Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gosub100 383 days ago
notice the incorrect conclusion he makes. the fbi emails him asking for info about a user, with a screenshot that includes a threat of violence. FSE guy jumps to the conclusion that it's just innocent braggadocio (despite the fact that another CEO was murdered just 6 months ago). jump to end of article: guy has already committed countless acts of violence (by proxy).

I'm glad that FSE guy engaged with the feds, but it shows dangerous bias when he sees a screenshot of a threat and immediately assumes that can't be a violent individual.
3 comments
Peacefulz 383 days ago
I personally think that the fact that violent people exist shouldn't diminish our values regarding privacy and/or anonymity. I don't think you should accommodate messages such as the one WitchKing shared...but I think if you value privacy, your priority should be removing the user and the content, and not appealing to the Feds. Don't make it a safe space for either party, because neither of them are on your side.
link
hoistbypetard 383 days ago
The FSE guy is telling a story from 2023. I'd have reached the same conclusion back then also.
link
lmm 383 days ago
Anyone could be violent, but that screenshot is total weaksauce. Is it even the same guy or just someone random blowing off steam?
link
roenxi 383 days ago
You doubt the seriousness of the Witch King of Angmar? The Pale King? The man leads a dark host of fell origin! He wears a ring of Power! His threats are clearly entirely credible, it is only a small step from posting on the Fediverse to a siege of the White City and the deaths of a multitude.

Yeah. For the life of me I don't see how someone could see a credible threat in that post. The man could actually murder Fink the same day and the post still wouldn't be evidence of a credible threat; it is just too silly. At best it is evidence he is deranged in addition to the trolling it turned out to be in this case.

link
mrguyorama 383 days ago
The problem is entirely that you cannot tell a baseless threat from a real one from just the forum post.

Just like for credit card fraud, you can only improve your heuristics so far. At some point, you either treat every single possible as real for investigative purposes, or you accept that you find a threat, ignored it, and people die as a result.

Plenty of real world crazy terrorist bullshit had a pointless online threat component!

More importantly, depending on the threat, it's probably a crime itself. Bomb threats are criminal even if it's clear that it wasn't a realistic threat.

So no, that screenshot is not "total weaksauce", for law enforcement. Hell, even here, that screenshot was demonstrably from a guy running a criminal enterprise!

link
lmm 383 days ago
> Just like for credit card fraud, you can only improve your heuristics so far. At some point, you either treat every single possible as real for investigative purposes, or you accept that you find a threat, ignored it, and people die as a result.

This isn't borderline though. This is blatantly nothing. You might as well arrest everyone who leaves their house in the morning.

> More importantly, depending on the threat, it's probably a crime itself. Bomb threats are criminal even if it's clear that it wasn't a realistic threat.

That doesn't make the legal system better, that makes it worse! What world do we live in where Pepsi can offer a valuable prize and welch on it and it's fine because they're joking, but it doesn't go the other way?

link
gosub100 383 days ago
this remark about the threat is incredibly presumptuous:

"it was also clearly absurd, an obvious joke, not a credible threat."

link
lmm 383 days ago
That is a completely accurate description of that screenshot IMO. Even if the guy who posted it was making phone calls to get thugs to beat people up and hoping they'd take it further, that post is still clearly absurd, an obvious joke, not a credible threat. This is "96% of serial killers have used bread" stuff.
link
mrguyorama 383 days ago
But it was never a joke! It was a guy basically running harassment enterprise, including swatting people and other false flag style crimes.

He wasn't being silly or lampooning anything or creating satire, he was trying to make conversation worse. That's not a joke.

link
lmm 383 days ago
> But it was never a joke!

It was blatantly a joke. The article even gives us the context that it was part of the guy deliberately getting himself banned from that instance.

> It was a guy basically running harassment enterprise, including swatting people and other false flag style crimes.

Sure, maybe (if it even was that guy and not some random unrelated joker). But even people doing that can also still joke.

> He wasn't being silly or lampooning anything or creating satire

He absolutely was. "I will leave my fingerprints and DNA behind so they can catch me"? That's really funny.

link