7 ms·

Because people don't understand free speech. They confuse the right to anonymity to "do whatever I want as anonymous".

criley2 3y ago
Speaking of "not understanding free speech", in America (where Meta is) free speech exclusively refers to our Bill of Rights and the limitation on government to unfairly suppress your speech, specifically your political speech. It is completely unrelated to a private citizen interacting with a private business in the eyes of American law, American business and Americans ourselves. The only free speech issue here from our perspective is "Is the government illegally restricting Meta's corporate right to free speech?" And no, making Meta identify a user is not a violation of their 1A free speech rights to us. If you're speaking of a totally different European legal concept, it might be helpful for you to identify that.
- arzig 3y ago
  Export the free speech is a red herring. The underlying issue is whether an aggrieved party can compel certain kinds of discovery to respond to libel (which has never been perfected speech). Prime were just able to be libelous with impunity because … the interwebs…
  - criley2 3y ago
    Libel - Another legal concept that varies dramatically by region. In America, proving libel is extremely difficult and requires you to demonstrate real damages. So in this case if it were American, unless the aggrieved party can demonstrate monetary damages, under American law there is no libel as we do not consider "hurt feelings" or "damaged reputation" to be libel. So in America we would demand that the offended party demonstrate that they have been financially harmed before we unmask the anonymous individual to fully investigate and adjudicate the claim. If you're discussing libel under a EU or European nations context, it could be helpful to identify which version of libel law you are referencing, because this case from an American's perspective is no where near our extremely high bar. (And, as a side note, under American law all international libel convictions are automatically unenforceable here, to prevent tourism to areas who do not require sufficiently high bar)
    - jsnell 3y ago
      This is a case in European courts between European entities. Why do you think it's helpful to bring in American concepts, and then complain about how the European ones are different?
      - criley2 3y ago
        1. Meta is a multi-national based in America. 2. I am not complaining at all. 3. In fact, I am replying to someone complaining that folks "don't know what <$GENERAL LEGAL TERM WITH REGIONAL DIFFERENCES> means" and I'm explaining: you're on an American website whose readership is majority American, talking about an American business, and you have the audacity to claim "people don't know this <HIGHLY LOCAL LEGAL TERM>?". And so I'm explaining WHY Americans would be confused by the seemingly low-bar for libel or confusion around free speech. This case may be European courts and entities (and I asked for location specifics as the concepts can often vary country by country in Europe), but this website is not a European website and it's absolutely normal than Americans are here discussing this.
        Tainnor 3y ago
        > whose readership is majority American As far as I know, there are more Americans here than visitors from any other country, but the majority of people is still not American: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35568123 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35568123 I feel like American readers are sometimes guilty of assuming everyone else is also American and understands their references, but the world is a bigger place than that.
    - probably_wrong 3y ago
      > So in this case if it were American, unless the aggrieved party can demonstrate monetary damages, under American law there is no libel as we do not consider "hurt feelings" or "damaged reputation" to be libel. Based on my poor understanding of US law, I think you are mistaken. Defamation per se recognizes that certain statements are so damaging to one's reputation that proving damages is not required. From [1], > In an Alaska Supreme Court case, a woman accused a man of assault, battery, and false imprisonment, and he brought a claim against her for defamation. The court explained that because the statements imputed a serious crime, the man was not required to prove the damage to his reputation and emotional distress. The case discussed in the article includes accusations that the plaintiff films women without their consent, allegedly in a sexual context (although that's redacted so I could be wrong). That could totally fall under category 1 of Defamation Per Se. [1] https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-defamation-per-se-.html https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/w...
