5 ms·

I can't be alone in thinking that every individual who participated in or retweeted or whatever that information ought to be personally financially and criminal

I can't be alone in thinking that every individual who participated in or retweeted or whatever that information ought to be personally financially and criminally liable for their actions. If not every person, then pick the nodes in the graph that have the highest fanout. If you knowingly post and spread damaging fake information (deliberately engineered to accuse people of child molestation) on the internet, you have committed a crime, and you should be subject to both civil and criminal action. You are responsible for the things you write online. This is no different from "yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre."

chrischen 10y ago
I think technically you have comitted a crime, 94 at least a sue-able offense. It's just really expensive to enforce.
- prawn 10y ago
  Make an example of a few then?
  - chrischen 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
Gargoyle 10y ago
>If you knowingly post and spread damaging fake information (deliberately engineered to accuse people of child molestation) on the internet[...] What you're missing here is that they genuinely believe it to be true. As incredible as that may seem to you and me, that is the reality of it. I've actually been lurking in r/pizzagate since the start, watching in horror and fascination as people convince themselves of the most outrageous things. But they're convincing themselves, and they do actually believe.
- mckoss 10y ago
  Libel does not require that the writer knows what he is saying is false (though doing so will increase the amount of damages you can collect). You can successfully sue for libel by only showing that the statements made against you were false, and that you were damaged by them.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    That...depends. In the U.S., under federal constitutional case law, if the matter either concerns a public figure or a matter of public concern, actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth) is required. The issue here would seem likely to meet the standard for public concern.
- defgeneric 10y ago
  Can confirm they really do believe. I've also been a lurker, and I thought it was a joke at the start--and it probably was--but watching it bootstrap itself was fascinating.
  - 75j 10y ago
    I have also been amused by all the delusional assertions on 4chan and r/pizzagate, and I feel sorry for anyone innocent caught up in this, but this whole thing would have never caught on if there weren't real connections between the Clintons and child sex offenders. Bill Clinton really did ride on a child sex trafficker's private jet 26 times, and really went to his private island where underage girls have alleged that they were enslaved. It's also true that underaged-sexter Anthony Weiner's computer had all of Clinton's emails on it. It's true that the Podestas are close friends with Dennis Hastert and Tony mentioned post-conviction that he's "stayed in touch with denny Hastert [...] all these years". It's true that Hillary and Cheryl Mills emailed repeatedly back and forth about child trafficker Laura Silsby, with Mills referring to her only as "Laura", and that Bill Clinton traveled to Haiti and brokered a short prison term for Silsby and the release of the other "missionaries" involved. So, while "pizzagate" in itself may be totally false, rumors like this would not exist if the US did not consistently invite human garbage into its highest political office.
lvs 10y ago
We need to target those with a financial incentive to lie. There are many unscrupulous people who gain financially by increasing the size of the consumer market of misinformation, and their source of revenue is advertising.
DigForTheKids 10y ago
Sadly, this actually is a Pedophile ring. When it is exposed, you will regret doubting the sincerity of those of us frantically trying to get the word out. Just google "pizzagate instagram" and see for yourself what the fuss is about.
- m8urn 10y ago
  Harassing and brigading isn't getting the word out, it's hysteria about a conspiracy theory.
- astrodust 10y ago
  Since the FBI seems to love investigating Hillary, and I mean Comey just can't get enough of that, don't you think it's a little odd that they haven't even touched this? Maybe, possibly, there's literally nothing there worth investigating? The line between art and perversion depends entirely on the mindset of the audience. Is Anne Geddes a child pornographer? With the right spin, she could be. http://www.annegeddes.com/ http://www.annegeddes.com/ Stop "frantically trying to get the word out" and call the FBI if you think this is so important. Honestly, what you're going on about here is worrying on so many levels. It's like the parent busted at Wal-Mart for "pedophilia" simply because he was a proud parent that had taken a picture of their newborn taking a bath. This is something people have done for generations, but when framed the right way it can sound awfully sinister. If they were actually running a pedophile ring don't you think this would be entirely on the darknet where actual pedophile sites live?
lifeisstillgood 10y ago
You can be. A well known construction firm owner (McAlpine) was accused on Twitter of (something, can't remember). It was libellous, and after winning in court his Lawyer simply downloaded all those who had retweeted, identified ten thousand or so of them and wrote them a letter each explaining they were personally liable and were going to get sued. The effect was ... incredible.
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  I think it incredibly dubious that anyone who retweeted could reasonably be held liable for sharing a story for several reasons.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    That would be like holding the media responsible for merely reporting that someone said X, if it turns out X is libelous. A dubious claim, indeed, but I can believe a lawyer would send such letters.
lamontcg 10y ago
> This is no different from "yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre." Eventually there's going to be either social or legal precedents which get set over this kind of thing. Someone is probably going to have to get killed over this kind of thing. One of the True Believer nutjobs is going to do more than just phone up a death threat and will actually kill someone, or commit a mass-shooting over one of these. I'd like to think that this will eventually become self-regulating and the issue is simply that the Internet hasn't been around long enough for society to learn to deal with it. However, I fear I'm being too naive and that the fundamental problem is that humans on-average have pretty crappy bullshit filters. Since charming sociopaths have been able to take advantage of those flaws for thousands of years, I don't see that changing suddenly because the Internet appeared. The result is likely to be that we're going to get laws that restrict free speech and attempt to regulate the damage that internet trolls can do.

