5 ms·

This is an interesting issue. One thing they don’t mention is trolls. In a physical public forum such as a town hall meeting, if some crazy gets up and starts u

by pitaa 9y ago

This is an interesting issue. One thing they don’t mention is trolls. In a physical public forum such as a town hall meeting, if some crazy gets up and starts uttering threats or stripping their clothes off, they’re going to be escorted out. A reasonable person wouldn’t consider this a violation of that person’s right to free speech just because the cops showed up before they finished threatening every person they disagreed with. Now consider twitter. If a someone threatens trump or sends him dick pics, is blocking them not the digital equivalent of escorting an unruly attendee from the room? (This is not considering any action the secret service may take regarding threats) Note: I’m not defending trump or suggesting that the people he blocked were necessarily trolls at all. I’m just trying to think through this issue in general.

cryptoz 9y ago
> is blocking them not the digital equivalent of escorting an unruly attendee from the room? Absolutely not. Blocking someone is the digital equivalent of turning your back to them. They can still interact with you. You're just choosing to not see. > If a someone threatens trump or sends him dick pics This is illegal behaviour. The account should be reported by users, deleted by Twitter, and handed to local authorities for criminal investigation (threats, harassment, etc.)
- chc 9y ago
  I think you're confusing blocking and muting.
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  This is illegal behavior Maybe in writing, but most police aren't readily going to investigate such things, especially the harassment or threatening. And so long as both parties are of age, is it even illegal to send dick picks? All that said, I do think having standards of conduct aren't that bad. Blocking, though, keeps them from seeing your stuff. Not so bad if entertainment, but a lot more somber when the person is a politician with power to change lives.
belorn 9y ago
The cops don't just show up to show the person the door, or to implement a permanent ban for the person to ever participate again in a town hall meeting. They show up because there are laws, and their role in society is to enforce those laws. The digital equivalent of enforcing laws is to send police to the non-digital place where the criminal live and escort them to the police station for questioning. Police work in the digital space is identical to police work in non-digital place. The only exception to this is when the accused live outside the reach of the police, in which case blocking can be the only option available. Banning people should be used with care. I read the EFF article in that context, and I doubt that they would object if the police went and visited someone accused of making death threats, threats of violence, or harassment. I also expect EFF to be there and watch if a difference in viewpoints would be labeled as either of those.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 9y ago
The difference is that there is no physical risk on Twitter, unlike in a public space.
- alfithehermutt 9y ago
  The law might disagree. emphasis on the might. https://nypost.com/2017/11/28/vet-accused-of-sending-reporter-seizure-causing-tweet-catches-small-break/ https://nypost.com/2017/11/28/vet-accused-of-sending-reporte...
- Sevii 9y ago
  People have gone to jail for tweets that were deemed criminal violence.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Which is nuts.
    - colejohnson66 9y ago
      Is it though? Are you suggesting that me saying “I’m gonna kill you” here on Hacker News shouldn’t be treated as a threat simply because it’s not a physical interaction, but a digital one?
      - rayiner 9y ago
        Yes, interactions that happen in close physical proximity should be treated differently than interactions separated by digital distances.
jdavis703 9y ago
If trolling truly starts to become a threat, there is legal recourse. It's just as illegal to threaten someone with murder on the internet as it is on a street corner. As for sending pornographic images, that's already against the Twitter terms of service, so all one would need to do is report the troll for spreading porn, then wait for Twitter to remove them from the platform. There's no need for a government account to block people.
- logingone 9y ago
  "It's just as illegal to threaten someone with murder on the internet as it is on a street corner" -- this interests me. On a street corner the face-to-face threat is far more real and the threatened outcome more likely than on the internet where the lack of physical presence leads people to rant and vent in offensive ways that don't amount to much. Half the time the people engaged are on different continents with made up names, so even if someone got sufficiently worked up to pursue another s/he wouldn't get very far unless he was so psychologically divergent that frankly s/he's going to kill someone else soon enough that twitter policing is irrelevant. I think twitter, and possibly the net, should possibly be at least partially treated like MMA - sport, not taken too seriously, get in, take a beating, give a beating. I haven't give this much thought, but basically there seems to be no acknowledgment of the fact that the virtual world is not physical, and it seems to me that we interact with the two differently and that should be considered.
  - tikhonj 9y ago
    Even in person, the laws distinguish between "true threats" and hyperbole, which will take both the content of a threat and its context into account.
nv-vn 9y ago
See this video about some of the prominent people who were blocked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E70tu5k5rdY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E70tu5k5rdY. As biased as the video is, it's easy to see that many of these users were basically trolls.
throwawayjava 9y ago
This is a very old question with centuries of case law exploring every nook and cranny.
TheCoelacanth 9y ago
The article addresses this point indirectly. They don't have to allow completely free rein. They can't however block simply because they disagree with the content. They give the example of a public library that has a discussion board that they only allow use of for book recommendations. They are allowed to restrict the use of the discussion board to only book recommendations, but they can't restrict it based on whether they agree with the book recommendation or not.
walshemj 9y ago
Well to be strict you should first ask them to stop - then you ask the stewards to escort them out or adjourn the meeting and call the police.
katastic 9y ago
>Note: I’m not defending trump or suggesting that the people he blocked were necessarily trolls at all. I’m just trying to think through this issue in general. You must be new here. The logic on HN goes "whatever I want, is good and thinking about wider repercussions is stupid." The second we get a _new_ President, say, a Democrat black woman, and she gets spammed with non-stop dick pics and lynching pictures, all a sudden everyone in HN is going to be like "omfg, the President should be able to block trolls." It's basic tribalism. "My team" is the good guys, so whatever they do is good. As opposed to logic, where "things" are good and bad and they make the people good or bad. People here believe "my candidate/group/alliance are good" and if they do something "evil" then [insert mental gymnastics]. We're literally experiencing a secular religion in the 2010's. Which is why everyone gets so emotional and outraged as if you're talking about their religion when you bring up simple politics. And, why they strive so hard to "out" and smash anyone who is a threat to their religion. Secular witchhunts. Exposing the non-believers for virtue points. And it's not entirely their fault. These religious aspects are human (biological) aspects. Humans are innately spiritual. The real flaw was thinking that simply having "no religion" somehow prevents you from acting out the same vices of the religious, like witchhunts, proving your alliance/purity/etc, and lynchmobs to destroy "invalid" members of the in-group. Try being a liberal and then (for the sake of example) tell people you converted to conservatism. It'll be like you were a religion and just insulted the honor of everyone in your family, friends, and community. You betrayed "the group." They will not only cut off all communication with you, but attack you. You have "left the faith" and betrayed them. Google what happened to the Feminist (laci green?) who dated a MRA and then said "I'm still a feminist but maybe both sides have fair points, like male suicide rates." She got instant death threats. Letters full of poop. Graffitti on her house. A bunch of white feminist guys telling a woman to kill herself. How can you call that feminism? Oh yeah, because religion. She threatened the religion by questioning it and dating an outsider so it's now "righteous" to destroy her. I'm honestly hard pressed to find any difference between the witchhunts of the 90's neo-cons, to the witchhunts of the 2010's progressives. People's lives are being destroyed. Who cares what "cause" the perpetrators have when the real minorities are being crushed under gigantic religious-political movements? Sources: Ask any evolutionary scientist.
7952 9y ago
It depends on the context. If this kind of behaviour is normal for Twitter then a politician should not expect special treatment. It is like going to an open mic night at a comedy club and then getting angry when you are heckled. Why should people change their behaviour simply because of who has decided to speak?

