Hacker News Reader

Comment by sosuke | Hacker News Reader

I understood there was a difference between "I hope they all * of *" and "I will * them"

The first example "someone take this" is indirect. Edit: upon reflection this could be a direct threat if the person saying it might make it happen by their influence alone. Like a mob leader saying "someone take out this trash"

The second example is even more indirect. Doesn't say he would do it. Doesn't say anyone else would do it. Doesn't even say what it is. A threat yes, but a veiled threat.

The third example is more of the same. Like saying "I hope you choke on it!" isn't a threat.

View on HN

Ultimately it comes down to the sensitivity of the moderators. And we're having this debate because the content moderators at these bay-area big tech companies are hyper sensitive to content from the right and charitable to content from the left. So they can take a threat from the right seriously, but think that a threat from the left is just hot air.

So someone saying something like "Get rid of traitors!" can be interpreted as a call for war or it could be interpreted as 'take these people out of office by voting!' It all depends on the moderator's worldview and biases.

Oh interpretation. How I loathe thee. It was the bane of my English class experience.

You're absolutely right that moderators bias is part of the equation. I was trying to make a delineation between actionable and desirable. Afaik the FBI only looks into and responds to direct actionable threats. My personal stance is that these comments are ugly but I'd only remove them if they fell into that category in which the FBI would take notice.

It's funny you mention English class. I've often wondered if people reading too much into things, seeing patterns where there aren't any, or thinking there's some grand design happening is in-part caused by all the reaching and looking for hidden meaning we've been taught to do from English classes.

Don't take this hunch too seriously. I have no way to prove it and it's only food for thought.

The fact that there are scholarly critical analysis approaches other than authorial intent means that there will be some misinterpretation of tweets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" (also expressed as "troublesome priest" or "meddlesome priest") is a quote attributed to Henry II of England preceding the death of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170. While the quote was not expressed as an order, it prompted four knights to travel from Normandy to Canterbury, where they killed Becket. The phrase is commonly used in modern-day contexts to express that a ruler's wish may be interpreted as a command by his or her subordinates.

“Someone take this clown out NOW. #AssassinateTrump"

Is that what you were saying was indirect?

I'm not sure if this is still true, but it used to be a crime to say you wanted to (or were going to?) kill the president. This is actually why there's a song titled "kill the president" on the first offspring album.

I wonder, regardless of what Twitter will do, what the law is in the case of this tweet? In any case, saying you want to kill anybody is a bad idea. We should place a greater expectation for good behavior on the president of the united states as compared to any random moron on Twitter.

I'm not really talking about what Twitter should do here, though. Rather, as a general matter, the president of the united states should be held to a higher standard than most of us.

It is indirect. It isn't a solicitation for the job specified but a cry that it should happen.

I do see that as becoming a direct threat if the person giving it has a known cadre of people willing act on their words. Such as a military or cult leader might.

So the explicit call for violence, which you have no idea who is reading it, what their mental state is, what action they may take, etc is not a problem, but a call to protest is a threat that needs to be dealt with ASAP.

I think a threat of violence is split between the other and the self in the perceived action. I, Let's, We'll are all inclusive of the self and thus would be direct threats. Someone, anyone, y'all are indirect, unless as I said the person giving the statement was of sufficient influence as to expect it carried out.

So it is ok because it's about Trump?

The parent said it would be worse if the author were somebody with power or fame - not if the target wasn't.

Edit: Just clarifying, not agreeing. While I agree that there is subjectivity around how indirect a threat is, who the author and their audience is, etc, I do think in this case this tweet should be removed.

There is this kernel of my soul that dislikes how things are worse when they happen to politicians than when they happen to fellow citizens, or to political buildings rather than family-owned buildings. One part of me likes to believe it’s a reaction to the affront to something representative which matters to a broad collection of people, but that nagging kernel also reminds me that it conveniently prioritizes the interests of those with power over the individuals, even to the point of being dismissive of the daily crimes suffered by a great many individuals.

I don't think it is okay to make comments like that about anyone. But I am talking about a threat and then wishing someone ill being different in nature. One carries the idea of direct action by the speaker.

The hashtag does appear to be a call to action with an implied "You".

Then I'd say I don't have enough insight or information to make good opinion. All my data was only from the article.

It’s a different problem when someone with authority does this. “Someone #AssasinateTrump” from a random person without authority (implied or otherwise) to actually order an assassination runs afoul of their community guidelines, Trump saying we should take the capitol is likely a crime because of his authority.

That being said, these Twitter guidelines are an absolute mess because they rely on human moderation and human attention. I don’t think they deserve their status as a defacto public square.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com