That seems potentially proportionate but in general you seem to share (a lesser version of) their mindset - that disproportionate punishments are fine when it's against those who have wronged you.
So I was speaking more generally. I believe that the FBI should start taking Internet death threats seriously, even though the fact is that the vast majority of them aren't. They have a serious chilling effect and are already felonies. All that would be needed would be the will to enforce existing laws.
They're not prioritized because it would require a lot of work just to scare some kid (who would almost certainly be given little to no sentence). But the larger effect might be more significant.
I.e., they see X as appropriate punishment, they should themselves be subject to X -- let them live by their own rules. Currently, they do not - they make their own rules, make all kinds of threats, and then just laugh about it on their chats in their basements.
What is actually effective is highly reliable and under-proportionate penalties, but that would require massive tracking systems that almost none of us would be willing to even consider, much less implement. E.g., if every anti-social act resulted in a fine between $5-$500 (scaled for income/wealth so it wasn't just a license for rich ppl to be a*holes), it would rapidly decline. But it would require a nearly insane tracking and judicial system.
Just because you want to punish someone for 'breaking a social contract' does not give you free license to become judge, jury, and executioner with any penalty you feel like at the moment.
The next step to that is maybe we feel like they are irredeemable sick f*ks already showing strong dark triad traits, and society is better off without them, so off with their heads. Since we can all dish out whatever penalty wwe feel like when we feel wronged, no problem, right?