Anti-trolling Law

[runningdownthatdream]

Proposed new law in the UK seeks to curtail 'trolls'. My question is who defines an internet troll - its become one of those slurs bandied about whenever we don't like something someone posts. By that token we're all trolls at one time or the other so would this law hurt or protect posters?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/06/2012612163843338982.html

[onmyknees]

[QUOTE=runningdownthatdream;1156417]Proposed new law in the UK seeks to curtail 'trolls'. My question is who defines an internet troll - its become one of those slurs bandied about whenever we don't like something someone posts. By that token we're all trolls at one time or the other so would this law hurt or protect posters?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/06/2012612163843338982.html[/QUOTE


another example of trying to kill an annoying gnat with a sledgehammer. This one has unintended consequences written all over it.

The law of unintended consequences is what happens when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system. The political system is simple, it operates with limited information (rational ignorance), short time horizons, low feedback, and poor and misaligned incentives. Society in contrast is a complex, evolving, high-feedback, incentive-driven system. When a simple system tries to regulate a complex system you often get unintended consequences.

[robertlouis]

[QUOTE=runningdownthatdream;1156417]Proposed new law in the UK seeks to curtail 'trolls'. My question is who defines an internet troll - its become one of those slurs bandied about whenever we don't like something someone posts. By that token we're all trolls at one time or the other so would this law hurt or protect posters?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/06/2012612163843338982.html[/QUOTE


another example of trying to kill an annoying gnat with a sledgehammer. This one has unintended consequences written all over it.

The law of unintended consequences is what happens when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system. The political system is simple, it operates with limited information (rational ignorance), short time horizons, low feedback, and poor and misaligned incentives. Society in contrast is a complex, evolving, high-feedback, incentive-driven system. When a simple system tries to regulate a complex system you often get unintended consequences.

I agree with what you say on this occasion.

However, the premise of the proposal is not against trolls per se - that would be impossible - but aimed specifically against people who instigate hate campaigns using social media to the extent that the individuals targeted feel directly threatened or bullied.

Here's a link to the background. It's about defamation and libel, so calling it anti-trolling is very misleading - it's simply attempting to bring the law of libel into play on the internet in the way that it currently impacts on all print media. It's also aimed at minimising the costs that a victim would otherwise have to bear in pursuing a libeller.

http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/12/internet-trolls-bill-defamation-online

[runningdownthatdream]

another example of trying to kill an annoying gnat with a sledgehammer. This one has unintended consequences written all over it.

The law of unintended consequences is what happens when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system. The political system is simple, it operates with limited information (rational ignorance), short time horizons, low feedback, and poor and misaligned incentives. Society in contrast is a complex, evolving, high-feedback, incentive-driven system. When a simple system tries to regulate a complex system you often get unintended consequences.

Agreed. What's really terrifying to me are the levels at which legislators are prying into - the minutiae of life is exposed more and more and being subjected to laws meant to 'protect' a minority without any thought to the overarching consequences.

[runningdownthatdream]

[quote=onmyknees;1156422]

I agree with what you say on this occasion.

However, the premise of the proposal is not against trolls per se - that would be impossible - but aimed specifically against people who instigate hate campaigns using social media to the extent that the individuals targeted feel directly threatened or bullied.

Here's a link to the background. It's about defamation and libel, so calling it anti-trolling is very misleading - it's simply attempting to bring the law of libel into play on the internet in the way that it currently impacts on all print media. It's also aimed at minimising the costs that a victim would otherwise have to bear in pursuing a libeller.

http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/12/internet-trolls-bill-defamation-online

.................fantastic as long as you keep it within the UK where your lives seem to be driven by the media and what appears in the media. From where I sit you folk spend too much time consumed with newspapers and television (which in itself may be a consequence of major early adoption of both!) and the prattle in them. Seems to me that a company or individual is subjected to slander online then they have the option of defending themselves online as well. As OMK said this will end up being a weapon wielded in unintended ways.

[GrimFusion]

This anti-trolling law is bull shit. It sounds like it could work much the same way net anti-bullying legislation does to protect individuals, but I can pretty much guarantee your companies and corporations are going to utilize it far more often.

What differentiates a troll from a disgruntled customer with defective product? Should the court system make someone pay $3,000 in damages as a result of liable because somebody got a little too pissed when their stereo broke and took their complaint to the manufacturer's website? Absolutely not. Sure, there's a better way to handle a situation like that, but it's no reason to wrap someone up in court proceedings and lawyer fees.

Trolls may be annoying, but they're otherwise harmless. I can't imagine a situation where anyone would need to press charges against an internet troll rather than simply ignoring them.


Agreed. What's really terrifying to me are the levels at which legislators are prying into - the minutiae of life is exposed more and more and being subjected to laws meant to 'protect' a minority without any thought to the overarching consequences.

The point is to create a society where nobody is innocent. That doesn't mean we'll all soon be prisoners, but if the police need to pull someone aside for information, they can press charges over superfluous crimes and keep a person against their will.

[Dino Velvet]

The Troll Hunter - Official Trailer - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLEo7H9tqSM)

[pnsmcgraw]

Proposed new law in the UK seeks to curtail 'trolls'. My question is who defines an internet troll - its become one of those slurs bandied about whenever we don't like something someone posts. By that token we're all trolls at one time or the other so would this law hurt or protect posters?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/06/2012612163843338982.html

Congratulations, you have pretty much just summed up the single biggest problem with new law. It's not necessarily the law, but what constitutes you breaking it that is the issue.