UK Police spend millions hunting Twitter and FB trolls!

[Deleted]

I don't really care. Getting rid of trolls would make the internet better so why not. I guess that's my opinion on a lot of things, if the improvement is obvious, go for it.

You think theyll just silence the people you dont like?

What will you say when they get you silenced... then you will 100% fukking care.

[Deleted]

You think theyll just silence the people you dont like?

What will you say when they get you silenced... then you will 100% fukking care.

The fucking state levels Slander charges on anyone they don't like, do they?

Oh wait, no they fucking don't. Get yer head out of yer ass, you're ignorant of basic laws.

[tehealadin]

ITT: People who can't behave, want to keep their right to be assholes.

This is why it concerns me (well, one of the reasons, I have laid out my other reasons). People like you go for it. Who mischaracterise people who don't agree with them, and call them assholes because they don't share your views (fine when you do it, right?). And think abusive speech is fine if aimed at the right targets. This is why you (or people like you) should maybe be concerned- if the police enforce this in a consistent manner (I don't agree with the act that they are enforcing, but if they have to, I do hope they are consistent), then you could find yourself (if living in the UK) at the receiving end of a visit from popo.

[Vorkreist]

Leftie drones not understanding that these are just stepping stones for china level of internet censorship.
I can't wait for the tears when future political powers start using the already developed "troll hunting" internet stasi structure for other purposes.

[Deleted]

This is why it concerns me (well, one of the reasons, I have laid out my other reasons). People like you go for it. Who mischaracterise people who don't agree with them, and call them assholes because they don't share your views (fine when you do it, right?). And think abusive speech is fine if aimed at the right targets. This is why you (or people like you) should maybe be concerned- if the police enforce this in a consistent manner (I don't agree with the act that they are enforcing, but if they have to, I do hope they are consistent), then you could find yourself (if living in the UK) at the receiving end of a visit from popo.

Not only is that a strawman, but you presume there is ANYTHING righteous, in being a dick, knowingly.

You may not like that, and you may level snide words as much as you damn please - It does not rationally excuse some people being shit, and the rest suffering.

- - - Updated - - -

Leftie drones not understanding that these are just stepping stones for china level of internet censorship.
I can't wait for the tears when future political powers start using the already developed "troll hunting" internet stasi structure for other purposes.

Slander laws and shit have been around for some time, brb, becoming China

[tehealadin]

Not only is that a strawman, but you presume there is ANYTHING righteous, in being a dick, knowingly.

No I don't. How did you even get to that conclusion? As I have always stated, people posting shitty things, being abusive to people who they don't agree with, makes you a cunt, there is nothing righteous in that. It isn't about being righteous. It isn't against the law to be a dick offline. I don't like dicks, but what I don't like even more is when the police get involved in investigating and seeking punishment for dickish behaviour, as whilst there is some clear black and white areas, there are some shades of grey, what I consider dickish (like insulting people, calling them dicks/assholes for not sharing the same opinion), you don't. So whose offense wins out?

You are being willfully ignorant to some of the opposition to this, and the concerns raised by it.

Also, stop with the abusive language, calling people a "dick". It is hurtful and offensive. And it makes you a parody of one of the reasons people have concerns.

You may not like that, and you may level snide words as much as you damn please - It does not rationally excuse some people being shit, and the rest suffering.

The rest suffering? Oh come on, please. Different groups will take a different opinion on what "being shit" actually is, and what it looks like, and therein lies a potential mess in trying to enforce this. Threats and incitements, we can mostly agree on have a clear look and feel (and in this instance I do agree with the act, and the need to enforce it). However there shades of grey. A far right extremist will be offended, and find it obscene to see pictures posted of gay guys kissing. A radical feminist will find it offensive and hateful if someone disagrees with them. There is a degree of subjectivity, and people aren't irrational, or dickish, for having concerns about how the subjective areas are dealt with- will it be consistent? Different groups will claim that their "suffering" should be taken seriously, and since some of these will clash, how do we decide which one to value more? Let me guess, the one that I agree with.

And I may level "snide words", but I don't verbally abuse people who disagree with me, and label them "dicks and assholes". There is nothing righteous in this, ya know?

