to
| seize. The words "you deserve a seizure" were definitely not
| the basis of the suit.
| ttt0 wrote:
| Minor correction, it wasn't a DM, it was a public tweet
| that had him tagged. Then his wife (or him pretending to be
| his wife) responded to the tweet from Eichenwald's account,
| that he just had a seizure and that she had called the
| police.
| n4bz0r wrote:
| Good point. That's possible and could've made the things
| easier. I tend to forget that authorities can request
| personal information from companies (and that the companies
| don't mind sharing most of the time).
| anonAndOn wrote:
| FTR, it happens ALL... THE... TIME. Court issues subpoena
| saying give us everything you have on this
| tweet/message/posting or be held in contempt. Company then
| responds with all info on account IPs, logins, timestamps,
| etc. Unless your OPSEC is impeccable, it's usually quite
| easy to identify a user and only requires the permission of
| a court.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > You don't just "trace" people on the internet.
|
| I mean, there's doxxing, which is often effective, or getting a
| court to issue a subpoena to Twitter for an IP that you can
| then go subpoena an ISP for.
| n4bz0r wrote:
| I must admit, writing the comment I didn't take into account
| authorities being able to request personal information. But
| my initial thought was about something else, and I could've
| communicated it better.
|
| > The BBC radio and TV presenter traced the identity of the
| person who was behind an online campaign against him.
|
| The wording in the article can be seen as the man and his
| colleagues did all the tracing of a completely random
| internet-troll themselves. Not only that sounds ridiculous,
| but also falls in line with the display of power I mentioned.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Not only that sounds ridiculous...
|
| I'm not sure why. Doxxing is quite easy to do in many
| cases.
|
| Upload a photo that's geotagged, have an unusual name,
| analysis of your network of friends/followers, linkages to
| other social profiles, etc.
| n4bz0r wrote:
| Although possible, it doesn't make much sense to use a
| personal account in this scenario, especially given the
| political nature of the messages which the article fails
| to mention along the other contextual details.
|
| I'm assuming a perfect offender here, who is sitting on a
| throwaway account, on a burner phone, and behind a VPN or
| three, all via public WiFi spot. Why? Because it makes
| sense, but most importantly because the article leaves a
| lot to the imagination, especially using the terminology
| such as "troll".
| pjc50 wrote:
| Most people doing this kind of thing are doing so from
| their ordinary smartphone.
|
| If someone has set up that much opsec just to post abuse,
| they definitely know they're doing something wrong. Few
| vulnerable activists have that level of security.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > I'm assuming a perfect offender here, who is sitting on
| a throwaway account, on a burner phone, and behind a VPN
| or three, all via public WiFi spot.
|
| These are very silly assumptions, IMO.
|
| I've seen an enormous number of trolly comments directed
| at public figures via long-running Facebook accounts
| under what appear to be real names. My local legislator
| gets harassed incessantly by a local business owner I've
| encountered in person.
| paulpauper wrote:
| Will he be able to colllect? It does send a message though.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| They settled so what issue would there be collecting?
| Presumably the party accepting the payment would check to make
| sure it was likely to be paid.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| Would it be particularly hard? In the case of Count Dankula,
| after he refused to pay the fine for his ridiculous wrongspeech
| conviction, they took it out of his bank account.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > so good luck collecting
|
| Why would you not pay something that you _settled_?
|
| People don't do that - because they wanted to settle to avoid
| the court case. If you didn't pay you'd go straight into a
| court case.
|
| Likely they already gave evidence of ability to pay as part of
| the discussions.
|
| What you're talking about is court awarded damages which
| doesn't apply here as that's not what we're talking about.
| throwawayForMe2 wrote:
| "Settled" might also imply that it was already paid. I'd
| imagine it like a house sale closing, the papers get signed and
| a check gets passed all in the same transaction? No check, no
| "settle".
| perihelions wrote:
| The title isn't a reasonable one: the very prejudicial descriptor
| 'troll' is language from lawyers from one side of a legal
| dispute. The BBC isn't credibly a neutral arbiter, because the
| litigant is one of their presenters.
|
| This is not taking any position on the underlying dispute (which
| is apparently about Northern Ireland politics [0]), nor is it a
| criticism of or specific to the BBC.
|
| [0] This Reddit discussion (probably) isn't about the accusation
| that allegedly was defamatory (that's not public knowledge
| AFAIK), but I think illustrates the character of the dispute,
| between the Twitter user and the BBC presenter:
|
| > _" His Nolan guest analysis showed nationalist views are
| represented 6% of the time while unionist views get 65% of the
| airtime. That's gone from Twitter. Does anyone have a copy?"_
| ("His" refers to "@PastorJimberoo1, @PastorJimberoo3")
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/northernireland/comments/nmzp90/wha...
|
| ~~~~~
|
| [very late EDIT]: I've found one of the allegedly libelous
| claims. In the _Irish Times_ , the Twitter user is reported as
| saying (through an attorney)
|
| > _" I also set up a change.org petition against Mr Nolan, which
| had been based entirely on false and defamatory allegations, with
| the aim of undermining and damaging his professional
| reputation."_
|
| https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/twitter-user-t...
|
| There's clear evidence (from searching social media, from
| multiple directions: @username + 'petition', or stephan nolan +
| 'petition', &c.) that the referenced petition is this one, which
| asks the BBC to cancel Stephen Nolan's program:
|
| https://www.change.org/p/bbc-the-bbc-ni-nolan-show-should-be...
| (is this link dead for everyone or just me?)
|
| https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y0T0IQ...
|
| So, one of the claims that's conceded as defamatory is (to my
| inference, drawn from the above):
|
| > _" For example, on 3rd February 2021, the show provided a
| platform for an unelected representative of illegal proscribed
| paramilitary organisations to threaten violence relating to the
| NI Protocol. This is highly irresponsible and risks inflaming
| tensions which could lead to violence. However this is not a
| unique example and the show regularly platforms unelected
| representatives and apologists for paramilitary organisations."_
|
| For even further confirmation: here's the BBC singling out this
| petition as defamatory, back in Feburary:
|
| > _" THE BBC has said an online petition campaigning for the
| cancellation of The Stephen Nolan Show is an attempt to "smear
| and censor" its journalism."_
|
| >" _The petition, which passed 10,000 signatures over the
| weekend, claims the award-winning BBC Radio Ulster programme
| "seeks to stir sectarian tensions for ratings". "_
|
| > _" A statement accompanying the online campaign cites an
| interview broadcast on Radio Ulster on February 3 2021 with "an
| unelected representative of illegal proscribed paramilitary
| organisations", where it claims threats of violence were made."_
|
| >" _It is understood the comments relate to the interview with
| the chair of Loyalist Communities Council (LCC), David Campbell
| on the Northern Ireland Protocol, where he told Mr Nolan: "If it
| comes to the bit where we have to fight physically to maintain
| our freedoms within the UK, so be it."_"
|
| https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2021/02/1...
| crazygringo wrote:
| The word 'troll' is quoted.
|
| For mainstream news publications, headlines are generally
| designed to be _technically_ neutral but still as attention-
| grabbing as possible. After all, _every_ publication needs to
| get readers to click.
|
| So this is just standard practice, the BBC isn't doing anything
| journalists with high standards consider to be wrong.
| iso1210 wrote:
| It's the use of a quote mark in a headline that's always the
| problem. They should be banned.
| jeremysalwen wrote:
| Pretty shocking that for all the discussion of this news
| article, yours is the only comment that looked into the actual
| "defamatory claims", and it seems the only one we have access
| to... was factually true (but heavily editorialized).
| Incredible how the narrative can get swayed so easily on the
| basis of no evidence, or in contradiction to the evidence.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Not many people have 6 figures lying around to pay... I think
| most regular people, faced with the offer of a 6 figure
| settlement, would probably fight it to the bitter end in court,
| before claiming bankruptcy.
|
| I wonder if this might have been someone famous for whom 6
| figures is expensive but not worth the PR damage?
| sangnoir wrote:
| > I wonder if this might have been someone famous for whom 6
| figures is expensive but not worth the PR damage?
