6 ms·

Trolls will be jailed for ‘psychological harm’

18 points by bananapear 5y ago

bananapear 5y ago
“A ‘knowingly false communication’ offence will be created that will criminalise those who send or post a message they know to be false with the intention to cause ‘emotional, psychological, or physical harm to the likely audience’. Government sources gave the example of antivaxers spreading false information that they know to be untrue.”
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  just need the government to put us on notice as to what’s true and what’s lies, and we’ll have solved the problem of dissent!
  - nyxaiur 5y ago
    You are electing your government I get why people jump to censorship conclusions and what not but in the end if we all look a bit more to whom we are electing we might just get this right instead of building the dystopian future everyone seems to look forward to.
- anonymouswacker 5y ago
  How can they know the intent? UK government is increasingly becoming a nightmare dystopia. I doubt many "antivaxers" are knowingly spreading false information. What the government/establishment/authority-de-jure says is the truth is rarely the whole truth.
  - loceng 5y ago
    My guess it's a process: 1) you post something "untrue", 2) the captured-incompetent establishment/government tells you it's untrue, 3) you post it again, 4) they arrest you because "you knew it was untrue because we told you it was."
- loceng 5y ago
  So what's untrue is whatever the establishment and captured-incompetent institutions decide is untrue? E.g. posting that Ivermectin shows 50%+ reduction in mortality (citing the studies) would have high probability to be deemed "spreading false information" - based on current behaviour regarding even mentioning Ivermectin?
- trinovantes 5y ago
  Pretty dystopic How do you determine who the "likely audience" is? Can someone or groups you don't know be the audience? What about statements that cannot be verified? e.g. the existence of God(s)
version_five 5y ago
Ironically the story before this one in the "new" section is: > Britain Leads the Way for Reining In Facebook, Twitter, YouTube > The U.K. is wrapping up one of the world’s most promising new laws for curbing social media harms. Its weird watching in slow motion as the commonwealth transforms into an authoritarian regime.
thriftwy 5y ago
Who decides which information is false? Morever, who will believe in any information if they know it is validated by edict?
- calpaterson 5y ago
  The courts, presumably. They already decide if information is true or false for legal purposes so this is not going to be new to them
- imperistan 5y ago
  Exactly this. Scary stuff
- victorbstan 5y ago
  It's not that difficult to imagine "what" decides something is true or false. Evidence. People that have issue with this, are usually those that think that someone's "opinion" is "truth".
  - thriftwy 5y ago
    Is there evidence for "diversity is our strength"?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
Factorium 5y ago
Maybe British police should get off the internet and start policing real crimes? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29068001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29068001
- bananapear 5y ago
  See also: "non-crime hate incidents" - a person can make a complaint to police which results in a record showing up if you ever apply for a job which requires a background check (e.g. teacher, nurse), and you don't have to be informed. https://www.thearticle.com/illiberal-policing-its-time-to-abolish-non-crime-hate-incidents https://www.thearticle.com/illiberal-policing-its-time-to-ab...
cjnicholls 5y ago
Previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29067164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29067164
bserge 5y ago
> Trolls could face two years in prison for sending messages or posting content that causes psychological harm under legislation targeting online hate. And who/what is the benchmark for it? Because some people get offended at seeing the word "fuck", or someone they don't like looks at them (irl). Knowingly posting false information? Uh, about that... A lot of people spreading idiotic theories are actually serious. At least everyone I've met. Like, I thought people who think COVID is not real just have to be trolling. But no, 100% real, they think there is no such virus. We will all be controlled because of a bunch of imbeciles. As a society, we deserve it. It's a garbage version unworthy of freedom. Thankfully, suicide is always an option, but it ain't easy.

18 points by bananapear 5y ago

“A ‘knowingly false communication’ offence will be created that will criminalise those who send or post a message they know to be false with the intention to cause ‘emotional, psychological, or physical harm to the likely audience’. Government sources gave the example of antivaxers spreading false information that they know to be untrue.”

fennecfoxen 5y ago
just need the government to put us on notice as to what’s true and what’s lies, and we’ll have solved the problem of dissent!
- nyxaiur 5y ago
  You are electing your government I get why people jump to censorship conclusions and what not but in the end if we all look a bit more to whom we are electing we might just get this right instead of building the dystopian future everyone seems to look forward to.
anonymouswacker 5y ago
How can they know the intent? UK government is increasingly becoming a nightmare dystopia. I doubt many "antivaxers" are knowingly spreading false information. What the government/establishment/authority-de-jure says is the truth is rarely the whole truth.
- loceng 5y ago
  My guess it's a process: 1) you post something "untrue", 2) the captured-incompetent establishment/government tells you it's untrue, 3) you post it again, 4) they arrest you because "you knew it was untrue because we told you it was."
loceng 5y ago
So what's untrue is whatever the establishment and captured-incompetent institutions decide is untrue? E.g. posting that Ivermectin shows 50%+ reduction in mortality (citing the studies) would have high probability to be deemed "spreading false information" - based on current behaviour regarding even mentioning Ivermectin?
trinovantes 5y ago
Pretty dystopic How do you determine who the "likely audience" is? Can someone or groups you don't know be the audience? What about statements that cannot be verified? e.g. the existence of God(s)

version_five 5y ago

Ironically the story before this one in the "new" section is: > Britain Leads the Way for Reining In Facebook, Twitter, YouTube > The U.K. is wrapping up one of the world’s most promising new laws for curbing social media harms. Its weird watching in slow motion as the commonwealth transforms into an authoritarian regime.

thriftwy 5y ago

Who decides which information is false? Morever, who will believe in any information if they know it is validated by edict?

calpaterson 5y ago
The courts, presumably. They already decide if information is true or false for legal purposes so this is not going to be new to them
imperistan 5y ago
Exactly this. Scary stuff
victorbstan 5y ago
It's not that difficult to imagine "what" decides something is true or false. Evidence. People that have issue with this, are usually those that think that someone's "opinion" is "truth".
- thriftwy 5y ago
  Is there evidence for "diversity is our strength"?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

Factorium 5y ago

Maybe British police should get off the internet and start policing real crimes? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29068001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29068001

bananapear 5y ago
See also: "non-crime hate incidents" - a person can make a complaint to police which results in a record showing up if you ever apply for a job which requires a background check (e.g. teacher, nurse), and you don't have to be informed. https://www.thearticle.com/illiberal-policing-its-time-to-abolish-non-crime-hate-incidents https://www.thearticle.com/illiberal-policing-its-time-to-ab...

cjnicholls 5y ago

Previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29067164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29067164

bserge 5y ago

> Trolls could face two years in prison for sending messages or posting content that causes psychological harm under legislation targeting online hate. And who/what is the benchmark for it? Because some people get offended at seeing the word "fuck", or someone they don't like looks at them (irl). Knowingly posting false information? Uh, about that... A lot of people spreading idiotic theories are actually serious. At least everyone I've met. Like, I thought people who think COVID is not real just have to be trolling. But no, 100% real, they think there is no such virus. We will all be controlled because of a bunch of imbeciles. As a society, we deserve it. It's a garbage version unworthy of freedom. Thankfully, suicide is always an option, but it ain't easy.