chrischen 10y ago

I think technically you have comitted a crime, 94 at least a sue-able offense. It's just really expensive to enforce.

prawn 10y ago
Make an example of a few then?
- chrischen 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Gargoyle 10y ago

>If you knowingly post and spread damaging fake information (deliberately engineered to accuse people of child molestation) on the internet[...] What you're missing here is that they genuinely believe it to be true. As incredible as that may seem to you and me, that is the reality of it. I've actually been lurking in r/pizzagate since the start, watching in horror and fascination as people convince themselves of the most outrageous things. But they're convincing themselves, and they do actually believe.

mckoss 10y ago
Libel does not require that the writer knows what he is saying is false (though doing so will increase the amount of damages you can collect). You can successfully sue for libel by only showing that the statements made against you were false, and that you were damaged by them.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  That...depends. In the U.S., under federal constitutional case law, if the matter either concerns a public figure or a matter of public concern, actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth) is required. The issue here would seem likely to meet the standard for public concern.
defgeneric 10y ago
Can confirm they really do believe. I've also been a lurker, and I thought it was a joke at the start--and it probably was--but watching it bootstrap itself was fascinating.
- 75j 10y ago
  I have also been amused by all the delusional assertions on 4chan and r/pizzagate, and I feel sorry for anyone innocent caught up in this, but this whole thing would have never caught on if there weren't real connections between the Clintons and child sex offenders. Bill Clinton really did ride on a child sex trafficker's private jet 26 times, and really went to his private island where underage girls have alleged that they were enslaved. It's also true that underaged-sexter Anthony Weiner's computer had all of Clinton's emails on it. It's true that the Podestas are close friends with Dennis Hastert and Tony mentioned post-conviction that he's "stayed in touch with denny Hastert [...] all these years". It's true that Hillary and Cheryl Mills emailed repeatedly back and forth about child trafficker Laura Silsby, with Mills referring to her only as "Laura", and that Bill Clinton traveled to Haiti and brokered a short prison term for Silsby and the release of the other "missionaries" involved. So, while "pizzagate" in itself may be totally false, rumors like this would not exist if the US did not consistently invite human garbage into its highest political office.

lvs 10y ago

We need to target those with a financial incentive to lie. There are many unscrupulous people who gain financially by increasing the size of the consumer market of misinformation, and their source of revenue is advertising.

DigForTheKids 10y ago

Sadly, this actually is a Pedophile ring. When it is exposed, you will regret doubting the sincerity of those of us frantically trying to get the word out. Just google "pizzagate instagram" and see for yourself what the fuss is about.

m8urn 10y ago
Harassing and brigading isn't getting the word out, it's hysteria about a conspiracy theory.
astrodust 10y ago
Since the FBI seems to love investigating Hillary, and I mean Comey just can't get enough of that, don't you think it's a little odd that they haven't even touched this? Maybe, possibly, there's literally nothing there worth investigating? The line between art and perversion depends entirely on the mindset of the audience. Is Anne Geddes a child pornographer? With the right spin, she could be. http://www.annegeddes.com/ http://www.annegeddes.com/ Stop "frantically trying to get the word out" and call the FBI if you think this is so important. Honestly, what you're going on about here is worrying on so many levels. It's like the parent busted at Wal-Mart for "pedophilia" simply because he was a proud parent that had taken a picture of their newborn taking a bath. This is something people have done for generations, but when framed the right way it can sound awfully sinister. If they were actually running a pedophile ring don't you think this would be entirely on the darknet where actual pedophile sites live?

lifeisstillgood 10y ago

You can be. A well known construction firm owner (McAlpine) was accused on Twitter of (something, can't remember). It was libellous, and after winning in court his Lawyer simply downloaded all those who had retweeted, identified ten thousand or so of them and wrote them a letter each explaining they were personally liable and were going to get sued. The effect was ... incredible.

michaelmrose 10y ago
I think it incredibly dubious that anyone who retweeted could reasonably be held liable for sharing a story for several reasons.
- leereeves 10y ago
  That would be like holding the media responsible for merely reporting that someone said X, if it turns out X is libelous. A dubious claim, indeed, but I can believe a lawyer would send such letters.

lamontcg 10y ago

> This is no different from "yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre." Eventually there's going to be either social or legal precedents which get set over this kind of thing. Someone is probably going to have to get killed over this kind of thing. One of the True Believer nutjobs is going to do more than just phone up a death threat and will actually kill someone, or commit a mass-shooting over one of these. I'd like to think that this will eventually become self-regulating and the issue is simply that the Internet hasn't been around long enough for society to learn to deal with it. However, I fear I'm being too naive and that the fundamental problem is that humans on-average have pretty crappy bullshit filters. Since charming sociopaths have been able to take advantage of those flaws for thousands of years, I don't see that changing suddenly because the Internet appeared. The result is likely to be that we're going to get laws that restrict free speech and attempt to regulate the damage that internet trolls can do.