by pitaa 9y ago

cryptoz 9y ago

> is blocking them not the digital equivalent of escorting an unruly attendee from the room? Absolutely not. Blocking someone is the digital equivalent of turning your back to them. They can still interact with you. You're just choosing to not see. > If a someone threatens trump or sends him dick pics This is illegal behaviour. The account should be reported by users, deleted by Twitter, and handed to local authorities for criminal investigation (threats, harassment, etc.)

chc 9y ago
I think you're confusing blocking and muting.
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
This is illegal behavior Maybe in writing, but most police aren't readily going to investigate such things, especially the harassment or threatening. And so long as both parties are of age, is it even illegal to send dick picks? All that said, I do think having standards of conduct aren't that bad. Blocking, though, keeps them from seeing your stuff. Not so bad if entertainment, but a lot more somber when the person is a politician with power to change lives.

belorn 9y ago

The cops don't just show up to show the person the door, or to implement a permanent ban for the person to ever participate again in a town hall meeting. They show up because there are laws, and their role in society is to enforce those laws. The digital equivalent of enforcing laws is to send police to the non-digital place where the criminal live and escort them to the police station for questioning. Police work in the digital space is identical to police work in non-digital place. The only exception to this is when the accused live outside the reach of the police, in which case blocking can be the only option available. Banning people should be used with care. I read the EFF article in that context, and I doubt that they would object if the police went and visited someone accused of making death threats, threats of violence, or harassment. I also expect EFF to be there and watch if a difference in viewpoints would be labeled as either of those.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 9y ago

The difference is that there is no physical risk on Twitter, unlike in a public space.

alfithehermutt 9y ago
The law might disagree. emphasis on the might. https://nypost.com/2017/11/28/vet-accused-of-sending-reporter-seizure-causing-tweet-catches-small-break/ https://nypost.com/2017/11/28/vet-accused-of-sending-reporte...
Sevii 9y ago
People have gone to jail for tweets that were deemed criminal violence.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Which is nuts.
  - colejohnson66 9y ago
    Is it though? Are you suggesting that me saying “I’m gonna kill you” here on Hacker News shouldn’t be treated as a threat simply because it’s not a physical interaction, but a digital one?
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Yes, interactions that happen in close physical proximity should be treated differently than interactions separated by digital distances.