|
| This is in _Northern Ireland_ - being outed for a political
| disagreement on Irish Nationalism vs Unionist sentiment goes
| way beyond mere "PR damage" and may easily threaten life and
| limb. (see The IRA, The Troubles, Good Friday Agreement, and
| the current debate of the GFA brought on by Brexit)
| fortran77 wrote:
| I get the feeling, too, he had a hunch who it was from the
| beginning.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I think a _ton_ of people would come up with 6 figures if the
| alternative was jail time.
|
| It doesn't have to be cash in the bank -- take out debt,
| remortgage your house, sell your car, borrow from friends and
| family, etc.
| pc86 wrote:
| It could also simply be a legal contract for the anonymous
| individual to pay Nolan directly. Whatever the court
| settlement equivalent of seller's financing is!
| ramoz wrote:
| There is a "hidden", for lack of better word, world of
| commercial and political pysops most people are never exposed
| to beyond their social media feeds. Often masked in
| marketing, but even more so in blanketed initiatives run by
| individuals (both directly & indirectly affiliated to their
| organization) who typically find these capabilities more
| coincidentally than anything... & end up funding private, or
| even well-presented, analytics firms that engage in an array
| of trolling-like behavior through even further outsourcing. I
| mean everyone knows Cambridge Analytica.
|
| Disclaimer - not speaking for myself, employer, or previous
| work in the armed forces.
| azinman2 wrote:
| I don't know UK law, but can a libel suit end in jail? Isn't
| this civil versus criminal?
| iso1631 wrote:
| I believe the criminal offence of libel (defamatory libel)
| was abolished in 2010, not sure if there's any other
| edgyquant wrote:
| No it is a civil matter in the US at least.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > alternative was jail time
|
| Who's going to jail in this situation? It's not criminal and
| we don't have debtors' jails here in the UK.
| TYPE_FASTER wrote:
| Or the people/organizations funding the troll agreed to pay the
| settlement
| EasyTiger_ wrote:
| This was my thought. Extremely unlikely a regular internet
| troll has that kind of money.
| ojbyrne wrote:
| Fighting to the bitter end might involve lawyer fees > the
| settlement amount.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Should've used a VPN!
| [deleted]
| easterncalculus wrote:
| "Despite this attempt to destroy his reputation with falsehoods,
| Mr Nolan has agreed not to name this individual, _dependent on
| his future conduct_. "
|
| I remember this same line from the CNN Trump WWE GIF guy - the
| cases are different, for one this is a legal case and it being in
| the UK. Here is what CNN said in that story[1]:
|
| CNN is not publishing "HanA*holeSolo's" name because he is a
| private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology,
| showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending
| posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly
| behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his
| statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
|
| _CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of
| that change._
|
| Exactly when does this kind of behavior become blackmail? How
| remorseful do you have to continue to be so the corporation
| threatening to dox you doesn't? A lot of people will say a name
| alone is not doxing, but the safety concerns are real when
| there's potentially thousands of people that would hurt you,
| seeking out the rest of your details. It seems these media
| companies have near unlimited power to brazenly admit to this,
| under the excuse of supposed public interest in the identity of
| private citizens. The identities aren't even relevant to their
| respective stories.
|
| It should go without saying that defending the post content
| specifically is not the point, and can easily flip between
| political ideologies as years go by and this kind of media
| behavior is left unchecked.
|
| [1]: https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-
| tr...
| fesoliveira wrote:
| > The identities aren't even relevant to their respective
| stories.
|
| I believe that depending on the situation and the individual or
| individuals allegedly responsible for these defamations, their
| identity might be very relevant. In the UK case, it seems it
| was someone noteworthy and rich enough that settling the case
| while paying 6 figures in damage was cheaper than the PR
| nightmare that would come with his identity being revealed.
|
| Also, keep in mind that we live during times where cancel
| culture is raging very strong on social media, and people that
| make this claims can very easily lose their careers over stupid
| things they say online. I would say it is quite likely that the
| individuals themselves asked for anonymity in cases, and the
| attacked parties granted this so long as they don't repeat
| their behavior.
| easterncalculus wrote:
| I don't think the identity in this case is _necessarily_
| relevant. It certainly could be, but at the same time, I don
| 't necessarily believe that people with this kind of money
| are already public figures. There are definitely still people
| that could scrounge up this kind of money, live on a couple
| hundred thousand dollars a year, and be private people.
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| It seems misleading for the headline to talk about "damages" when
| the case settled. "Damages" to me suggests court-ordered
| compensation.
| dang wrote:
| Ok, we've taken damages out of the title above.
|
| Since this is mostly just a terminological issue, I've detached
| this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27700866.
| barbegal wrote:
| Most damages are settled out of court. Going to court is more
| expensive so lawyers on both sides try to avoid this.
| Matticus_Rex wrote:
| Those are settlements, not damages.
| benjaminwootton wrote:
| If it's expensive, I imagine lawyers on both sides try to
| encourage going to court!
| refenestrator wrote:
| One small-town lawyer will go broke but two small-town
| lawyers can make a fortune.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| There are no damages... because they settled.
| jtbayly wrote:
| No. I've never seen that term used except for a court ordered
| payment. Anything else is called a "settlement," or "settled
| for $x" or even more explicitly "settled out of court for $x"
| barbegal wrote:
| In England it is used in the context of a settlement. E.g.
| in part 36 https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-
| rules/civil/rule...
| dahfizz wrote:
| That page refers to claims of damages, not actual damages
| (as decided by a court). It makes sense that the
| settlement is in relation to the damage the plaintiff
| claims (i.e. what they would have sued for in court).
| GavinMcG wrote:
| Damages is a legal term of art that implies a finding of
| fault _in a judicial proceeding_ and a corresponding award by
| the court /arbitrator/etc. This is not that: no fault/guilt
| need be admitted (though it was here). It's just a contract
| to accept a certain amount of money and in exchange to not
| proceed with a lawsuit.
| shellac wrote:
| If you look up the many settlements made by newspapers in
| the UK concerning hacking phones etc you will see
| 'damages'. To give one example:
|
| "Rather than fight the claims against the Sun in court,
| when they would have been set out in more detail in front
| of a judge, Murdoch's company has instead agreed to pay
| substantial damages to settle the case. "
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jun/10/sun-
| publisher-...
| GavinMcG wrote:
| Yes, "agreed...to settle the case" tells us what's going
| on there. Without such language, we'd be left with the
| default understanding. As in the headline.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| While I agree it is a little misleading, websites do not
| have to use the legal definitions of words. If they said
| "Twitter 'troll' settles to pay six-figure sum in damages"
| Then it would have been fine, with no confusion.
| Zuider wrote:
| A national news outlet such as the BBC is obliged to be
| accurate and clear, factually and in its use of legal
| terminology. Both the BBC headline and the amended one
| above encourage a partisan interpretation of the case
| that is not clearly supported by the given facts, sparse
| as they are.
|
| 1) The word "troll," for example. That invokes a specific
| meaning of an individual who deliberately provokes strife
| for the sake of it. A heated disagreement may be deeply
| unpleasant for one or both parties, but we do not
| normally understand the actions of either party to be
| "trolling."
|
| 2) The word "damages" is generally taken to mean
| compensation decided by a judge or jury following a
| verdict. It appears that this was an out of court
| settlement without admission of liability. There can be
| many reasons apart from genuine liability for which a
| party may opt to settle.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| _A national news outlet such as the BBC is obliged to be
| accurate and clear, factually and in its use of legal
| terminology._
|
| I don't know anything about UK law and editorial
| standards. However, I would always expect a news outlet
| targeting the general public to use the common meanings
| of words, instead of abiding by the nuanced jargon of
| whatever field they are covering. It's the same reason I
| don't get mad when newspapers use the word hacker to mean
| criminal.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| No, we know the difference between damages and settling.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| It's not clear to me why we can't settle to pay damages.
|
| If it was "settle to pay for damages" would that make it
| okay?
|
| How about "settle to pay for the damages caused?"
|
| I love being pedantic as much as the next guy, but the
| government doesn't get to define what words mean.
