4 ms·

>To expand on that: "I disagree" is not and should not be a valid defense when someone is accusing you of harassment. Harassment is a violation of personal spac

by syshum 10y ago

>To expand on that: "I disagree" is not and should not be a valid defense when someone is accusing you of harassment. Harassment is a violation of personal space and only one person gets to define the limits of that personal space; it is not the aggressor that sets the limits. I disagree completely on this. Using this definition of harassment, in combination with a prohibition on said harassment is ripe for abuse. I have seen many many many people claim others are "harassing" them simply because the other person expressed a dissenting opinion from their own. Harassment must have an objective definition, not a subjective one. At-least if it is going to enforced as a part of over all rules for a platform like Twitter. Further under this definition of Harassment no one can be harassed online, since you can not violate a persons PERSONAL space if you have no physical proximity to the person >>they both rely on a very narrow definition of freedom: that each person exists foremost as a singular entity, and that every interpersonal exchange is governed by mutual negotiation. I think that's a very myopic view, because it implies that every relationship starts adversarial. What is your definition of freedom then. I do believe every person is a singular entity, with self agency, and that every interaction with other people is a mutual negotiation where by both parties should voluntary agree to interact and at any time for any reason either party can choose to end the interaction. With out the ability to chose whom you interact with, and for what reason you can not have freedom. That is far from myopic

DanBC 10y ago
> Further under this definition of Harassment no one can be harassed online, since you can not violate a persons PERSONAL space if you have no physical proximity to the person If I falsely and maliciously accuse you of being a paedophile that can cause you to undergo intrusive investigation, possibly leading to you losing work; it can cause people to physically assault you, perhaps even kill you. I have no physical proximity to you, but I have intruded on your personal space. But even if none of that happens: it will affect you. These types of actions cause actual, measurable, harm.
- marknutter 10y ago
  You've just identified a form of harassment that is objective, and probably would be agreed upon by the wider community. That's ok because it doesn't rely on a single person's definition of harassment.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    There are plenty of people on HN who are horrified by the UK definition of harassment. See, for example, how people react when they read the sentencing remarks or Mr Justice Spencer in Regina vs Joshua Bonehill-Paine https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks-of-mr-justice-spencer-r-v-joshua-bonehill-paine-harassment-of-luciana-berger-mp/ https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks-of... There are people who'll try to deny that this was antisemitism; that it was actually harassment; that she wasn't harmed by it etc.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > See, for example, how people react Where? How do they react?
- syshum 10y ago
  >>I have no physical proximity to you, but I have intruded on your personal space. I disagree, you have caused other people to violate my personal space, but you did not. >But even if none of that happens: it will affect you. These types of actions cause actual, measurable, harm. This is true, that does not make it a violation of "personal space" nor does it have to be a violation of person space to have liability for actions attached to it
tremon 10y ago
Using this definition of harassment, in combination with a prohibition on said harassment Hence why I said that the discussion is needlessly complicated. But a single bad implementation does not prove a bad design. I have seen many many many people claim others are "harassing" them simply because the other person expressed a dissenting opinion from their own. So? The only problem with that claim is that it automically converts into a legal threat. Otherwise: stop asssociating with them. People who cry harassment are not interested in your argument anyway, whether their claim is justified or not. I am a little puzzled though how my definition can be both "ripe for abuse" and cause that "no one can be harassed online"? What is your definition of freedom then My view on life is that every person is an amalgamation of the role they play in a multitude of social circles. Each circle may have its own norms and customs, and each person assumes those norms and customs to a degree each is comfortable with. For my definition of freedom it therefore follows that I don't think it is useful to consider a person in the singular, as everything we are is informed by the context of the roles we choose. A person in the singular is just that: a person, and a pretty uninteresting one at that. The agency we have is to choose the circles we move in, and the degree to which we let each role subsume us. Interaction within a chosen circle is not always optional though: we can choose the circles but not directly its members. Freedom then, to me, is the ability to choose our roles and circles without fear of reprisal from other circles. both parties should voluntary agree to interact and at any time for any reason either party can choose to end the interaction Either party can choose? Yes, that surely matches all documented cases of harassment, both online and offline. It also perfectly matches the online model, where my browser is happily associating with tens of tracking networks for each single page I visit, and where my interaction with those trackers ends as soon as I close the page :/ To be more clear: I think it is myopic is because a) it assumes that all interactions are voluntary, and b) it assumes that all interactees have equal footing for negotiation.

by syshum 10y ago

DanBC 10y ago

> Further under this definition of Harassment no one can be harassed online, since you can not violate a persons PERSONAL space if you have no physical proximity to the person If I falsely and maliciously accuse you of being a paedophile that can cause you to undergo intrusive investigation, possibly leading to you losing work; it can cause people to physically assault you, perhaps even kill you. I have no physical proximity to you, but I have intruded on your personal space. But even if none of that happens: it will affect you. These types of actions cause actual, measurable, harm.

marknutter 10y ago
You've just identified a form of harassment that is objective, and probably would be agreed upon by the wider community. That's ok because it doesn't rely on a single person's definition of harassment.
- DanBC 10y ago
  There are plenty of people on HN who are horrified by the UK definition of harassment. See, for example, how people react when they read the sentencing remarks or Mr Justice Spencer in Regina vs Joshua Bonehill-Paine https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks-of-mr-justice-spencer-r-v-joshua-bonehill-paine-harassment-of-luciana-berger-mp/ https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks-of... There are people who'll try to deny that this was antisemitism; that it was actually harassment; that she wasn't harmed by it etc.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > See, for example, how people react Where? How do they react?
syshum 10y ago
>>I have no physical proximity to you, but I have intruded on your personal space. I disagree, you have caused other people to violate my personal space, but you did not. >But even if none of that happens: it will affect you. These types of actions cause actual, measurable, harm. This is true, that does not make it a violation of "personal space" nor does it have to be a violation of person space to have liability for actions attached to it

tremon 10y ago

Using this definition of harassment, in combination with a prohibition on said harassment Hence why I said that the discussion is needlessly complicated. But a single bad implementation does not prove a bad design. I have seen many many many people claim others are "harassing" them simply because the other person expressed a dissenting opinion from their own. So? The only problem with that claim is that it automically converts into a legal threat. Otherwise: stop asssociating with them. People who cry harassment are not interested in your argument anyway, whether their claim is justified or not. I am a little puzzled though how my definition can be both "ripe for abuse" and cause that "no one can be harassed online"? What is your definition of freedom then My view on life is that every person is an amalgamation of the role they play in a multitude of social circles. Each circle may have its own norms and customs, and each person assumes those norms and customs to a degree each is comfortable with. For my definition of freedom it therefore follows that I don't think it is useful to consider a person in the singular, as everything we are is informed by the context of the roles we choose. A person in the singular is just that: a person, and a pretty uninteresting one at that. The agency we have is to choose the circles we move in, and the degree to which we let each role subsume us. Interaction within a chosen circle is not always optional though: we can choose the circles but not directly its members. Freedom then, to me, is the ability to choose our roles and circles without fear of reprisal from other circles. both parties should voluntary agree to interact and at any time for any reason either party can choose to end the interaction Either party can choose? Yes, that surely matches all documented cases of harassment, both online and offline. It also perfectly matches the online model, where my browser is happily associating with tens of tracking networks for each single page I visit, and where my interaction with those trackers ends as soon as I close the page :/ To be more clear: I think it is myopic is because a) it assumes that all interactions are voluntary, and b) it assumes that all interactees have equal footing for negotiation.