4 ms·

Lumping attempted murder and people saying mean things on the internet into the same bucket is a mistake with far-reaching consequences.

HarryHirsch 2y ago
You know, if someone attacks your livelihood they are attacking your life, you won't last long, especially in a country with no social safety net, like the US. I am stringent here, having dealt with an awful boss.
bsder 2y ago
Internet threats should be considered as assault, harassment, libel, and defamation just like if the same threat was said in person. It's time that we quit thinking that just because something is "online" it isn't harmful. If anything, threats over the internet should be considered more dangerous as the reach is larger and you are more likely to attract people who are genuinely deranged along with the attendant increased risk of violence.
- petermcneeley 2y ago
  Im guessing you are not a fan of this work https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence#main-content https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence#main-content
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    The cypherpunk ideal of "you can't stop us in the digital world, so don't even bother trying" which runs up hard against the hard problem of yanks power cable.
  - bsder 2y ago
    The current crop of Bitcoin prosecutions shows that our legal laws and processes are quite capable of prosecuting violations of law in cyberspace if enough money is involved. The fact that we don't prosecute these kinds of online threats is simply because nobody cares about the plebians who don't have enough money to opt out of the problem.
  - causality0 2y ago
    What a lovely vision that was. Back when we imagined the potential of the internet would make people more like us, instead of peoples' checkbooks making the internet more like them. Rest in peace, digital frontier. You were too beautiful to last.
- oceanplexian 2y ago
  That's not how the law works. The threat needs to be imminent or a call to action, it needs to not be a parody, the person making it needs to reasonably be able to carry it out. The USA isn't like countries that have strict controls on speech, such as Germany or China. We have a very high bar to infringing on the right to free expression.
  - HarryHirsch 2y ago
    You clearly never had a stalker. Someone sending a stalker or ten to your doorstep is worse.
    - nomel 2y ago
      That is, clearly, not online harassment.
    - Turing_Machine 2y ago
      Whether or not the OP ever had a "stalker" is irrelevant to the accuracy of the statement of how the law works.
- causality0 2y ago
  That's exactly the issue I'm talking about: the practice of equating criminal behavior such as death threats or persistent targeted harassment with protected speech such as questioning, dissent, and heckling. When you put forth that someone's employer is responsible for stopping randos from calling them an asshole, a liar, a tool of the Illuminati, etc and say it's the same problem as someone having a threatening stalker or having someone camping at their front door, you make people think you might be lying or exaggerating about the latter.
denkmoon 2y ago
This view is straight up outdated. Online harassment is no longer just contained to nerds sending each other death threats on forums. It's _just_ harassment, and ought to be treated exactly the same as harassing someone in person with attached legal consequences.
- o11c 2y ago
  Not all "harassment" is death threats though - much of it is not a crime (just emotionally draining) even if taken at face value. In fact, it is very common for "I disagree" to be treated as harassment these days. I do think that actual death threats should always be treated as legitimate threats, though.
- _carbyau_ 2y ago
  I always thought it was weird that new laws had to be made regarding cyber-[activity] IE cyber-bullying. It's just bullying. We have laws already. Those consequences should apply.
  - o11c 2y ago
    Specific "bullying" (as opposed to harassment) laws AFAICT only exist for children, and historically were largely limited to events that take place on school grounds, so an extension definitely was needed there. For adults, I guess there's "hostile work environment"?
o11c 2y ago
Also, while not explicit in the article (which is mostly focused on hard biology), lumping all hardnesses of "scientist" together is a problem in general. Additionally, many claims that appear "hard" are actually pretty weak (sample size, etc.), even without outright fraud. To pick a uncontroversial example: scientists have made all sorts of false claims about food/diet in the last 50 years, and their retracted imperatives have taught people to reject listening to them. Since "scientist" (and "doctor", "professor") are the major terms that people think of, that distrust then spreads across to other fields.

HarryHirsch 2y ago

You know, if someone attacks your livelihood they are attacking your life, you won't last long, especially in a country with no social safety net, like the US. I am stringent here, having dealt with an awful boss.

bsder 2y ago

Internet threats should be considered as assault, harassment, libel, and defamation just like if the same threat was said in person. It's time that we quit thinking that just because something is "online" it isn't harmful. If anything, threats over the internet should be considered more dangerous as the reach is larger and you are more likely to attract people who are genuinely deranged along with the attendant increased risk of violence.

petermcneeley 2y ago
Im guessing you are not a fan of this work https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence#main-content https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence#main-content
- jcranmer 2y ago
  The cypherpunk ideal of "you can't stop us in the digital world, so don't even bother trying" which runs up hard against the hard problem of yanks power cable.
- bsder 2y ago
  The current crop of Bitcoin prosecutions shows that our legal laws and processes are quite capable of prosecuting violations of law in cyberspace if enough money is involved. The fact that we don't prosecute these kinds of online threats is simply because nobody cares about the plebians who don't have enough money to opt out of the problem.
- causality0 2y ago
  What a lovely vision that was. Back when we imagined the potential of the internet would make people more like us, instead of peoples' checkbooks making the internet more like them. Rest in peace, digital frontier. You were too beautiful to last.
oceanplexian 2y ago
That's not how the law works. The threat needs to be imminent or a call to action, it needs to not be a parody, the person making it needs to reasonably be able to carry it out. The USA isn't like countries that have strict controls on speech, such as Germany or China. We have a very high bar to infringing on the right to free expression.
- HarryHirsch 2y ago
  You clearly never had a stalker. Someone sending a stalker or ten to your doorstep is worse.
  - nomel 2y ago
    That is, clearly, not online harassment.
  - Turing_Machine 2y ago
    Whether or not the OP ever had a "stalker" is irrelevant to the accuracy of the statement of how the law works.
causality0 2y ago
That's exactly the issue I'm talking about: the practice of equating criminal behavior such as death threats or persistent targeted harassment with protected speech such as questioning, dissent, and heckling. When you put forth that someone's employer is responsible for stopping randos from calling them an asshole, a liar, a tool of the Illuminati, etc and say it's the same problem as someone having a threatening stalker or having someone camping at their front door, you make people think you might be lying or exaggerating about the latter.

denkmoon 2y ago

This view is straight up outdated. Online harassment is no longer just contained to nerds sending each other death threats on forums. It's _just_ harassment, and ought to be treated exactly the same as harassing someone in person with attached legal consequences.

o11c 2y ago
Not all "harassment" is death threats though - much of it is not a crime (just emotionally draining) even if taken at face value. In fact, it is very common for "I disagree" to be treated as harassment these days. I do think that actual death threats should always be treated as legitimate threats, though.
_carbyau_ 2y ago
I always thought it was weird that new laws had to be made regarding cyber-[activity] IE cyber-bullying. It's just bullying. We have laws already. Those consequences should apply.
- o11c 2y ago
  Specific "bullying" (as opposed to harassment) laws AFAICT only exist for children, and historically were largely limited to events that take place on school grounds, so an extension definitely was needed there. For adults, I guess there's "hostile work environment"?

o11c 2y ago

Also, while not explicit in the article (which is mostly focused on hard biology), lumping all hardnesses of "scientist" together is a problem in general. Additionally, many claims that appear "hard" are actually pretty weak (sample size, etc.), even without outright fraud. To pick a uncontroversial example: scientists have made all sorts of false claims about food/diet in the last 50 years, and their retracted imperatives have taught people to reject listening to them. Since "scientist" (and "doctor", "professor") are the major terms that people think of, that distrust then spreads across to other fields.