| GavinMcG wrote:
| Yes, both of those would correct the default
| interpretation of the term. For one thing, damages as
| something paid _for_ isn 't the same as damages _paid_.
| You pay money, you don 't pay _for_ money. On the other
| hand, if you pay _for_ the consequences of your actions,
| that 's different than " _paying_ [read: suffering] the
| consequences. "
|
| Where did government defining things come into play? That
| seems to be a strawman you constructed:
|
| > websites do not have to use the legal definitions of
| words
|
| No, they don't. They're still misleading if they use
| words misleadingly.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| Just before the part you quoted I said I agreed it was
| misleading. All I'm saying is that the word damages
| doesn't have to match the legal definition.
| barbegal wrote:
| In England, part 36 uses the term damages to refer to the
| monetary value of the settlement.
| https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-
| rules/civil/rule...
| GavinMcG wrote:
| Yes, where the context is a settlement offer. You'll
| notice it refers to a "claim for damages", i.e. the claim
| that would be made in court, but will not be if settled
| instead.
|
| In the headline, on the other hand, there's no context at
| all to suggest a settlement, which is why the commenter
| called it misleading.
| wccrawford wrote:
| It's also an English word that can be used for the same
| kind of thing without the law being involved at all.
| GavinMcG wrote:
| And in situations where the law _isn 't_ involved, that's
| great. Here, though, it is.
|
| Talking about damages being _paid_ , as the headline
| does, is especially indicative of the legal context.
| warent wrote:
| Yeah, context is key here... Damages can also mean
| physical bodily harm. By GP's reasoning, we could
| interpret the article as saying someone was medically
| wounded and claim that to be a correct interpretation
| because it's one of the many meanings depending on
| context.
| anm89 wrote:
| I see people make this absurd argument applied to various
| subjects constantly on HN.
|
| So a guy hits a triple, should I then say, "wow that guy
| hit a home run" because in business meetings "hitting a
| home run" means "doing a good job".
|
| Or can we agree that when talking about baseball we
| probably shouldn't use the term home run to mean good job
| because that would be incorrect in this context specific
| setting.
|
| Well, using the word damages in the general sense but in
| relation to a legal case is the same thing as calling a
| triple a home run. It's wrong, because the context makes
| it wrong.
| elliekelly wrote:
| Is it? It seems like "damages" is more of an umbrella term
| for the value of the harm caused. When I write "your
| client's breach of contract resulted in my client suffering
| damages of $X" no one (OC or layperson) would be under the
| false impression a court or a jury has awarded my client a
| judgment for $X.
| hugoromano wrote:
| Smells bad to me. Paying 6 figures without HMRC touching it,
| hummm! People that engage defamation need to have a proper
| sentence, it can start we community service.
| echelon wrote:
| I'm a fan of free speech, but defamation is one of the limits I
| agree with.
|
| The UK has a stricter framework than the US, but I think these
| cases should happen in the US too.
|
| It's good to see precedent being established for prosecuting
| those that abuse social media for evil.
|
| I'm interested in who the guilty party is in this case. They can
| afford a six figure penalty and want to remain anonymous.
| akersten wrote:
| No, the US gets this right, and this case would be thrown out
| promptly were it in American jurisdiction (well, presumably - I
| don't know the extent of the "trolling" since the article is
| scant on detail, but I assume it's nothing over-the-top or they
| would have brought it to light to support their case). There's
| a much higher bar to establish defamation against Public
| Figures in the US -- as there should be. They are famous, they
| can deal with and _expect_ to be trolled. That 's part of the
| deal of being famous - you have haters. I don't think anyone
| should have to pay out because they trolled a famous person on
| Twitter.
| Steko wrote:
| > but I assume it's nothing over-the-top or they would have
| brought it to light to support their case
|
| Or maybe they assume that repeating the "false and defamatory
| allegations" wouldn't be a good idea?
| Barrin92 wrote:
| I'm not really sure why being famous is supposed to diminish
| your rights in regards to defamation, or really in regards to
| anything. If someone spreads falsehoods against another
| person in a way that damages their reputation they ought to
| have legal means at their disposal to set that straight.
|
| I don't really see why the US gets this right at all, it's
| just part of Americas culture where lies and truth are
| treated as equal and as a result integrity has completely
| vanished from public discourse. Very visible in how all
| politicians are treated as 'being the same', which is the
| logical consequence of this atmosphere of defamation which
| trolls abuse with impunity. If you can lie without
| repercussion about everyone, the public cannot distinguish
| reality from fiction.
| mcguire wrote:
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
|
| For defamation, you need four things: a false statement of
| fact made to a third party causing actual harm, that
| demonstrates at least negligence. For public figures, the
| "at least negligence" rises to "actual malice"; I believe
| the intention is to prevent public figures from abusing
| defamation suits.
|
| Note that "lying", saying something that you know to be
| false or with "reckless disregard" for whether it is false,
| is pretty much the definition of "actual malice" in this
| case. You cannot lie without repercussion.
| dangerface wrote:
| > They are famous, they can deal with and expect to be
| trolled.
|
| Citation needed I don't think any one on youtube or twitch
| has the resources or interest in dealing with lies being
| spread about them.
|
| I can't think of any legitimate reason the law should protect
| liars at the expense of every one else.
|
| I can't think of any legitimate reason that popular people
| should be subject to a different set of laws from the rest of
| us, that seems deeply biased and un fair.
| xxpor wrote:
| >I can't think of any legitimate reason the law should
| protect liars and the expense of every one else.
|
| You're advocating for the government to become the
| arbitrator of true and fiction for private speech. Seems
| like an absolutely terrible idea to me.
| krapp wrote:
| Every government in existence, including that of the
| United States, arbitrates speech and fact. That's why
| perjury and false advertising are illegal, for instance.
| mullen wrote:
| Your examples are not relative to the discussion. Perjury
| is a crime because people have to tell the truth in the
| court system. The whole justice system and thus, society,
| would break down if anyone could say whatever they wanted
| in a court of law without being punished. False
| Advertising is a crime because it is a commercial
| activity with the intent to commit fraud and not an
| individual saying their opinions.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| logicalmonster wrote:
| It's hard to judge this specific case from the article because
| it's limited in its details of what actual criticism about this
| person was expressed.
|
| But to me, the problem inherent in defamation (as well as "fake
| news") isn't that people are able to utter false statements.
| The real issue is that many people are conditioned to believe
| that whatever they see or hear is true. Somebody believing
| something negative is the only thing that might cause harm to
| another person.
|
| Why do people believe that whatever they read or hear is true?
| I believe it's because we have active defamation/slander laws,
| "fact checkers", and other things designed to combat false
| information. Their very existence and strength is what keeps
| people conditioned to believe that everything they see is true.
| And the stronger they get, the stronger that people believe
| that everything they read is true. It's a feedback loop that
| worsens the problem it's supposed to solve.
|
| Paradoxically, things like strong defamation laws may worsen
| the real problem they're ostensibly designed to solve. I
| strongly believe that the approach that should be taken with
| things like defamation isn't harsher and harsher punishment, it
| should be telling everybody that nothing you read online is
| true and having the weakest possible defamation laws (or even
| no laws in this regard) to get people to understand that
| nothing that they see or read should be considered true until
| they verify it. A society that understands that no facts should
| be considered true until they verify it would be immune from
| false information.
| dangerface wrote:
| Absolutely free speech doesn't mean you are free to use your
| speech to attack people and spread lies.
| krapp wrote:
| >Absolutely free speech doesn't mean you are free to use your
| speech to attack people and spread lies.
|
| Yes it does, that's exactly what it means.
|
| People disagree on what "free speech" means, on what limits
| can legitimately be placed on that freedom and by whom, but
| the implications of "absolutely free" speech are unambiguous.
| walshemj wrote:
| Go in the wrong pub in NI and shout up the RA (PIRA) /UDA
| and see what happens.
| meowface wrote:
| I think it just has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If
| someone anonymously tweets something knowingly false along the
| lines of "[X] is a rapist/pedophile and I have proof", I agree
| you should be able to sue that person. A false, defamatory
| accusation like that can easily ruin your career and life.