[Deleted]

No I don't. How did you even get to that conclusion? As I have always stated, people posting shitty things, being abusive to people who they don't agree with, makes you a cunt, there is nothing righteous in that. It isn't about being righteous. It isn't against the law to be a dick offline. I don't like dicks, but what I don't like even more is when the police get involved in investigating and seeking punishment for dickish behaviour, as whilst there is some clear black and white areas, there are some shades of grey, what I consider dickish (like insulting people, calling them dicks/assholes for not sharing the same opinion), you don't. So whose offense wins out?

You are being willfully ignorant to some of the opposition to this, and the concerns raised by it.

Also, stop with the abusive language, calling people a "dick". It is hurtful and offensive.


The rest suffering? Oh come on, please. Different groups will take a different opinion on what "being shit" actually is, and what it looks like, and therein lies a potential mess in trying to enforce this. Threats and incitements, we can mostly agree on have a clear look and feel (and in this instance I do agree with the act, and the need to enforce it). However there shades of grey. A far right extremist will be offended, and find it obscene to see pictures posted of gay guys kissing. A radical feminist will find it offensive and hateful if someone disagrees with them. There is a degree of subjectivity, and people aren't irrational, or dickish, for having concerns about how the subjective areas are dealt with- will it be consistent? Different groups will claim that their "suffering" should be taken seriously, and since some of these will clash, how do we decide which one to value more? Let me guess, the one that I agree with.

And I may level "snide words", but I don't verbally abuse people who disagree with me, and label them "dicks and assholes". There is nothing righteous in this, ya know?

Libel, Slander and being extremely racist etc. is actually against the law. (In a lot of countries)*

So, either you are strawmanning, or you are wagging your finger in complete darkness.

[tehealadin]

Libel, Slander and being extremely racist etc. is actually against the law.

So, either you are strawmanning, or you are wagging your finger in complete darkness.

I didn't mention anything about libel, slander (which are fair enough) and being racist (which I disagree with, but yea, it is the law). I don't know why you bring up their legal status when I never questioned it. My posts have been clearly focusing on offensive language. The law doesn't only cover libel and extreme racism- you are willfully ignoring offensive and obscene language and messages. These are very subjective. And these are where the core of my concerns come from. Hence why I keep mentioning them.

[Deleted]

I didn't mention anything about libel, slander (which are fair enough) and being racist (which I disagree with, but yea, it is the law). I don't know why you bring up their legal status when I never questioned it. My posts have been clearly focusing on offensive language. The law doesn't only cover libel and extreme racism- you are willfully ignoring offensive and obscene language and messages. These are very subjective. And these are where the core of my concerns come from. Hence why I keep mentioning them.

How is Slander or Libel not dickish behaviour? Libel is literally that of being a dick or racist.

You misrepresent a group of people, in a negative light. That is literally Libel. Also known as, being a dick.

[zorkuus]

Policing trolling seems like a huge exercise in futility.

[tehealadin]

How is Slander or Libel not dickish behaviour? Libel is literally that of being a dick or racist.

You misrepresent a group of people, in a negative light. That is literally Libel. Also known as, being a dick.

No one is claiming that you should be able to slander someone, at least I haven't seen anyone doing that. And not once did I say that libel wasn't dickish behaviour. And you accuse me of using strawmen? Do you know what that term actually means?

Though I am sure that we will disagree on what "misrepresent" actually means.

I am arguing that offensive/obscene language is subjective, and will provide difficulties in enforcing such a law in a consistent manner, due to the subjective nature of offense. This gives me cause for concern in how it will be applied/enforced.

You counter this by saying that slander is dickish behaviour. A point that was not being argued. Nor in anyway relates to what I am saying. Seriously, read back in my posts, the only mention of libel/slander is in the last few, and I make no mention of them not being dickish. You are misrepresenting me. The posts are there, in public view.

You have tunnel vision. I mean, how often do we hear "the problem with trolls, is they keep committing libel!". Of all of the problems people take with trollish behaviour (which, for the umpteenth time, I think is dickish, I have never said that it wasn't, please stop posting in a manner that suggests it is, thinking that being a dick shouldn't be a crime isn't the same as thinking something isn't dickish), slander and libel are not top of that list- offensive and obscene messages are.

This isn't (this drive to enforce) about stopping libel and slander, and is overtly about preventing offensive and obscene language. An issue that you overtly ignore. And an act that you constantly engage in.

