Just like in the real world, the venue is not responsible. Walmart is not responsible if someone shouts death threats inside. Walmart or other users/customers can call the police but it's not Walmart's job to tackle the guy. The really only difference is that local & state law enforcement is less inclined to enforce the law against online individuals given the time & energy required in addition the the threat being significantly less likely to be credible.
Maybe you phrased it wrong, but the user cannot post death threats online without fear of consequences, it's just not the platform who the consequences fall upon.
A better analogy to a public location would be holding the city liable for not removing a death threat someone affixed into some city-owned monument.
So I suppose it’s regulated in that it’s criminal and criminal actions are prohibited.
I’m not sure how you would fine Twitter because one of its users made a death threat, not how you would fine a McDonald’s because someone in their restaurant yelled a death threat. Or a megaphone manufacturer, etc etc.
[0] https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdnc/pr/federal-jury-convicts-b...
So it's technically correct to say that it's "just as illegal", but that's not the best kind of correct. While I'd be very interested in a directive that the FBI should take all violent threats online seriously, they don't have anywhere near that kind of resources. And I have a feeling that if they did start making numerous requests to unmask anonymous users, a lot of HN readers would oppose that as well.
If you report a death threat to the police and fbi it will be investigated. I think the problem is they have to be substantiated. If I just run around the town square saying “I’m going to kill you” that’s not actually a criminal death threat. So someone saying “#diaf” is not a death threat, it’s obnoxious but not a crime.
Fortunately murder rate is not correlated to internet death threats or we’d all be dead.
This doesn’t mean that platforms shouldn’t stop boorish behavior, but it’s not a crime and we probably don’t want the FBI investigating stuff that’s not a crime.
But when it is, when I think someone is going to kill me, I feel confident that I can call the law and they’ll do what they can.
[0] https://elkodaily.com/news/local/man-arrested-for-online-dea...
That's only because the former is done anonymously and the latter can be easily be attributed to you, right? If a kid sent death threats to his classmates using his real-life facebook account, the police would be summoned too.
(If I were the communication tool, I'd add some term to my TOS that the user indemnifies me against losses due to speech the user made. So if I get sued because of something you said, I can come after you for the losses. Of course, this requires that you KYC . . . so anonymity might become harder in a post-S230 world. I sure wouldn't want to be someone running e.g. an anonymous far right or militia forum if I could be held liable for wrongful death or harassment claims.)
It has to be shown that there is both intent and the ability to carry it out before it starts entering the territory of illegal.
Which makes sense if you think about it. A 5 year old child threatening you with violence is not the same as a 25 year old man with a bat in their hand.
The reason threats of violence online are not illegal is because they have no ability to carry it out. This is actually a large reason why doxxing is such a big deal online. Suddenly, these people DO have the ability to carry out the threats.
If you REALLY want to go at it from that perspective, these companies leaking/selling PII should make them legally liable.