|
| But I can imagine plenty of things that someone could argue are
| defamatory which fall into a much grayer area where I believe
| court involvement isn't warranted. I think this debate will
| just run in circles until all of the tweets in question are
| presented.
| xxpor wrote:
| That is an example that US defamation law would cover as
| well.
|
| For public figures, normally you have to demonstrate actual
| malice to win a defamation case. But there are certain things
| that are defamation per se, in other words are always
| considered defamation unless they're true. The list differs
| per state, but things like calling someone a pedophile is
| always on it.
|
| Fun fact: saying someone was gay used to be considered
| defamation per se.
| meowface wrote:
| Right. Maybe I'm biased because I'm American, but I think
| the US defamation laws seem pretty reasonable. I'm curious
| to see the tweets so I can see how I feel about the UK's
| laws and enforcement.
| th0ma5 wrote:
| Does this opinion have anything to do with the scandals one
| might be able to find with a simple google search of your
| username?
| duxup wrote:
| It may be just the type of stories I happen to see.
|
| But I feel like I run into more cases where UK defamation laws
| have some absurd outcomes ... and I'm not sure the result is
| that there's less defamation in the UK.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| There's no question that the UK's speech laws are abusive,
| especially to American sensibilities. You can find stories of
| people being arrested for calling a police horse "gay", or
| saying "woof" to a police dog, or the guy who taught his
| girlfriend's dog to respond to Seig Heil to troll her, or the
| 19 y/o who quoted a Snoop Dogg lyric on her Instagram page,
| or the guy sent to _jail_ for leaving anti-religion cartoons
| in an airport restroom. These cases are among the ridiculous
| fringe, so a bunch of them were overturned or resulting
| solely in fines, but they're the tip of the iceberg of the
| more mundane gov't suppression of speech and accompanying
| chilling effects that the UK has decided it wants.
|
| Though that doesn't imply that defamation has no place in
| speech laws, nor that the case in question was necessarily
| abusive.
| rovolo wrote:
| I don't think you're giving a great summary of these
| stories.
|
| The first two are related to personal defamation:
|
| * Police horse and dog: people could be arrested for
| "threatening, abusive or insulting" speech in public at the
| time. The police, being wankers, overused their discretion
| on "insulting" speech and so the law was changed in 2013 to
| remove "insulting" as a criterion.
| https://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/16/you-may-now-call-a-
| poli...
|
| The rest fall under hate speech:
|
| * Seig Heil dog: fined PS800 for hate speech for posting a
| video of the dog to YouTube. He said "gas the Jews" to the
| dog 23 times. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dog-nazi-salute-
| sentence-mark-m...
|
| * 19 y/o Snoop Dogg lyric: 8 week curfew, fined PS600. She
| added "kill a snitch n** and rob a rich n**" to her
| Instagram bio.
| https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-
| wh...
|
| * The guy repeatedly left the cartoons in airport _prayer-
| rooms_. "Other [images] linked Muslims to attacks on
| airports." 6 month suspended prison sentence (not sure
| about the length of the pre-trial detention), fined PS250,
| 100hrs unpaid work (community service?). http://news.bbc.co
| .uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/854961...
|
| I don't necessarily agree with the criminalization, but
| these 3 instances were all people doing shitty things I
| don't think they should have done. Downplaying the parts
| people actually got angry about makes it seem like you're
| complaining about the people getting angry about the
| actions rather than the trials and punishments.
| mcguire wrote:
| Thanks for the details!
|
| Any news on Simon Singh and the British Chiropractic
| Association or the Church of Scientology?
| rovolo wrote:
| This is what I found with a quick search.
|
| * Simon Singh & BCA: appeals court changed Singh's
| "statement of fact" to "fair comment" (opinion) in 2010.
| The BCA then withdrew the libel lawsuit. The "Libel
| Reform Campaign" used this case to push for a 2013 act
| which modified libel laws.
|
| * I don't know which Scientology libel suit you're asking
| about. The most recent news item I could find was a 2015
| chilling effect where a local broadcaster and publisher
| rethought showing/printing "Going Clear" because Northern
| Ireland wasn't covered by the 2013 libel law. The latest
| actual libel suit I could find was a 6 year libel case
| where: (ex-Scientologist) Bonnie Woods started a
| phoneline for other dissenters, the Scientologists
| printed leaflets calling her a "hate campaigner" and
| distributed them in Hood's neighborhood, Hood sued, the
| Scientologists counter-sued, Hood eventually won a
| settlement.
|
| https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/3942739
| 02/...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_in_the_United_K
| ing...
| Marazan wrote:
| With regards to the Nazi dog your facts are wrong.
|
| He taught the dog to respond to the phrase "Do you wanna
| gas the Jews"
| jaywalk wrote:
| I would call this an absurd outcome. This guy is a public
| figure, and it doesn't seem like anything bad actually
| happened to him as a result of the trolling. So how in the
| hell is a six-figure payout justified?
| s_dev wrote:
| Ireland like the UK has strong defamation laws.
|
| I suspect it plays a part in concealing political corruption
| rather protecting an individuals right to a reputation as
| pointed out by EU officials a couple of times.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| benrbray wrote:
| I don't have a horse in this race, but playing devil's
| advocate: USA doesn't have strong defamation laws, and yet we
| still have well-concealed corruption.
| s_dev wrote:
| I don't think the defamation laws are the only approach to
| concealing corruption -- just one way thats popular in the
| UK & Ireland.
| jldugger wrote:
| > well-concealed
|
| Are you sure about that? It seems pretty out in the open.
| benrbray wrote:
| We have plenty of both kinds :). "Truth" being a valid
| defense against defamation laws protects some
| whistleblowers, but for the big stuff we play the
| "national security" card.
| xxpor wrote:
| When was the last time the federal government asserted
| national security privilege in a defamation suit?
| benrbray wrote:
| Last I heard, Snowden is still not welcome here.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Defamation is a great way for those with money to silence
| dissent and avoid any consequences. Say our product sucks?
| Defamation. Claim you were sexually assaulted? Defamation.
|
| Even if what you said is true, would you be willing to spend
| the money to go to court and try to fight a defamation lawsuit?
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| I'm not sure that's true - or rather, I think it's
| exaggerated. First, truth is generally a defence to
| defamation, and costs follow the cause in the UK so a losing
| party would generally be required to pay both parties' costs.
| Now, defamation suits can still be costly and painful even if
| you are in the right, so they do surely have some chilling
| effect. But the risk and likely cost of trying to silence
| legitimate criticisms with frivolous defamation lawsuits is
| quite high.
|
| Second, defamation suits are public, and often make for juicy
| headlines. If you really want to silence your critics,
| dragging them into a public forum to repeat their claims in
| front of a load of reporters is probably not the best way to
| do it.
| mcguire wrote:
| That has partially changed in the last 10 years.
|
| https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902
| /...
| 45ure wrote:
| >Defamation is a great way for those with money to silence
| dissent and avoid any consequences.
|
| Your comment seems to fit the profile of Brewdog, a UK based
| 'craft brewery'. They are known for deliberately courting
| controversy. The egregious examples include frivolous claims
| on trademarks, misogyny, bullying, harassment, amongst toe-
| curling and churlish behaviour, when they appeared on a BBC
| programme _Who 's The Boss_. The latest 'Gold Can' escapade
| is another deceptive marketing campaign, which is their
| raison d'etre. The strategy works, as it is doing them no
| harm and the growth is phenomenal.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/10/brewdog-
| pun...
|
| https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2016/03/brewdog-boss-
| regre...
