Comment by bsder | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bsder | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There are multiple problems:

1) How do we deal with the fact that an Internet mob can horribly damage a random individual?

This is a really serious issue. Even a single stalker can cause a nightmare for a person and they will have difficulty fighting back. An Internet mob can be completely devastating. There needs to be some way for an individual to cost effectively fight back against online "assault"--especially when it's a mob.

2) How do we deal with the whole "stochastic terrorism" problem?

Stirring up a bunch of people until finally one of them does something horrific and then sitting back and saying "But I didn't say to go shoot them, I only posted their picture and name with cross-hairs." needs to have some penalty. We didn't used to care about this because only the truly powerful could say "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" and have grievous harm come about. Now, with the Internet, you can be much less powerful and have your words reach far more people--some of whom will be sufficiently disturbed to carry things out.

3) Facebook and Google are effectively monopolies. How do we deal with that?

We have historically dealt with monopoly by forcing breakups. The lack of monopoly actions in the last several decades has brought us to where these behemoths have no fear.

I see a problem with points one and two. That problem is partially what spurred the First Amendment of the Constitution (USA) to be made. Trying to control the speech of people is both impossible and forces escalation. When people desire to communicate, they will do so, about whatever topic they choose. Trying to stifle or manipulate this communication will fail eventually; either those who see themselves as part of the "ruling body" will accept this failure, or escalate with more robust controls. Rinse and repeat this through a few iterations, and you end up with the Great Firewall in China. The only way to deal with communication that turns hostile or negative is to increase the communication skills and tools of those involved. Conflict resolution, empathic reasoning, detailed vocabulary, and strong argument skills will allow people to communicate clearly and reasonably. A communicating group that carries many members who have these skills will be deal deftly with these issues, and carry a thick enough skin and strong enough values not to be swayed by the moral poisoning that tends to happen in forums in question.

1. No, there should not. People should have the freedom to congregate and to discuss. If people are hurt by this, too bad. There is no solution.

2. There isn't one. If I say something, there are some insane people who will hear it, and some of them might kill someone. Too bad, but it doesn't make me a terrorist.

3. Facebook and Google are natural monopolies, and they should be regulated like telecom carriers.

> 3. Facebook and Google are natural monopolies, and they should be regulated like telecom carriers.

Malarkey. If Facebook was a natural monopoly they wouldn't have to keep buying competitors like Instagram and WhatsApp because the barrier from the natural monopoly would prevent the then-competitors from gaining significant market share to begin with. The failure there was on the part of antitrust in allowing Facebook to buy them, and even that isn't fatal as long as they don't continue to do it. Social networks only have a popular lifespan of a decade or two and exist in parallel to multiple other competitors. That is unless one company is allowed to buy them all, and keep buying them as newer ones become popular.

And Google doesn't even have network effects. All they have is a better search engine than anybody else, which only lasts until that stops being the case. It's hard to complain about it as long as they're giving the results you actually want -- especially when competing search engines do exist and can easily be used by anyone who wants to.

> 1. No, there should not. People should have the freedom to congregate and to discuss. If people are hurt by this, too bad. There is no solution.

Hogwash. We have harassment, stalking, libel, defamation, and slander laws in meatspace for a reason. The fact that doing it on the Internet exempts you from these laws because enforcement isn't "cost effective" is a problem.

The Libertarian Internet(tm) was tried and failed. People suck; groups of people suck worse; individuals need to be protected at some level.

The question at this point is whether we put laws in place such that individuals can seek cost-effective justice, or whether we wait until so many people get burned that they start clamoring for the government to step on the Internet with jackboots.

> Hogwash. We have harassment, stalking, libel, defamation, and slander laws in meatspace for a reason. The fact that doing it on the Internet exempts you from these laws because enforcement isn't "cost effective" is a problem.

All those are illegal online too. But if I go to the pub and discuss some harassment with my friends that I'm going to do later, the pub clearly isn't held liable for this. Why? Because even if he owns it, the pub owner has no responsibility for what is said inside of the tavern walls.

So, what is taking place on these forums is rarely illegal.

> The question at this point is whether we put laws in place such that individuals can seek cost-effective justice, or whether we wait until so many people get burned that they start clamoring for the government to step on the Internet with jackboots.

And then they move to mailing lists, or FMS. Then what? You going to shut down Tor as well?

My opinion is this: people should grow thicker skin. Those who fail to do so pose a threat to society, insofar as they call for further censorship. Therefore, anyone who is harmed by these people can post-hoc be considered to have deserved it.

It used to be the case that people were recommended to not use their real name on the Internet for basic safety reasons. Now they are encouraged to do so, and whoever doesn't is branded a 'troll'. Who is really at fault here?

> My opinion is this: people should grow thicker skin.

A motivated harasser or mob can basically force you completely offline. You cannot answer that with "grow thicker skin".

The problem is especially acute if your harasser or mob is in a different state, for example.

> It used to be the case that people were recommended to not use their real name on the Internet for basic safety reasons.

And what about if your business is online? Most states require that your public business filing include your real name.

Your glib solutions betray your lack of experience with the problem.

> A motivated harasser or mob can basically force you completely offline. You cannot answer that with "grow thicker skin".

If they have observed proper precautions, the psychological issues are the only factor that remains. Those are solved by growing a thicker skin.

> And what about if your business is online? Most states require that your public business filing include your real name.

If so, they should vote with their feet and observe proper precautions, such as incorporating in a jurisdiction with strong privacy laws, or not incorporating at all (Bitcoin). Examples of the former include New Mexico, Wyoming, Nevada, Seychelles, British Virgin Islands, and more.

> Your glib solutions betray your lack of experience with the problem.

No, your glib solutions betray your lack of experience with the problem. Censorship is never an answer as it is, unto itself, a moral failure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com