Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Will Hand Over Data On the User Who Sent a Seizure-Inducing Tweet To a Journalist (theverge.com)
Last week, an unidentified Twitter user tweeted a seizure-inducing animation at Newsweek and Vanity Fair writer Kurt Eichenwald, who has epilepsy. Now, Eichenwald has taken the first step toward identifying the user. In response to a civil suit filed by Eichenwald this week in Dallas district court, Twitter has agreed to hand over all relevant subscriber data for the user in question. The attack came in apparent retaliation for Eichenwald's aggressive coverage of President-elect Trump. From a report on the Verge: While Eichenwald has yet to file criminal charges, the civil suit was sufficient for an ex parte order from the district judge. Twitter subsequently agreed to expedited relief, declining to challenge the order or demand further evidence from Eichenwald. The next step is likely to be a lawsuit against wireless carriers or service providers implicated by Twitter's records, who will have records linking IP addresses and other metadata to the attacker's legal name.
Nor any evidence of a seizure.
back to blaming victims.
The problem with "stop victim blaming!!!" is that it ignores the many times when the victim is partially to blame for getting into a situation to begin with, especially if they escalated the situation with their own actions.
Not surprising since video content on Twitter is all click-to-play. (GIFs are auto-converted to MP4s by Twitter.)
Meaning in order to trigger his supposed seizure, he had to have clicked on a play button on a video that says "you deserve a seizure."
Yeah what the person responsible did was intentional harm, and I fully believe charges should be placed for it.
However, the bigger question comes, will this lead to the path of having any animation that can induce seizures anywhere online become legally liable?
It's always a problem, the first part makes sense, what it lets people do after is concerning. It's like schools, a child may have a peanut allergy, henceforth peanuts are completely banned from a school distract. I understand if a child within that school itself has an allergy to ban it from that school, but they'll blanket an entire distract with it flat out. More and more this world seems to be pushing towards the needs of the one out weighing the needs of the many.
I hope the person responsible is persecuted, but that nothing beyond that stems from the ruling.
A false sense of persecution.
They believe that Twitter, who has willingly harbored their Nazi organization is somehow against them because one of their members who threatened to kill all jews and muslims was banned for a week over his threat.
So Twitter is now actively doxing people?
What if the sender puts a sign on it that says "I hope you go in to anaphylactic shock?"
If so, and the person ate it anyhow, I'd say that the sender would have a plausible defense. "Your honour, I knew he had a peanut allergy. I did not know he was also a complete and utter idiot."
Who cares?
If somebody shoots at you, but misses, they still tried to kill you. Nobody would say 'oh, his feelings are just hurt that somebody was that mad at him.'
The accused formed a specific intent to harm, gathered the materials to carry out that intent, planned his assault, and carried it out. Guilty act plus guilty mind.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Intent is the point here. The attackers intent to cause harm is blindingly obvious, the video used serves no other purpose other than to cause a seizure in susceptible people. If they'd sent gore pics with the intent to make someone sick to their stomach and maybe lose their lunch, then that would be just a juvenile trick, but inducing a seizure in someone with epilepsy can be life-threatening. Add to this the other aggressive and violent acts that have been perpetrated against this guy and his family, and you have a pattern of behavior that clearly indicates the intent to cause bodily harm and/or death. Do you wait for someone to show up with a gun in their hand ready to kill before you act to stop them, or do you see the handwriting on the wall and stop them as soon as possible?
If Trump's "grabbing pussy" without first obtaining a written permission from the owner was an assault, then so is making somebody "feel unsafe". The relevant dictionary definition is:
FindLaw.com may disagree with it, but who is going to ask them? Certainly not the people, for who the very election of Donald Trump is an Act of Terrorism.
Sure. Not every thing. But this one is...
Would you like to subscribe to my newsletter?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
For all the incoherent non sequiturs, you actually implied something very astute. Some of Trump's "pussy grabbing" may indeed not have been assault, strictly speaking. It appears sometimes he advanced his tongue and grabbin' hand so abruptly that there was no time for his victim to be "in apprehension" of the unwanted contact — he skipped straight past assault to sexual battery.
Nothing posted to