jdavis703 9y ago

If trolling truly starts to become a threat, there is legal recourse. It's just as illegal to threaten someone with murder on the internet as it is on a street corner. As for sending pornographic images, that's already against the Twitter terms of service, so all one would need to do is report the troll for spreading porn, then wait for Twitter to remove them from the platform. There's no need for a government account to block people.

logingone 9y ago
"It's just as illegal to threaten someone with murder on the internet as it is on a street corner" -- this interests me. On a street corner the face-to-face threat is far more real and the threatened outcome more likely than on the internet where the lack of physical presence leads people to rant and vent in offensive ways that don't amount to much. Half the time the people engaged are on different continents with made up names, so even if someone got sufficiently worked up to pursue another s/he wouldn't get very far unless he was so psychologically divergent that frankly s/he's going to kill someone else soon enough that twitter policing is irrelevant. I think twitter, and possibly the net, should possibly be at least partially treated like MMA - sport, not taken too seriously, get in, take a beating, give a beating. I haven't give this much thought, but basically there seems to be no acknowledgment of the fact that the virtual world is not physical, and it seems to me that we interact with the two differently and that should be considered.
- tikhonj 9y ago
  Even in person, the laws distinguish between "true threats" and hyperbole, which will take both the content of a threat and its context into account.

nv-vn 9y ago

See this video about some of the prominent people who were blocked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E70tu5k5rdY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E70tu5k5rdY. As biased as the video is, it's easy to see that many of these users were basically trolls.

throwawayjava 9y ago

This is a very old question with centuries of case law exploring every nook and cranny.

TheCoelacanth 9y ago

The article addresses this point indirectly. They don't have to allow completely free rein. They can't however block simply because they disagree with the content. They give the example of a public library that has a discussion board that they only allow use of for book recommendations. They are allowed to restrict the use of the discussion board to only book recommendations, but they can't restrict it based on whether they agree with the book recommendation or not.

walshemj 9y ago

Well to be strict you should first ask them to stop - then you ask the stewards to escort them out or adjourn the meeting and call the police.

katastic 9y ago

>Note: I’m not defending trump or suggesting that the people he blocked were necessarily trolls at all. I’m just trying to think through this issue in general. You must be new here. The logic on HN goes "whatever I want, is good and thinking about wider repercussions is stupid." The second we get a _new_ President, say, a Democrat black woman, and she gets spammed with non-stop dick pics and lynching pictures, all a sudden everyone in HN is going to be like "omfg, the President should be able to block trolls." It's basic tribalism. "My team" is the good guys, so whatever they do is good. As opposed to logic, where "things" are good and bad and they make the people good or bad. People here believe "my candidate/group/alliance are good" and if they do something "evil" then [insert mental gymnastics]. We're literally experiencing a secular religion in the 2010's. Which is why everyone gets so emotional and outraged as if you're talking about their religion when you bring up simple politics. And, why they strive so hard to "out" and smash anyone who is a threat to their religion. Secular witchhunts. Exposing the non-believers for virtue points. And it's not entirely their fault. These religious aspects are human (biological) aspects. Humans are innately spiritual. The real flaw was thinking that simply having "no religion" somehow prevents you from acting out the same vices of the religious, like witchhunts, proving your alliance/purity/etc, and lynchmobs to destroy "invalid" members of the in-group. Try being a liberal and then (for the sake of example) tell people you converted to conservatism. It'll be like you were a religion and just insulted the honor of everyone in your family, friends, and community. You betrayed "the group." They will not only cut off all communication with you, but attack you. You have "left the faith" and betrayed them. Google what happened to the Feminist (laci green?) who dated a MRA and then said "I'm still a feminist but maybe both sides have fair points, like male suicide rates." She got instant death threats. Letters full of poop. Graffitti on her house. A bunch of white feminist guys telling a woman to kill herself. How can you call that feminism? Oh yeah, because religion. She threatened the religion by questioning it and dating an outsider so it's now "righteous" to destroy her. I'm honestly hard pressed to find any difference between the witchhunts of the 90's neo-cons, to the witchhunts of the 2010's progressives. People's lives are being destroyed. Who cares what "cause" the perpetrators have when the real minorities are being crushed under gigantic religious-political movements? Sources: Ask any evolutionary scientist.

7952 9y ago

It depends on the context. If this kind of behaviour is normal for Twitter then a politician should not expect special treatment. It is like going to an open mic night at a comedy club and then getting angry when you are heckled. Why should people change their behaviour simply because of who has decided to speak?