5 ms·

What's subjective about it though? Do you think it is not possible by now for us to collectively come up with an objective definition of what trolling and abusi

• Clubber 5y ago
  >for us to collectively come up with an objective definition That's not how the game works, we don't collectively do anything, the powerful come up with the definition. Just wait for a powerful person to take criticism and be able to jail the person because of "psychological harm."
  • md8z 5y ago
    I don't understand, these decisions appear to be made by people appointed by democratically elected MPs? Are you making a different complaint about the democratic process? That's fine for you to do, but that seems to be unrelated to the topic.
    • Clubber 5y ago
      So in the US, you get to choose from a group of politicians. All those politicians need money to run their campaigns. Those politicians get money from corporate interests to fund their campaigns. Therefore, nearly all politicians you are able to choose from have already been tainted by corporate money. Corporate interests don't just cut big checks and expect nothing in return. Point being, this is a law that helps the powerful imprison people who criticize them disguised as a way to stop people from hurting other people's feelings. It won't be the sole purpose, I'm sure regular people can get people imprisoned who criticize them as well, but once the law is there, powerful people will use it to stifle criticism. Is this really a good idea?
      • md8z 5y ago
        I really don't see how that's relevant here, if you really want to take that angle, then every law can be abused by corrupt officials. I agree with your complaint about that, corruption in politics is sadly nothing new. But that is a different problem to address, can we please discuss policy and not derail the discussion with cynicism about politicians? It's not interesting conversation and I feel like this is just shutting the discussion down.
        • colpabar 5y ago
          If we are talking about laws, it is absolutely not irrelevant to talk about the people who will be enforcing them. This thread is about an extremely subjective law, and some people think that's a really bad idea because the people enforcing it will abuse it, because it's easy to do.
          • md8z 5y ago
            Could you think of ways we could make it less subjective? Or are you saying that you think it's impossible for us to make it an objective law?
            • Clubber 5y ago
              It would be impossible. If we had hard rules, like you couldn't say "Fuck Joe Biden," it would easily be circumvented with a coded language like "Let's go Brandon," and therefore useless. We would have to constantly be upgrading the language to accommodate all the coded language. Eventually lawmakers will get sick of fooling with it and it will either stop, being half baked, still under penalty of imprisonment; or they will make some umbrella law that basically restricts nearly all speech under penalty of imprisonment. It's got noble intentions, but really gets ugly when you start to map out implementation. It's also has the "I know it when I see it," aura to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
            • DiggyJohnson 5y ago
              Not OP, but I think both questions you proposed would be good places for you to start.
• nathias 5y ago
  I hope this is trolling.
  • md8z 5y ago
    I'm not trolling, I've personally suffered psychological harm from online abuse. There are many places on the internet that I'd like to go but can't because people are too abusive and nobody does anything about it. What am I supposed to do if people don't even want to talk about this or acknowledge that it's a real problem that we can solve?
    • DiggyJohnson 5y ago
      Why do you want to a place that makes you feel bad?
    • nathias 5y ago
      What exactly do you mean by pscyhological harm?
    • furgooswft13 5y ago
      Definitely trolling
      • md8z 5y ago
        Can you please have a conversation with me instead of accusing me of trolling? If you want to change my mind then I'm open to it, but this isn't the way to be convincing.
        • wait_a_minute 5y ago
          No more conversation allowed. jails you for trolling
          • md8z 5y ago
            I get that you are trying to make me the butt of a joke, but you'll notice my original question was if we could come up with a objective definition. If you don't think we can then you could just say so.
• SllX 5y ago
  Throw one out. What’s an objective definition of trolling and abusive language that you could write into law? Separate definitions or together. Just give it a shot.
  • md8z 5y ago
    Language that is meant to intimidate? It seems pretty clear to me that the purpose of that is to stifle discussion.
    • akomtu 5y ago
      The "is meant" part is unprovable. Trolling is often about sarcasm that obfuscates the intent. We can use the recently famous "let's go brandon" as an example - the intent is clear, but unprovable even with inquisition methods.
    • SllX 5y ago
      What can someone actually say to you online to effectively intimidate you? I have had many people try in the last 20 years, but the basic problem is that they’re just an anonymous web surfer and so am I. Also: what about boycotts? Is this speech not designed to intimidate an organization into doing the thing or not doing the thing the organizers of the boycott want them to do (or not to do). A lot of speech which is designed to intimidate is perfectly legal because intimidating others is a valid tactic within reason. That’s also subjective, but when you’re in a position of power over someone, you can intimidate the crap out of someone without coming close to say, death threats, rape threats or the threat of doing anything actually illegal.
    • _-david-_ 5y ago
      So if somebody intends to intimidate but fails they should go to jail?
    • Levitz 5y ago
      >Language that is meant to intimidate? So like "Eat the rich?" or is it more like "I hope antivaxxers actually get covid"? Does "Fuck you" count?
• kodah 5y ago
  The definition of "psychological harm" will vary by person, which is inconsistent with the enforcement of law. How one person reacts to a traumatic experience will vary vastly between other people. There can be no standard legal definition, so what you'll get is psychologists and therapists testifying their opinion with the outcome that someone goes to jail.
  • md8z 5y ago
    But don't we already call doctors as expert witnesses? And don't we already define various kinds of harm as varying by the person? None of that seems to to be controversial.
    • kodah 5y ago
      Psychology and medicine are very different things. For instance, a doctor will be made to explain how another doctor screwed up a surgery so bad that it qualifies as "reckless endangerment". This is backed by reproducible studies and academic rigor on a given subject. Psychology lacks both reproducible studies and academic rigor, hence you'd have opinions. Psychological harm smells to me a lot like "bite mark analysis" which it took quite a long while for us to undo in the United States. It also put countless people in prison for crimes they didn't commit.
• slowmovintarget 5y ago
  It is so difficult, and so easy to get wrong, that several hundred years ago a collection of law makers had to get together and write down in no uncertain terms that the government should never do it. This was far from a universal sentiment because many world governments want no part of a system where the governed can object to the governance. Worse, understanding of the idea, which requires a certain level of specific historical education, has diminished greatly in recent years. Worse still is the active attack on the idea by those that stand to gain from creating yet another power structure. That's not to say that Twitter, for example, shouldn't moderate it. But woe to us if some committee ("tribunal?") in Congress be given that power.