[Deleted]

The fucking state levels Slander charges on anyone they don't like, do they?

Yes they do... in fact ofc they do. Every ruling elite on the planet does it.

These braindead fukkwits are actually begging the state to censor them... its fukking hilarious just how stupid these idiots are.

- - - Updated - - -

Slander laws and shit have been around for some time, brb, becoming China

You just answered the entire dilemma without realising it...

Laws against slander already exist.

Theres your answer.

Therefore we dont fukking need internet censorship ffs...

If u believe in free-speech then you should oppose this kind of authoritarian censorship. And if u dont think its censorship then you truly deserve to be run by a dictatorship because u really are that dumb.

[tehealadin]

Yes they do... in fact ofc they do. Every ruling elite on the planet does it.

These braindead fukkwits are actually begging the state to censor them... its fukking hilarious just how stupid these idiots are.

The concern shouldn't really be about libel though- the offensive/obscene aspects should. Obscenity laws used to be used to silence dissenting opinions, and in some parts of the world still are. Any kind of fervour by the state to punish the obscene makes me wary.

[Deleted]

Policing trolling seems like a huge exercise in futility.

Yip.

And intelligent people can see that clearly.

- - - Updated - - -

The concern shouldn't really be about libel though- the offensive/obscene aspects should. Obscenity laws used to be used to silence dissenting opinions, and in some parts of the world still are. Any kind of fervour by the state to punish the obscene makes me wary.

There are already laws to cover slander etc. And the police are already capable of catching anyone who breaks the law, including on the internet.

What intelligent people are opposing is the notion that new specific internet 'laws' will be created. And therefore create an entirely new area of speech that breaks the law. And that these new laws will be used to silence any 'speech' which the authorities dont like.

Fukking dangerous... why not just hand the internet over to your government and strip away every element of freedom that you have while you are at it.

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

I don't really care. Getting rid of trolls would make the internet better so why not. I guess that's my opinion on a lot of things, if the improvement is obvious, go for it.

Exactly.

Slightly off-topic but I've always found that ocean water is too salty. I think we should start filtering the ocean so that one day we can drink it without being being made to feel ashamed, one might call it salt-shaming and we shouldn't have to tolerate it.

[tehealadin]

Yip.

And intelligent people can see that clearly.

- - - Updated - - -



There are already laws to cover slander etc. And the police are already capable of catching anyone who breaks the law, including on the internet.

What intelligent people are opposing is the notion that new specific internet 'laws' will be created. And therefore create an entirely new area of speech that breaks the law. And that these new laws will be used to silence any 'speech' which the authorities dont like.

Fukking dangerous... why not just hand the internet over to your government and strip away every element of freedom that you have while you are at it.

Yea, as I said, libel isn't the concern. When governments start to enact laws against obscenity, then the concern for freedom of expression and civil liberty comes in.

[Deleted]

Yea, as I said, libel isn't the concern. When governments start to enact laws against obscenity, then the concern for freedom of expression and civil liberty comes in.

The issue will spawn from the definition of "hatespeech" .....a key component to describing trolling.

Allowing the authorities to define what exactly is or isnt "hatespeech" will result in overt censorship. Censorship of any voices that the guys in charge dont want spreading around the internet.

Anyone promoting this idea is clearly deluded... mainly because they will be the first people to cry when the authorities decide that their opinions are considered hatespeech and censors them! LOL

[tehealadin]

Anyone promoting this idea is clearly deluded... mainly because they will be the first people to cry when the authorities decide that their opinions are considered hatespeech and censors them! LOL

It will never occur to them that their own speech might get effected. My issue with hate speech as a criminal act is that it isn't criminal to hate, therefore I don't think that expressing your hateful opinions and feelings should be, no matter how ignorant they are (which, for the absence of doubt, before certain posters misrepresent me, an act that they themselves call dickish, doesn't make you not a cunt). I get why they are trying to do this, to try and reduce instances of abuse (that can often lead to physical assault) and discrimination, but I don't think this is the best way forward. Mainly because it opens a door that I would rather was shut.

[Dundebuns]

You have the freedom to say things and not get put in prison for them. You do not have freedom to incite hatred or harm against an individual. We'll see how far they take this law though.

[Eleccybubb]

This just seems like a huge waste of money.