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57650685
| shkkmo wrote:
| This comment seems entirely unrelated to what it is
| responging to...
|
| You seem to be accusing the person you are responding to of
| being Brewdog? Or were you trying to say Brewdog uses
| defamation to silence criticism of their marketing tactics?
| Or are you trying to promote Brewdog by publicising their
| deliberate controversies? I just can't figure it out.
| 45ure wrote:
| >You seem to be accusing the person you are responding to
| of being Brewdog? Or are you trying to promote Brewdog by
| publicising their deliberate controversies?
|
| There is no such implication on both counts. I am
| flabbergasted by how you have arrived at your conclusion.
| shkkmo wrote:
| I was not drawing want conclusions. I was struggling to
| understand your comment and those were the only three
| plausible (and mutually exclusive) interpretations i
| could come up with.
|
| I presume you had a point you were trying to make, but i
| could not figure out what it was from your comment as
| written.
| drdeca wrote:
| I suspect the option of the three options you listed
| which wasn't one of the two they rejected as
| flabbergasting, was the right one.
|
| I.e. they were suggesting that brewdog, uh, deliberately
| invites criticism, and then uses that criticism to their
| advantage by using defamation law.
| Steko wrote:
| So the guy who had six figures lying around to pay off a
| twitter lawsuit doesn't have money?
| 34679 wrote:
| >It's good to see precedent being established for prosecuting
| those that abuse social media for evil.
|
| It's also good to see precedents established for people trying
| to abuse the system:
|
| "Judge tosses frivolous lawsuit by heiress Sulome Anderson
| seeking to destroy The Grayzone"
|
| https://thegrayzone.com/2021/06/29/lawsuit-sulome-anderson-h...
| moksly wrote:
| > The individual admitted running a campaign which "involved the
| systematic dissemination of false and defamatory allegations"
| against Mr Nolan.
|
| I think that it is good that someone got to own up for the
| turdslinging they do online, but why are we ok with platforms
| that aren't held accountable for the "systematic dissemination of
| false and defamatory allegations" they enable? What if you don't
| have BBC lawyers and resources behind you when you or your little
| company is targeted?
|
| I know this may be a little too Scandinavian for some HN users,
| but I simply don't get why we don't hold the social media
| platforms accountable for the content that gets posted to them.
| We have laws and bureaucracies in place to govern traditional
| media, exactly because the two world and the Cold War showed us
| what propaganda is capable of, and yet, we let these new
| platforms do whatever they want?
|
| Maybe that would break Social Media, because their automatic
| moderation wouldn't be up to the task, but so what? The way
| things are moving forward, the platforms claim to have upped
| their moderation, but as long as they aren't actually held
| accountable by any democratic institution, they will still mainly
| be moderated by the advertising industry and that's just not not
| what's in public interest.
|
| I know Donald Trump is a touchy subject to bring up. But why was
| he banned when he was? Shouldn't he either have been de-
| platformed long ago, or not at all? Sure was convenient for the
| companies to do so when they did, wasn't it? I'm personally happy
| that I haven't heard a single thing about American republicans in
| 2021, but I still think it's a democratic issue that it is a
| select few tech-billionaires that can remove someone like Donald
| Trump from my life and not any form of public institution.
|
| It all goes back to the lack of moderation and the lack of
| consequences for these Social Media platforms. Yeah, one "
| systematic dissemination campaign" was stopped because the BBC
| protects its journalists, but how many go unpunished?
| xxpor wrote:
| >it's a democratic issue that it is a select few tech-
| billionaires that can remove someone like Donald Trump from my
| life
|
| This is largely due to the fact that DT is, frankly, an idiot.
|
| He was still the president on Jan 10. The American President
| has PLENTY of ways to get their message out... if they want to.
| Trump refused to adapt to changing circumstances.
| rrrazdan wrote:
| I was in the "libertarian" camp on this. But now looking at all
| the damage caused (including killings in India on false social
| media rumors) I certainly think "mainstreaming of social media"
| is warranted.
|
| For one remove anonymity from social media. That in itself
| should clean up half this mess with existing laws.
| ttt0 wrote:
| > For one remove anonymity from social media. That in itself
| should clean up half this mess with existing laws.
|
| And it should also enable going after people with unpopular
| opinions even more.
|
| And preventing people from spreading disinformation doesn't
| mean that the disinformation will magically go away. It's
| just that the only people allowed to spread disinformation
| will be the government and the capitalists. And you will be
| punished if you call them out on it.
| azinman2 wrote:
| This is my issue with the libertarian stance. It's easy to
| make arguments in abstract that sounds really good about
| personal liberty and responsibility, preventing
| authoritarianism etc. But humans can be really crappy and bad
| actors will always try to ruin something good (see Internet,
| environment, poverty programs, insurance, banking, etc),
| which is then why we end up with regulations.
|
| What I don't get is this idea that we shouldn't learn from
| our mistakes because the #1 thing is to hold onto some kind
| of immutable ideal. Isn't that why we continue to have
| legislation despite constitutions having been already
| written? That the world changes and thus government should
| change with it?
| Manuel_D wrote:
| > I simply don't get why we don't hold the social media
| platforms accountable for the content that gets posted to them
|
| The scale of content being posted on social media is such that
| this liability makes running a social media platform
| effectively impossible. All user generated content would have
| to be manually reviewed before being posted. This would be
| prohibitively expensive.
|
| As for the Trump ban, freedom of speech also means freedom from
| _compelled speech_. The government can 't force a store to sell
| a particular newspaper, or force a newspaper to run a
| particular story. Same applies to internet websites. If you
| have a blog with a comments section, the government can't force
| you to host certain comments.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| > The scale of content being posted on social media is such
| that this liability makes running a social media platform
| effectively impossible. All user generated content would have
| to be manually reviewed before being posted. This would be
| prohibitively expensive.
|
| Since when is "operating responsibly would be too expensive"
| an excuse that we allow businesses to use to avoid any
| responsibility for the damage they cause? If your business
| model can't function at scale without incurring enormous
| externalities to your society, it doesn't have a right to
| exist.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| It's not just a question if expenses but also
| responsibility. If I post a post-it note on my schools
| bulletin board making defamatory statements who is at
| fault? Me? Or the school, because it was their bulletin
| board?
| InitialLastName wrote:
| The first time, it's your responsibility.
|
| If you kept doing it but the school knew you were doing
| it and not only left it up, but put copies on bulletin
| boards across their entire global network, and never
| asked you to stop, maybe they have to take some
| responsibility.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| Right, the person who authored the defamatory content -
| not the platform - is responsible. That's how the law
| works.
|
| The school might not even know whether the content is
| defamatory. If someone posts an accusation of sexual
| assault and the accused denies it what happens? Does it
| have to immediately side with the accused?
| jwond wrote:
| > As for the Trump ban, freedom of speech also means freedom
| from compelled speech. The government can't force a store to
| sell a particular newspaper, or force a newspaper to run a
| particular story. Same applies to internet websites. If you
| have a blog with a comments section, the government can't
| force you to host certain comments.
|
| I personally don't find this argument particularly compelling
| when the entity in question is a platform that arguably has
| more influence over public discourse than most (all?)
| governments.
|
| There is an enormous difference between someone's blog and a
| web site that is used as a communication platform by
| politicians and world leaders, and which has a user base
| numbering in the millions or even billions.
| criley2 wrote:
| We don't hold social media companies accountable for things
| that are posted there because then they will perform a
| cost/benefit analysis on the risk and liability of comment
| sections, free speech, posting news and political content, and
| most of them will engage in the most draconian reduction of
| free speech online in the internets history.
|
| Why would Facebook let you talk about politics on their
| platform if you could defame a politician or celebrity and
| Facebook was on the hook? What's cheaper, banning you and/or
| algorithmically controlling your speech, or paying major
| dollars to an employee in a high cost of living who wants deep
| benefits just to review your speech.
|
| I mean they'd need law staff reviewing every potentially
| defamatory post.
|
| They'd honestly need lawyers reviewing every post made on
| social media, or else they could be sued into oblivion.
|
| I can't imagine how any company could run a business allowing
| people to speak anything remotely close to freely online if
| that business is financially liable for the truth and veracity
| of every statement made.
|
| What would happen is social media would turn into a situation
| where the only people allowed to post would be the Blue
| Checkmarks -- those who the service verifies as being
| Goodthinkers who won't create liability, and who may have
| signed an agreement with the company absolving the company of
| that liability.
|
| I just can't imagine how free speech could survive online if
| the big guy could make the newspaper pay for a letter to the
| editor.
| zentiggr wrote:
| Because once FB/Twitter/every other large forum limits
| themselves to only doupleplusgoodposters, there will be a few
| billion people looking for somewhere else that they can
| speak, and other services will arise.