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    This is the right take on it. The era where you could fax ASCII art of a gun to someone without the Feds following up is gone. It was perpetrated not on any kind of justice theory of the power of the anonymous actor, but on a power inequality: governments hadn't caught up with what the technology enabled, so individuals using new technology could out-maneuver enforcement. That is no longer true for most Internet users. The tools are in place for mass-surveillance and mass-enforcement. Governments can take down a website, governments can black-hole a DNS entry, governments can honeypot someone into trying to trade Bitcoin for criminal activity, governments can jail citizens indefinitely until they cough up passwords, and governments can require a corporation divulge privately-held information on penalty of loss of corporate privileges (including ability to exist). The "golden era" of the Internet was a latency hiccup, not a new world order.
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago
  [dead]
cnity 3y ago
This position is a slippery slope to a world where true anonymity is made illegal. Your confusion is more subtle and arguably more dangerous: that anonymity can make certain illegal actions easier does not mean that anonymity should not exist.
- subroutine 3y ago
  What is "true anonymity"? The law is fairly clear that you cannot engage in illegal activity whether acting anonymously or otherwise.
  - cnity 3y ago
    The inability to monitor all illegal activity is a trade-off we accept as a society to maintain the right to anonymity. You'd rather we sign that right away for some supposed guarantee of safety? A guarantee made by the synthesis of your government and your corporations?
    - subroutine 3y ago
      Nothing of the sort. I think anonymity is a privilege that is granted and can be enjoyed while engaging with society or online however anon chooses, up to the point where anon's actions breaks the law. edit: In the case described here I am especially unsympathetic for anon as they chose to defame someone's real life identity. In this incident there was no proactive monitoring by gov/law/inc. as you so fear. Instead the wronged had to hire private council and prove the defemation in court a priori. Even after proving the impact to their character the judge's ruling is only tentative, giving anon an opportunity to present facts supporting their claims (and if you read the judge's statement closely, had anon presented evidence, there would have been no basis for the defamation suit and no need for unmasking). And even if there is no facts and anon legit defamed the person, anon may still evade justice given the paltry noncompliance fine Meta would have to pay. So let me ask you, would you like to live in a world where someone could baselessly and maliciously accuse you of rape or other defaming acts without consequence?
merth 3y ago
or they don't trust the system and want to stay anon to exercise their free speach
- hef19898 3y ago
  That depends on the country so, e.g. the situation in the Netehrlands is quite different from the one in Russia. As is the "system".
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  In that case, they should probably not use the system while trying to stay anon. The system will not work in their favor, and Facebook is definitely part of that system.
  - merth 3y ago
    anybody could be part of the system knowingly or unknowingly. so the best is to always stay anon and trust nobody. all of the system should be designed bullet proof anonymity just like apple does, even if apple wants to can't read messages.
    - SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
      That's a very different thing. End-to-end encryption stops Apple from reading messages on its own initiative, but if you discover that someone with a particular phone number is sending defamatory iMessages, Apple can still tell you who that person is. (Even the idea of a phone number being anonymous sounds kinda silly, even though it's no structurally different than a Facebook user ID.)
imgabe 3y ago
There is no right to anonymity. The government requires every citizen to identify themselves in various ways for paying taxes, voting, receiving benefits, registering for the draft, etc.
- tjoff 3y ago
  There sure are, just because some parts of society requires identification doesn't mean all do.
  - Pyramus 3y ago
    No, almost all parts of society require identification, you could say it's a fundamental principle (Western democratic) societies are built upon. Your freedom is based on me being held accountable to respect it. Anonymity is protected in special situations such as elections, communications, whistleblowing etc.
    - evandale 3y ago
      > No, almost all parts of society require identification Do you have a source on that? I can think of FAR more parts of society that don't require identification than parts that do. It feels impossible that "almost all parts of society require identification" in a world of infinite possibilities. I put some pants on 10 minutes ago without identifying myself. Then I left my house without telling anyone. Then I walked down the street and never had to identify myself. The mall I visited didn't require ID. Finally, the McDonalds I went to accepted cash and I didn't have to prove who I am.
      - thakoppno 3y ago
        Presuming what you claim in the last paragraph is true, maybe it’s a fun thought experiment to ponder how much anonymity you’ve pierced. How many other people in the world today did as you have done? Now constrain by people who post on hn.
        3y ago

