>"Actually you were banned because you spammed racial slurs in the game and told a teammate to kill themselves."
That's more than a lot of platforms give. The trend lately is to give no information about why other than pointing at a list of rules and picking one, so as not to "let bad actors game the system". Sure, then let's just get rid of the right to know which crimes the government may accuse you of committing, and just say "we determined you broke the law, you go to jail for X years, no we won't tell you what you did, if we did then criminals could find loopholes!" while happily jailing innocents.
> Are they going to put me in jail because I don't want them to read messages between me and my friends or my wife?
Them: "If you don't show us your messages, you are probably going to jail. So if you don't change your mind, and end up in jail without having shown us your messages, that means whatever was in those messages was way worse than going to jail. You probably knew you were going to get a longer sentence if you showed us those messages, and preferred to go with a shorter sentence of 'refusing to collaborate'."
1. You're hellbanned. By the looks of it, starting from a comment that shouldn't even have been that inflammatory (email pg. really.).
2. As to your comment and profile message:
I think a lot of what pushed the conversation towards "mob justice" instead of "whether his actions should even have been a crime" is that idealistic hackers have been making the argument to get rid of the CFAA and all other open-ended "unauthorized access" laws for quite some time, and are generally dismissed as unreasonable trolls. So rather than bringing up that same point again (which will still get dismissed out of hand by most people - I mean most people think that "identity theft" is actually a real thing!), "we" have to proceed on the assumption that those terrible laws are here to stay until digital natives become the majority, and can only hope to punish the prosecutorial bullying that made the threat of a three decade incarceration the price for a jury trial.
> Look, I've avoided bans on many websites on purpose. You're saying this should be a criminal act?
Yeah, I'd say so. They're not your servers. If the person who owns them tells you to stop using them, then stop. They don't owe you anything, so just quit using their stuff. Easy, no?
> If I get banned from Hacker News, and I make a second account using a proxy, I should get prison time?
Why didn't you just go all out and say "the death penalty"? :-) No, I'd think a fine or some community service would be more than adequate.
> Unban him from the forum. Then he'll (maybe) stop.
This is a very, very bad idea -- it's on a par with negotiating with terrorists.
> Maintaining control over your life and online reputation is more important than keeping him banned.
You seem not to realize that, by giving in to blackmail, one surrenders control of one's life to the next person who wants to engage in harassment. Also, what's to stop the original perpetrator from gloating about his victory over you and resuming or escalating his unacceptable behavior?
> It said examples of this “severe misconduct” include terrorist activities, child sexual exploitation, violent extremism, credible threats of mass violence, carrying out or deliberately acting as an accomplice to sexual assault and threatening Twitch or its staff.
What points here will not already lead to jail time and an outright ban from all social activities? The bans are for criminal acts that are outside of free speech protections.
> Also, punishing the entire group is very effective in the military.
So how does banning an ISP subnet equate to punishing 4channers?
> I am surprised how consistently the unit will turn on the offender
That implies that you communicated the reason for the ban and there is actually a consistent group aware of what is going on. Randomly banning vpns and ISP subnets does not imply that.
> It should not be legal to advertise the possibility of messaging someone, if that someone will not be able to receive the message.
Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, you seem to be saying that shadowbans should be illegal. Or at least, I don't see how any law that would prevent shadow delivery wouldn't prevent shadowbans. So I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
> I wouldn't be surprised if, under EU law, a griefer in a video game who tells you to "Go fuck yourself!" isn't guilty of "Asking someone to do something sexually online."
> especially when what you mean is true, and the misunderstanding of what you mean is false
He was punished for disagreeing. Jail, lost job, a few years without a computer and money spend on defense. Guilt is irrelevant if trial takes years and does not postpone punishment.
Computer without internet is useless today. Would you employ graphic designer who can not use computer connected to internet?
Also guilt is irrelevant, if false accuse is left unpunished. His accusers should be forbidden to use internet, and should go to prison for harassing him
Your Honor, I only murdered people in the past. I'm not murdering anyone at the moment so I should be set free!
reply