|
| And we'll finally see who the blessed of the FB or Twitter or
| <service> truly are.
| criley2 wrote:
| Those services will not be able to afford the lawsuits.
| That's the point. New services will be one of two things:
|
| 1) Pirate media in open and flagrant violation of the legal
| requirement to ensure the legality and veracity of all user
| content. In which case the government will shut it down or
| admit non-enforcement of the bogus law.
|
| 2) Or they are soon-to-be-former media sued into oblivion
| because someone lied on their service in a manner which the
| service is liable for. The service either vets the
| statements or pays the damages.
|
| This is before we consider the implications of a hostile
| actor using this mechanism to tank businesses. Write bots
| to spread misinformation, lies and slander. What are you
| going to do, sue some unknown operator ten thousand miles
| away? Good luck. The service will pay damages for it and
| they'll keep paying until they restrict free speech
| sufficiently.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Seems like you're saying contradictory things here. On the one
| hand you're arguing for massive moderation, and on the other
| you're suggesting a few people shouldn't be able to de-platform
| a president. You can't have both.
|
| What's funny about this is we all act like
| Facebook/Twitter/YouTube are the only ways that politicians can
| talk to the public, yet somehow politicians have long
| campaigned well before the Internet existed, let alone these 3
| specific platforms. It's not like news media has stopped
| writing about Trump (in fact big news just yesterday about the
| trump org & taxes). Plus the news media was writing about how
| Trump is now on some new Gab-alternative, to which Gab is
| suggesting he's not on there because they want to allow anti-
| Semitism and Kushner blocked it. So new platforms easily can
| come up and acquire various demographics.
|
| It's also not like Facebook etc is the only source for systemic
| dissemination of propaganda. Trump used to have extremely
| frequent calls with Fox News hosts, for example, which commands
| a very large set of the GOP eyeballs. Probably more than
| Twitter could ever hope for.
|
| All of this is effectively protected by the first amendment.
| You could revoke 230 which would quickly lead to mass
| moderation or complete changes of platform behaviors/features,
| but you'd be very hard pressed to find a way to force any news
| org to shape their messaging.
| [deleted]
| treeman79 wrote:
| He was banned in order for Joe Biden to win. Plain and simple.
|
| Same as why Hunter Biden stories were being blocked on Facebook
| as untrue, even though they were true. It made one candidate
| look bad.
|
| It's important to remember there is a narrative that stories
| must fit.
|
| The next Republican candidate will be declared mean, dumb, all-
| phobic to everyone. Everything they say will be "fact checked"
| and proven false.
|
| Doesn't matter who it is. Doesn't matter what they say, or
| their actual position. They will be canceled.
| opheliate wrote:
| What are you talking about? Biden had already won when Trump
| was banned.
| diogenesjunior wrote:
| If they couldn't win an election without a blue bird app,
| they didn't deserve to win period.
| zentiggr wrote:
| So, not worth arguing the point with you? Already decided
| that Trump's a victim? Sigh.
| kingsuper20 wrote:
| >but I simply don't get why we don't hold the social media
| platforms accountable for the content that gets posted to them
|
| I think that's probably too crude a concept, although you can
| argue that probably 10% of Twitter needs a lawsuit being horrid
| people and all.
|
| My own guess is that the ability of social media is strong and
| subtle enough to avoid any rule you might cook up. Their
| ability to steer enough votes to win an election is obvious and
| their own bias is clear.
|
| You're not going to get your relatives to leave Facebook, it's
| too handy for trading baby pictures, so I have no clue what
| should be done. There'll always be some sort of editorial
| control.
| crazydoggers wrote:
| You hit the nail on the head! And I'm from the US, so it's not
| too Scandinavian. :)
|
| What I found interesting was the spectacle of Mark Zuckerberg
| in front of congress. And yet no action whatsoever has come
| from it.
|
| I think part of the issue is that the very people who could
| push for legislation (the voters) are also the unwitting
| products of these companies (sold to their real customers the
| advertisers).
|
| So the manipulation has gone so deep and been so effective the
| majority of people aren't realizing what's happening.
| iratewizard wrote:
| Being subject to every imaginable form of psychological
| manipulation has become the norm. Advertising has had a race
| to the bottom as far as ethics go. News media needs to
| gaslight its viewership in order to maintain its flimsy
| position as an authority. The once subtle undertone of
| propaganda in entertainment is far from subtle. I don't know
| the reason for why people rarely notice, but I suspect they
| just want to enjoy their shows. If they were to think too
| deeply about what their shows have become, it would be hard
| to enjoy them.
| saalweachter wrote:
| It's difficult to ban a drug enjoyed by the majority of the
| population, no matter how harmful it is to individuals or
| society.
| jfengel wrote:
| I have a lot of sympathy for your Scandinavian viewpoint. But
| it's noteworthy that this is in the UK, which sets a relatively
| low bar to proving libel. Some say much too low.
|
| I don't know how it is in Scandinavia, but in the US it would
| almost certainly be difficult to prosecute this. A lot of
| harassment is simply legal unless you can prove that
| deliberately false things were said with the intent to harm
| people -- which is very hard to prove.
|
| Not that these platforms should hold themselves to a legal
| standard. Indeed, I've said before that it's long past the time
| for people to be thinking of moderation as an afterthought. New
| social networks -- even just discussion boards -- need to think
| from the beginning what kind of conversation they want.
| Otherwise, there's a very good chance it will be dominated by
| those who wish to hurt others, because the others will leave.
|
| FB and Twitter are in a rare position where they own the
| natural monopoly (or, perhaps natural oligopoly) on general
| social media. You go there because your friends are there. You
| may want to leave, but you really can't because no other place
| can offer you the same connectivity even if they have a vastly
| improved feature set.
|
| I don't really know what can legally be done to rein these two
| in. The UK is the lowest bar to set on prosecuting trolls, and
| this case was expensive and rare. It doesn't put trolls on
| warning because nobody else will have this person's resources.
| And it's harder everywhere else.
|
| Even if you and I and all our friends left Twitter and FB for
| greener pastures, as long as they have that oligopoly, we'll
| still have to live with people using them to defame us.
| Everybody will know, even if we're not there.
|
| I'm not actually worried about Trump. He was an exception. Let
| there be an exception for sitting Presidents; I don't care.
| He's still just one loud asshole. The problem is that anonymous
| jerks of all kinds can pursue defamation campaigns. They have
| to work harder to get traction, but they can also be more
| focused.
|
| They, I think, are the real problem, and I don't really know
| what to do. I don't know what laws I'd pass even if I could.
| The vaunted power of the Internet has made it possible to be
| mean on a scale never before seen, and nothing I've seen in the
| past gives me a guide to that.
| iNane9000 wrote:
| The word "troll" has lost all meaning. It's worse than "hacker".
| I now reflexively disregard the people who use the term. I'm sure
| they'd say that anyone who disagrees must be "trolling" too. A
| bad word that impedes thinking.
| krapp wrote:
| cool story bro.
| iNane9000 wrote:
| Troll?
