My point was more that we’re looking at the situation in hindsight and applying knowledge that she didn’t have to her intent.

This woman’s action (typing the tweet) ended at the time she hit send, and we should determine if we think that alone is criminal.

Trump riled up a mob and told them to march on the capital. He absolutely should be in jail for that.

This random racist lady on the internet basically said “If [lie that she either repeated or made up] is true, I bet people are going to be mad!” and was arrested.

My point is that I see nonsense like that posted everywhere in the aftermath of tragedies, and I don’t think all of those redditors/lemmings/etc are criminals either. Trolls, escalators, maybe astroturfers, but not criminals. It’s just a bit of a culture shock to me to see someone arrested for it.

That’s a very well written quote that makes a good point.

Conspiracy theorists form echo-chambers to repeat their ridiculous claims amongst themselves and it poses a challenge to the rest of us to figure out how to prevent this without compromising our own values.

The sentiment I was trying to communicate is that involving the police as enforcers of truth on the internet is simply a foreign concept to me as an American. It feels heavy handed and I think carries an obvious risk.

It’s easy to cheer on when it’s happening to someone we dislike, like the racist lady in question, but I think it’s important to take a step back and make sure it truly aligns with our basic principles of freedom.

I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s the one who made it up.

I understand the point you’re making, but the fact that you are able to type this with full confidence that cops aren’t going to show up at your door tomorrow is my point.

Lying is wrong, but the police arresting someone for repeating/creating a made up name of a murderer on twitter is bizarre to me.

(edit: for clarity, because she might have been the one who made up the fake name)

The only difference from any other racist/terrorist action is that it was placed online.

I’d consider another big difference that one was a tweet with misinformation and the other is a call to action to “expel” people. The tweet is appalling but hardly terrorism.

Yes it is.

It’s morally wrong, but people who lie on the internet are not criminals.

The fault I find with this reasoning is that it only works retroactively. The determination of whether or not this random woman committed a crime when she tweeted a rumor relies on the actions that other people decided to take.

If her tweet hadn’t gone viral, would it have still been a crime? That’s an unsettling way to determine whether someone is a criminal who needs to be locked up or not.

Allowing others’ speech is the default. The ethical question is where we draw the line in silencing or punishing someone’s speech.

In the US, the line would generally be specific threats or calls for violence. Someone being hateful or spreading awful rumors online could be a lawsuit by the wronged party, but you aren’t going to have cops show up at your door with handcuffs.

I think the difference is whether there’s a specific threat or call to action. “If (blank) is true, (blank) will likely happen” is a sentiment I see online frequently, even here.

I would consider that different than, for example, Trump instructing a mob of people to “march on the capital” on January 6th. That’s a call to action that resulted in deaths.

This lady sounds like someone’s racist mom who shared misinformation on social media and her post went viral. She deserves to be shunned, but I don’t think jail is the right answer.

I appreciate the discussion. I knew this wouldn’t be a popular take and almost deleted it before commenting.

Again, I think spreading lies on the internet is an appalling thing to do, but I just wanted to share my disbelief that someone could be arrested for it. Like, imagine if the cops showed up with handcuffs for everyone’s grandparents for every racist email forward (or Facebook post) they shared.

I know it’s tempting to want bad things to happen to people we don’t like, but I think situations like this are a test of our ethics and values.

I get what you’re saying, but I really expected the post to be something more direct, like a specific threat.

I don’t think anyone would be arrested here for saying “people are going to go crazy if X turns out to be true”.

It would have to be more like “Let’s burn things down!” or “Somebody should take care of (blank)”.

Spofforth, 55, posted the false claim at 4.49pm on Monday, July 29, the day of the attack, saying: ‘Ali Al-Shakati was the suspect, he was an asylum seeker who came to the UK by boat last year and was on an MI6 watch list. If this is true, then all hell is about to break loose.’

Not defending this woman, but as an American, the thought of being arrested for lying on the internet (or repeating a rumor, as she claims) seems insane.

What a bizarre way to try to murder someone. And over a chess game? I know Russians take their chess seriously, but this is insane.

I bet he takes back his moves.

Putin was quoted as saying “святой ад”

In that case, carry on with the charges.

I’ve heard he’s been witnessed using some sort of board to plan out his tactics.

Ok, I get it now.

So, from memory there has been:

• This recent attack
• Regular DDOS attacks
• Frequent attempts to spam community creation
• That one time the instance got hacked and set to redirect to shock sites

Am I missing anything?

This seems like more than just a few trolls. Maybe someone really doesn’t want to see user-owned social media take off.