You're certainly right that we should use the existing legal categories to the full extent that we can. However, they leave a gap. The effort to treat a distributed, multi-actor system via simple two-party legal categories routinely leaves the instigator untouchable. This is the core of what I am trying to name. The problem involves three distinct actors: (1) the powerful speaker who denigrates, (2) the platforms and media that amplify, and (3) the anonymous individuals who deliver threats. Libel, incitement address the relationship between a single speaker and a target but we are routinely seeing that existing law doesn't easily reach the instigator, because the powerful speaker can typically maintain plausible deniability. The causal chain runs through amplification and probability instead of direct instruction. I think there are real gaps that we need to address.
Yes, yes, but how to make such a system that's in any way "fair"? Remember, Trump's survived assassination attempts, and he will surely claim that all the people saying he's a dictator are encouraging more assassination attempts.
And there is a very scary leftist version, with all the rhetoric of "punch Nazi" and "kill TERFs" and similar. See, for example:
Should that journalist be able to sue Bluesky? His more powerful haters?
The problem with "break ranks with instigators and name the instigation of stochastic intimidation as an unacceptable practice." is that the hate-mongers don't care.
It is not stochastic and is not intimidation. It is either libel (if an accusation known to be false, such as committing treason) or incitement to the commission of a crime, if the intent is to do exactly that. Either of those can be a prosecutable offense or a basis for civil litigation. Naming a crime or a tort something else only serves to protect the perpetrator.
You're certainly right that we should use the existing legal categories to the full extent that we can. However, they leave a gap. The effort to treat a distributed, multi-actor system via simple two-party legal categories routinely leaves the instigator untouchable. This is the core of what I am trying to name. The problem involves three distinct actors: (1) the powerful speaker who denigrates, (2) the platforms and media that amplify, and (3) the anonymous individuals who deliver threats. Libel, incitement address the relationship between a single speaker and a target but we are routinely seeing that existing law doesn't easily reach the instigator, because the powerful speaker can typically maintain plausible deniability. The causal chain runs through amplification and probability instead of direct instruction. I think there are real gaps that we need to address.
Yes, yes, but how to make such a system that's in any way "fair"? Remember, Trump's survived assassination attempts, and he will surely claim that all the people saying he's a dictator are encouraging more assassination attempts.
And there is a very scary leftist version, with all the rhetoric of "punch Nazi" and "kill TERFs" and similar. See, for example:
https://www.thefp.com/p/jesse-singal-bluesky-has-a-death-threat-problem
Should that journalist be able to sue Bluesky? His more powerful haters?
The problem with "break ranks with instigators and name the instigation of stochastic intimidation as an unacceptable practice." is that the hate-mongers don't care.
This is a problem on left as well as right. It’s a problem of and for all of us. Interrupting it will take a major shift.
This issue needs more attention now than ever. Problems of this nature are about to multiply by many orders of magnitude through automation.
https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on-me/
It is not stochastic and is not intimidation. It is either libel (if an accusation known to be false, such as committing treason) or incitement to the commission of a crime, if the intent is to do exactly that. Either of those can be a prosecutable offense or a basis for civil litigation. Naming a crime or a tort something else only serves to protect the perpetrator.