I'm just gonna ask y'all a simple question as an anon who used to browse 4chan back in the latter half of the first decade.
Was this appropriate behavior?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/us/twitter-journalist-strobe-epilepsy/index.html
It's absolutely inappropriate to try to induce seizures in the guy but because it's the internet I don't think it should result in a conviction. Like the whole cyberbulling bs, unless it manifests offline/physically, then avoidance is as simple as not using the cancer that is social media.
twitter could simply not automatically play gif/videos when you scroll over them or give people the option to do that.
>>123122
So... what, epileptics should just shut themselves down from social media because someone MIGHT send them pictures that induce seizures?
Unlike cyberbullying where it's easy to react and put the bullies on ignore/shut down your account/whatever, a single seizure-inducing picture just might fuck you up, and you don't really have any way of avoiding exposure(short of having no social media presence of any kind in the first place, which I don't really think is a reasonable measure) if someone spontaneously decides to start fucking with you. So I would say that deliberately trying to cause someone to have a seizure absolutely DOES warrant a conviction.
>cnn
Lol fuggen manlet
>>123122
>because it's the internet I don't think it should result in a conviction.
A strict libertarian will say that rights extend only as far as one does not intentionally direct harm at someone else. That is precisely what is done when you post an auto-playing seizure-inducing image that is designed as bait for epilectics. Basically it would be the same as hoisting a seizure-inducing billboard on your driveway adjacent to a major road, or a sidewalk whenever an epileptic walks by.
Perhaps trying to find the technological and legal means of enforcement for something like that on the internet sets a dangerous precedent for the keeping speech as free as possible. The ideal solution is obvious -- by default disable autoplay on social media sites, and/or meanwhile fund research for automatic detection and labeling of possible seizure-inducing media (like what Google and Microsoft are doing for porn). The research will not take long and will be super cheap -- a single employee can have an algorithm ready-to-ship in a day, and a volunteer hackathon group can do it in a weekend.
Maybe we should just send an email to Google, MS, Facebook, and Twitter saying "It's probably a $1000 investment to start -- just do it."
If someone knows they have epilepsy then aren't they assuming the risks every time they turn on thier computer? What about flashing popups and ads? And what if it hadn't triggered a seizure, would it be criminal then?
>>123122
>unless it manifests offline/physically
Do you know what a seizure is, you fucking mongoloid?
>>123120
As a strict dick, I wish you all get seizures in an unbiased fashion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQxUu6YqyuE
>>124142
Intent matters. This wasn't something that was accidentally stumbled upon, it was a targeted attack with intent to produce a seizure.
In general life, it's my own responsibility to make sure I don't fall down any stairs, and if I were to trip and fall it'd just be an unfortunate accident. But if someone deliberately pushes me then obviously that person's in the wrong.
And just because the weapon in this case is benign to the vast majority of the population, doesn't make it any less of a weapon. No different from sneaking peanuts into the food of someone who has an allergy, or swapping out life-saving medication for someone with an illness, etc. It's still a situation where someone is taking deliberate action to impact the health and life of someone else.
>>124150
I totally agree, it was his responsibility as someone with epilepsy to stay off Twitter. To use your example of stairs, if you are feeble and too weak to walk down stairs safely I doubt you'd walk down a set of stairs that had millions of people on it at any time, right? Sending a flashing image to an epileptic should be no different from saying something so shocking to someone with a heart condition they have a heart attack.
>>123120
old news
>>123120
>Was this appropriate behavior?
Son. If you have to ask that you're a god damned newfag. The internet even then was not as it used to be.
>Was this appropriate behavior?
OP, you are a newfag and should be ashamed. You will never be able to go back in time and experience when raids were an intergral part of 4chan, or browse the board with Anamanguchi playing in the background, or join moot's Q&A threads where he would be on them for 8 hrs straight. You missed the golden ages and the 4chan that exists now is just a rotting corpse of the old chans.
"Epilepsy Site Hacked With Seizure Images"
May 8th, 2008
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/epilepsy-site-hacked-with-seizure-images/
>>123122
>not using the cancer that is social media.
Many jobs require some form of social media presence now, or at least de facto require you to check someone's social media feed.
>>124142
>assuming the risks every time they turn on thier computer?
Every real job requires internet use. At the end of the day we will need to have better client-side filters available for photosensitive users, but you can't just say "well they shouldn't be using the internet anyway."
>>123120
People do this on /f/ all the damn time.
>>124154
>if you are feeble and too weak to walk down stairs safely I doubt you'd walk down a set of stairs that had millions of people on it at any time, right?
That wouldn't change the culpability of someone who forcibly and deliberately pushes that person.
>>124404
To extend that example, it also doesn't pardon someone who deliberately removes one of them to trip people up. What people don't seem to be getting is that even if they couldn't prove the perp was targeting a specific victim, setting a trap that could hurt vulnerable people with no warning is still a serious fucking crime. His admission of intent and knowledge about the victim's condition merely earns him a harsher sentence.