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Yeah I assume that was a very meta troll ha
| ctack wrote:
| Am I crazy or could it be read that the money is being more or
| less extorted from the payer?
| trhway wrote:
| according to that reddit (as originals seem to be gone) about
| the payer
| https://www.reddit.com/r/northernireland/comments/nmzp90/wha...
|
| "His Nolan guest analysis showed nationalist views are
| represented 6% of the time while unionist views get 65% of the
| airtime. "
|
| I suppose saying such things in North Ireland is like
| criticizing the Chechen President Kadyrov in Russia - you get
| very specific people visiting you and "explaining" to you that
| you have to apologize, and you do happily apologize publicly
| after that, very similar like the supposed "troll" did here.
|
| One can also notice how all the wording around that settlement
| is all about threats to any future "trolls", and with the
| "personal security" words present in the context the message is
| hardly can be made more clear.
| xdennis wrote:
| Why is there no mention of what he actually said? There's a big
| difference between calling someone a poopyhead and alleging he's
| a pedophile.
|
| How can the people stay informed about potential abuse when the
| press omits the most important part?
| perihelions wrote:
| See my sibling comment. One of the allegedly defamatory claims
| was _" [Stephen Nolan's] show regularly platforms unelected
| representatives and apologists for paramilitary
| organisations"_.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27700339
| vages wrote:
| I think that's to avoid the Streisand effect: Trying to have
| information removed often brings more attention to the
| information you want removed.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| It's a warning to all trolls, they say in the article. The
| exact warning is undefined however.
| didericis wrote:
| The lack of concrete definitions and examples makes it a
| warning to everyone.
| ipaddr wrote:
| What's the warning?
|
| Twitter will sell you out to the bbc?
|
| The BBC in northern Ireland is pushing unionist views and
| the BBC will crush anyone who calls them out.
|
| Don't mess with the BBC?
|
| Use a vpn and/or tor?
|
| Without the actual story it becomes an abuse of power
| story. A bully pushing around the little guy.
|
| If it were racist, sexist or homophobic we would have about
| heard that. The lack of message is very telling.
| ctack wrote:
| It seems like the agreement to pay could be read as the
| money being more or less extorted from the twitter troll.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| opheliate wrote:
| It should be noted: Stephen Nolan is a Northern Irish presenter,
| and the trolling in question concerned whether his show gives an
| unfair amount of coverage to unionist positions, as opposed to
| nationalists. Personal security concerns are a big deal in this
| case, regardless of whether the anonymous figure is well-known or
| not. Settling here isn't necessarily just a PR move.
| woah wrote:
| Wow that introduces a whole different dimension to this. That
| makes it sound like the "trolling" may have been a legitimate
| political criticism (unfounded or not), and the "troll" paid
| out due to a threat to their personal safety. Even darker that
| the threat was made by the national broadcaster of the
| occupying nation.
| walshemj wrote:
| You are aware of the "troubles" ?
|
| I am assuming good faith here but there are para militaries
| on both sides that make Trumps most headbanging supporters
| look like boy scouts.
|
| Their idea of "legitimate political criticism" goes a bit
| further than you would like.
| vl wrote:
| Lol, "Para military" on one side being actual British Army?
| iso1631 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Volunteer_Force
| Eldt wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland#Long
| -te...
| bof_ wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mon_restaurant_bombing
| bof_ wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudy_bombing
| walshemj wrote:
| Your not familiar with the term ?
| Steko wrote:
| Hard to sympathize with that troll when he is doing the same
| thing repeatedly:
|
| https://itsstillonlythursday.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/scr.
| ..
|
| https://itsstillonlythursday.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/scr.
| ..
|
| https://itsstillonlythursday.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/scr.
| ..
|
| https://itsstillonlythursday.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/scr.
| ..
|
| https://itsstillonlythursday.wordpress.com/2021/04/29/dial-d.
| ..
| iso1210 wrote:
| WTF are you on about "occupying nation"
| woah wrote:
| England is occupying part of Ireland. I have no personal
| opinion about this, or links to Ireland, but it seems
| pretty obvious to anyone looking at it from the outside.
| earnubs wrote:
| Your first sentence is a personal opinion.
| Gupie wrote:
| They would be wrong then. The great majority of unionist
| are of Scottish descent and have been in Norther Ireland
| from the 1600s.
|
| FYI the term "unionist" refers to those in NI who want
| the union with Britain to be maintained, not as someone
| looking in from outside would assume those who want a
| union with Southern Ireland. Those are "nationalists".
| mcguire wrote:
| "Great majority"? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polit
| ics_of_Northern_Ireland#V....
|
| " _...have been in Norther Ireland from the 1600s._ "
|
| Not that it matters to anyone, but the Plantation of
| Ulster would likely be considered a war crime under
| article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Not that it matters to anyone, but the Plantation of
| Ulster would likely be considered a war crime under
| article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention.
|
| Well, probably not, given that none of the states who
| were, or whose territory was, involved were parties to
| Geneva Convention (IV) of 1949 at the time.
| spoonjim wrote:
| Yes, it's an ongoing war crime since 1600.
| [deleted]
| barneygale wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ireland#Public_opini
| on
|
| The people of Northern Ireland disagree, and we ought to
| leave it to them.
| vl wrote:
| Essentially it's a piece curved out of a country where
| descendants of occupants exceed in number native
| population. Of course it's occupied for so long that now
| it's "their own", still doesn't change the fact that it
| was occupied and not treated equally historically in the
| first place.
| michaelt wrote:
| But enough about the United States, we're supposed to be
| discussing Northern Ireland.
| AQuantized wrote:
| Not to be pedantic, but isn't that true of almost any
| place if you go back far enough? There's a reason those
| with 'British' ancestry are called Anglo-Saxons; The
| Angles (French) and Saxons (Germans) that conquered and
| occupied the land of the Celts eventually become the de
| facto inhabitants. Of course the Celts themselves didn't
| evolve there, but also dominated pre-Celtic peoples.
| vl wrote:
| Ireland's situation is a bit unique in that it was
| occupied for many hundreds of years and not really
| integrated. Usually occupations are either shorter, or
| integration happens. Of course occupants and occupees
| being on the islands didn't help.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > Angles (French) and Saxons (Germans)
|
| The Angles are not French nor were the Saxons Germans but
| both were Germanic, specifically Nordic, coming from what
| is now Denmark.
|
| There were "French" who ruled Britain called the Normans,
| from Normandy, which was also settled by Scandinavians
| and mixed with Franks (Germanics) and Gallo-Roman (post-
| Romans) (explaining why they spoke French.)
| bof_ wrote:
| Hacker News on Northern Ireland is worse than Hacker News
| on CSS. Which is saying a lot.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > England is occupying part of Ireland.
|
| _England_ is clearly not, since Northern Ireland is a
| separate country in the UK, not a colony run by the
| government of England.
|
| After ~400 years its hard to say the UK, is, either,
| unless you want to say most of the Earth is occupied,
| often occupied territory of countries that no longer even
| have a notional government, and often occupied by people
| who are detached from the government that initiated the
| occupation (which may itself have ceased to exist.)
| shellac wrote:
| England?
| Strom wrote:
| If you want them to say United Kingdom, then say it.
| Obscure one word comments aren't useful or transparent.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| Sadly even UK is not right here. We are the United
| Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
|
| If we do not include NI, then we are just Great Britain.
|
| Most of us are confused about it too.
| bof_ wrote:
| And the alpha_3 for The United Kingdom of Great Britain
| and Northern Ireland is GBR.
|
| The Western European Archipelago is a complex place.
| mcguire wrote:
| Well, the ancestor has a point, sort of. England
| conquered Wales, Scotland, and a bunch of other parts of
| the Earth, and only grudgingly became the "United Kingdom
| of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Historically, its
| relationship with everyone else in Britain, much less the
| rest of the world, have been somewhat strained.
|
| By the way, any news on the Scottish independence thing?
| opheliate wrote:
| You might want to look into the history of Northern Ireland
| during the 20th century, and local attitudes to British
| rule.
| benjaminwootton wrote:
| In that case, maybe the content was political rather than
| trolling? Settling like this is a slippery slope if you've said
| something to offend someone rather than simply libel and troll
| them.
| hbosch wrote:
| Firstly, political posting and troll posting aren't mutually
| exclusive. Secondly, it appears that there was strong
| evidence that this poster actually tried to harm the
| presenter's reputation and career. To that extent, libel
| charges are fair and it's a good thing he was able to be
| traced and admonished.
| shkkmo wrote:
| I don't see any details as to what the alleged "troll" said
| on which you are basing this. The only evidence I see is
| the this was settled out of fear of being doxed amd nothing
| indicating the strength of the legal claim of libel.
| seaish wrote:
| This happens to basically all the women of enough notoriety that
| I follow on Twitter. It's usually a single individual, but often
| it's someone being extremely offensive and not technically
| defamatory. I don't think there's much legal action to take in
| those cases.
| cwkoss wrote:
| There are also several (known) political mercenaries who
| operate bot farms specifically to attack leftists and signal
| boost those attacks to astroturf popularity.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| > There are also several (known) political mercenaries who
| operate bot farms specifically to attack leftists and signal
| boost those attacks to astroturf popularity.