Speaking of "not understanding free speech", in America (where Meta is) free speech exclusively refers to our Bill of Rights and the limitation on government to unfairly suppress your speech, specifically your political speech. It is completely unrelated to a private citizen interacting with a private business in the eyes of American law, American business and Americans ourselves. The only free speech issue here from our perspective is "Is the government illegally restricting Meta's corporate right to free speech?" And no, making Meta identify a user is not a violation of their 1A free speech rights to us. If you're speaking of a totally different European legal concept, it might be helpful for you to identify that.

arzig 3y ago
Export the free speech is a red herring. The underlying issue is whether an aggrieved party can compel certain kinds of discovery to respond to libel (which has never been perfected speech). Prime were just able to be libelous with impunity because … the interwebs…
- criley2 3y ago
  Libel - Another legal concept that varies dramatically by region. In America, proving libel is extremely difficult and requires you to demonstrate real damages. So in this case if it were American, unless the aggrieved party can demonstrate monetary damages, under American law there is no libel as we do not consider "hurt feelings" or "damaged reputation" to be libel. So in America we would demand that the offended party demonstrate that they have been financially harmed before we unmask the anonymous individual to fully investigate and adjudicate the claim. If you're discussing libel under a EU or European nations context, it could be helpful to identify which version of libel law you are referencing, because this case from an American's perspective is no where near our extremely high bar. (And, as a side note, under American law all international libel convictions are automatically unenforceable here, to prevent tourism to areas who do not require sufficiently high bar)
  - jsnell 3y ago
    This is a case in European courts between European entities. Why do you think it's helpful to bring in American concepts, and then complain about how the European ones are different?
    - criley2 3y ago
      1. Meta is a multi-national based in America. 2. I am not complaining at all. 3. In fact, I am replying to someone complaining that folks "don't know what <$GENERAL LEGAL TERM WITH REGIONAL DIFFERENCES> means" and I'm explaining: you're on an American website whose readership is majority American, talking about an American business, and you have the audacity to claim "people don't know this <HIGHLY LOCAL LEGAL TERM>?". And so I'm explaining WHY Americans would be confused by the seemingly low-bar for libel or confusion around free speech. This case may be European courts and entities (and I asked for location specifics as the concepts can often vary country by country in Europe), but this website is not a European website and it's absolutely normal than Americans are here discussing this.
      - Tainnor 3y ago
        > whose readership is majority American As far as I know, there are more Americans here than visitors from any other country, but the majority of people is still not American: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35568123 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35568123 I feel like American readers are sometimes guilty of assuming everyone else is also American and understands their references, but the world is a bigger place than that.
  - probably_wrong 3y ago
    > So in this case if it were American, unless the aggrieved party can demonstrate monetary damages, under American law there is no libel as we do not consider "hurt feelings" or "damaged reputation" to be libel. Based on my poor understanding of US law, I think you are mistaken. Defamation per se recognizes that certain statements are so damaging to one's reputation that proving damages is not required. From [1], > In an Alaska Supreme Court case, a woman accused a man of assault, battery, and false imprisonment, and he brought a claim against her for defamation. The court explained that because the statements imputed a serious crime, the man was not required to prove the damage to his reputation and emotional distress. The case discussed in the article includes accusations that the plaintiff films women without their consent, allegedly in a sexual context (although that's redacted so I could be wrong). That could totally fall under category 1 of Defamation Per Se. [1] https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-defamation-per-se-.html https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/w...
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  This is the right take on it. The era where you could fax ASCII art of a gun to someone without the Feds following up is gone. It was perpetrated not on any kind of justice theory of the power of the anonymous actor, but on a power inequality: governments hadn't caught up with what the technology enabled, so individuals using new technology could out-maneuver enforcement. That is no longer true for most Internet users. The tools are in place for mass-surveillance and mass-enforcement. Governments can take down a website, governments can black-hole a DNS entry, governments can honeypot someone into trying to trade Bitcoin for criminal activity, governments can jail citizens indefinitely until they cough up passwords, and governments can require a corporation divulge privately-held information on penalty of loss of corporate privileges (including ability to exist). The "golden era" of the Internet was a latency hiccup, not a new world order.
Slava_Propanei 3y ago
[dead]

cnity 3y ago

This position is a slippery slope to a world where true anonymity is made illegal. Your confusion is more subtle and arguably more dangerous: that anonymity can make certain illegal actions easier does not mean that anonymity should not exist.

