News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach. Parent comment

Re:Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach by XorNot on Wednesday August 31, 2022 @08:04PM (#32669986)
The speaker is pretty obviously guilty of incitement to violence if they were inciting violence. Which my parody above is demonstrating pretty clearly. Now, is one incident sufficient cause? Probably not.

What if I launched a sustained campaign across multiple media against that HN user? What if that user starts receiving harassment and death threats? I am running a sustained campaign of making specific, targeted references to how desirable "doing something" about that user is with specific violent imagery, but stopping short of directly declaring that I want something to happen.

You're far too comfortable pretending this can't be a crime, or shouldn't be a crime, because in reality you're pretty comfortable it won't happen to you.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cloudflare's abuse policies and approach by defen on Thursday September 01, 2022 @03:06AM (#32673015)
If someone actually does something, then yes, they should be guilty of a crime. I don't think it's possible to come up with a definition of "stochastic terrorism" in the way that you want, which doesn't result in a massive curtailment of civil liberties. How many acts of speech are necessary to make it into a crime? How many listeners / readers?
[ Parent | on HN ]