|
| You mean harassers and bullies from hexbear AKA
| chapotraphouse who target radical feminists? Yes, it's
| leftists attacking women who disagree with them.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Haven't heard about this.
|
| Is there evidence of bot accounts specifically? Or is it
| unclear if its bots (network of accounts managed by one or
| few people) or a crowd of tribalist low-information angry
| people? Often hard to tell them apart, and a successful
| former often breeds the later, so I think it can be
| challenging to determine conclusively.
|
| "Bot" has also increasingly (and incorrectly IMO) been used
| as a pejorative for belligerent human trolls, which further
| obfuscates this discussion.
|
| Would love to see a source about chapo bots - google isn't
| turning up anything for me. I find these sorts of social
| media propaganda operations fascinating.
| drdeca wrote:
| (I have no information about the specific topic of
| alleged CTH bots/"bots". I'm not asserting that any
| particular group is using bots. I'm just speaking
| generally about the topic of what counts as "bots" and
| what doesn't.)
|
| I kind of feel that in a case where there are many
| accounts using identical text (which is too long to be
| identical by coincidence) (e.g. in replies to something),
| it is probably fair to call these bots, even though one
| can't rule out the possibility that the automation is as
| small as just copying and pasting the same text into
| different accounts + something to open windows as
| different accounts viewing the same tweet.
|
| Like, maybe that setup wouldn't strictly count as bots,
| but really only because it hasn't been automated as much
| as it could be while having the same result.
|
| So, I think it is probably fair to call that observable-
| phenomenon "bots" even though it might not always
| strictly be bots?
|
| But I agree that a group of paid astroturfers(/trolls?)
| who are writing different things, probably shouldn't be
| called "bots", even if they each use multiple accounts
| (provided that they aren't semi-automatically saying the
| same things from the different accounts).
|
| I do think that the concept of sock puppets probably
| captures much of the idea that "bots" is inappropriately
| extended to, and in a sense applies to many of the kinds
| of bots that people are talking about in this context
| (bots pretending to be many people, rather than a bot
| which is up-front about being a bot).
|
| So, maybe talking about "socks" would be a good
| substitute for when some are talking about "bots" when
| they don't really care if they are actually bots?
| cwkoss wrote:
| Interesting. I do consider accounts managed by paid
| astroturfers who manually write replies from multiple
| accounts with different identities "bots" but maybe that
| is a misnomer. "Sock-puppet-masters"?
|
| Copy-paste reply bots are clearly "bots" IMO - but these
| seem to be falling out of favor because pointing out many
| identical replies tends to be a very effective "dunk" on
| the idea they are promoting.
|
| Someone found screenshots Sally Albright's tooling in a
| support request: she had ~50-100 different accounts with
| unique identities. She could post replies to a given
| tweet from multiple different accounts from a single
| page. However, liking and retweeting each others replies
| could be fully automated (with some randomization of
| timing and which accounts are used).
|
| Albright has claimed that the accounts she managed were
| originally owned by people who gave her control of them.
| I am incredulous, particularly because some accounts were
| identified as using a dead person's image with a
| different name. But there is the possibility that she was
| given the impression by whoever provided these accounts
| to her that these were 'real' accounts where the owners
| consented to have them used in this manner.
|
| It gives the capability for a single person to seem like
| they are a crowd of like minded people all in agreement
| on social media. I believe this model of automated
| likes/retweets but manual replies is the most common (and
| pernicious) method used today - practically impossible to
| prove without data outside the platform it is occurring.
| cwkoss wrote:
| I was primarily referring to Sally Albright (the example
| with the most publicly available evidence). She is a
| political mercenary who was outed as operating a large bot
| farm using identities of people who died. Funded by
| ShareBlue to attack people critical of HRC, then Biden.
|
| Arguably, she created the "donut twitter" faction - which
| grew past the bot accounts she controlled.
|
| Though I'm sure this tactic is used by every political
| leaning to some extent. I think her example is particularly
| egregious because she is being funded by the DNC apparatus
| - not just a lone wolf.
| Smithalicious wrote:
| Saying shareblue/CTR, a leftist astroturf organization,
| is "attacking leftists" is incredibly misleading. They
| attack towards both sides of the political spectrum from
| themselves, but there's much more to the right of them
| than these is to the left.
| cwkoss wrote:
| I think it's misleading to call ShareBlue "leftist" -
| they are 'left' to the extent that Joe Biden is 'left',
| but leftist typically refers to "the radical left" or
| marxists or democratic socialists in modern political
| discourse.
|
| Yes, they attack to both sides, but their anti-right
| operations are pretty transparent. Their anti-leftist
| operations tend to be clandestine, presumably because DNC
| funds used to attack "their own" voters would be
| politically toxic.
| ttt0 wrote:
| ShareBlue, CorrectTheRecord wasn't targeting just
| leftists.
| ttt0 wrote:
| Everyone does that since forever and this isn't limited to a
| single political affiliation or even politics at all. By now
| this is a standard practice and I hope this isn't news for
| anybody.
| arp242 wrote:
| I don't think "offensive" and "defamatory" are really the same
| thing though. If I say "seaish is an asshole" then that's not
| very nice, but ... you know, I'm allowed to have that opinion
| for whatever reason ("everyone with two s's in their username
| is an asshole!")
|
| But if I say "seaish is a pedophile and went to Asia for
| rentboys" then that's quite another thing (and these were among
| the claims that were made).
|
| Not that the Twitter harassment of women in particular isn't an
| issue though; but I don't think it's really on the same level.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| I think that, while its clear it is an example, it would be
| preferable to use "XXX is a paedophile" as the example text
| than the parents username.
|
| It would come off as less aggressive and less directed at the
| parent, which with such an accusation, even as an example, is
| rather jarring.
| arp242 wrote:
| I don't really see the problem to be honest? I don't see
| how it's aggressive? (and it's too late to edit it now
| anyway, so not all that much I can do about it now anyway).
| drdeca wrote:
| I agree that using as an example the person you are
| talking to is permissible, but I also agree that it is a
| bit preferable to instead either use a generic
| placeholder, or instead of saying "If I said [X] about
| [someone], that would(n't) be libel", instead saying "If
| [someone] said [X] about me, that would(n't) be libel." I
| don't think this is obligatory though. I think that no
| one should feel pressured to make this change in how they
| phrase things, but I do think it is an improvement in
| phrasing.
| kyrra wrote:
| Reading the article is important here. The person that was being
| sued is settling (paying a 6-figure sum) and staying anonymous.
| They could have fought they case, but they apparently had enough
| money and were worried about being outed, that it was worth just
| paying and hiding.
| aardvarkr wrote:
| Thanks for adding the context! I'm definitely one of those
| people that will read comments before the article so I
| appreciate it.
| [deleted]
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Or - something else happened.
|
| The plaintiff is a radio presenter, and it's easy to Google
| him.
|
| It's one thing to make a personally defamatory accusation.
|
| It's something else to launch a high profile libel trial with
| alleged political overtones in a very tense and scarred part of
| the world with recent riots.
|
| Clearly, we're not going to get the full details of this story.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > paying a 6-figure sum
|
| I wonder where that came from.
| tremon wrote:
| Should have asked for a 7-figure sum, then.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| maybe they did, but then the troll would have fought the case
| and probably won
|
| everything is a negotiation
|
| Edit: 1 downvote today and now I can't respond
| yitchelle wrote:
| Base on what evidence do you think the potential conclusion
| the the troll is winning the case?
| metalliqaz wrote:
| I don't know, that's why I prefixed the possible scenario
| with "maybe"
| bluGill wrote:
| Even if the case turns out your way, the laywer costs to
| fight the case in court may be large enough that settling
| is better for your. It doesn't matter which side of this
| you are on.
| sbuk wrote:
| Loser usually pays fees in UK litigation.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| It's worth noting that in the UK the loser pays the costs
| (subject to various standard and maximum rates etc.)
| bluGill wrote:
| That doesn't matter - when going to court you might lose
| even if your case seems perfect. The rates things are
| subject to help to limit how bad things can get, but you
| still need to have some protection just in case you lose
| and have to pay up.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-01 23:01 UTC)