subroutine 3y ago
What is "true anonymity"? The law is fairly clear that you cannot engage in illegal activity whether acting anonymously or otherwise.
- cnity 3y ago
  The inability to monitor all illegal activity is a trade-off we accept as a society to maintain the right to anonymity. You'd rather we sign that right away for some supposed guarantee of safety? A guarantee made by the synthesis of your government and your corporations?
  - subroutine 3y ago
    Nothing of the sort. I think anonymity is a privilege that is granted and can be enjoyed while engaging with society or online however anon chooses, up to the point where anon's actions breaks the law. edit: In the case described here I am especially unsympathetic for anon as they chose to defame someone's real life identity. In this incident there was no proactive monitoring by gov/law/inc. as you so fear. Instead the wronged had to hire private council and prove the defemation in court a priori. Even after proving the impact to their character the judge's ruling is only tentative, giving anon an opportunity to present facts supporting their claims (and if you read the judge's statement closely, had anon presented evidence, there would have been no basis for the defamation suit and no need for unmasking). And even if there is no facts and anon legit defamed the person, anon may still evade justice given the paltry noncompliance fine Meta would have to pay. So let me ask you, would you like to live in a world where someone could baselessly and maliciously accuse you of rape or other defaming acts without consequence?

merth 3y ago

or they don't trust the system and want to stay anon to exercise their free speach

hef19898 3y ago
That depends on the country so, e.g. the situation in the Netehrlands is quite different from the one in Russia. As is the "system".
shadowgovt 3y ago
In that case, they should probably not use the system while trying to stay anon. The system will not work in their favor, and Facebook is definitely part of that system.
- merth 3y ago
  anybody could be part of the system knowingly or unknowingly. so the best is to always stay anon and trust nobody. all of the system should be designed bullet proof anonymity just like apple does, even if apple wants to can't read messages.
  - SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
    That's a very different thing. End-to-end encryption stops Apple from reading messages on its own initiative, but if you discover that someone with a particular phone number is sending defamatory iMessages, Apple can still tell you who that person is. (Even the idea of a phone number being anonymous sounds kinda silly, even though it's no structurally different than a Facebook user ID.)

imgabe 3y ago

There is no right to anonymity. The government requires every citizen to identify themselves in various ways for paying taxes, voting, receiving benefits, registering for the draft, etc.

tjoff 3y ago
There sure are, just because some parts of society requires identification doesn't mean all do.
- Pyramus 3y ago
  No, almost all parts of society require identification, you could say it's a fundamental principle (Western democratic) societies are built upon. Your freedom is based on me being held accountable to respect it. Anonymity is protected in special situations such as elections, communications, whistleblowing etc.
  - evandale 3y ago
    > No, almost all parts of society require identification Do you have a source on that? I can think of FAR more parts of society that don't require identification than parts that do. It feels impossible that "almost all parts of society require identification" in a world of infinite possibilities. I put some pants on 10 minutes ago without identifying myself. Then I left my house without telling anyone. Then I walked down the street and never had to identify myself. The mall I visited didn't require ID. Finally, the McDonalds I went to accepted cash and I didn't have to prove who I am.
    - thakoppno 3y ago
      Presuming what you claim in the last paragraph is true, maybe it’s a fun thought experiment to ponder how much anonymity you’ve pierced. How many other people in the world today did as you have done? Now constrain by people who post on hn.
      - 3y ago