Idaho professor sues TikToker over allegations in the killing of 4 students | Hacker News Reader

Idaho professor sues TikToker over allegations in the killing of 4 students

nbcnews.com

102 pointsbryan041 comments

Let's all keep this in mind the next time we have an urge to view TikTok/Instagram/Snap as a legitimate source of information. Even when I've seen these so called "caught on video" style clips, I have to remind myself I didn't see what lead up to it, and I didn't see what came after. For example it could be someone was harassed, assaulted, threatened etc for hours prior to throwing a punch. It could be they did something horrific and after the video stopped they expressed great remorse and tried to make amends ("Oh my god I'm so sorry, I don't know what came over me, can I help you up? Can I call you am ambulance?" is so much different than if they continue on the bad path)

But much of society has lost the ability to see it this way. Once recorded it's assumed that's 100% of the person's existence is just a continuation / repeat of the clip. Kind of like the "Highlight reel" aspect, but inverted.

It feels like Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, Twitter, etc - should be treated as sources of promotion (self-promotion, or otherwise). Then the information found on them can.be treated approximately.

Very much this. The part of TikTok that scares me isn't even all the data collection, it's that someone can put his thumb on the algorithm to feature content one way or another and people will lap it up.

This fight will cost the TikTok user thousands of dollars. It’s odd that they weren’t swayed by the cease and desist letters.

This suit should cause a lot of stress as it runs its course over the next year or so. The legal filing will probably be in a court that sets a limit somewhere north of $100k.

If you had a monetized tiktok account and were getting millions of views, would you stop? Or would you think you're doing something right?

Bat Boy was created by a Weekly World News editor in 1992 to sell more papers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character)

Bat Boy didn't libel anyone, and was the product of a tabloid known for its outrageously fictional stories.

For what it’s worth, TikTok monetisation is orders of magnitude less than other platforms (like YouTube) so her “millions of views” is likely to have generated a few dollars (certainly not hundreds of dollars). The viewership may have motivated her, very plausible, but the money is unlikely to have moved the needle.

Does monetisation just refer to money tiktok pays them? Or do these 'influencers' get most of their money through separate contracts with companies that are based on view count or something? That seems surprisingly meager to get a few bucks for millions of views.

Some might even say it's not her, but the tiktok algorithm that deserves the blame. It's not like she marketed the video to everyone else in order to get more views. She just made it.

I didnt watch the videos, so I can't judge her, but if she's knowingly messing up these other people's lives for no good reason, aside from money-making or clout-chasing, that would seem pretty selfish to me.

I don't use tiktok, but don't these algorithms just show people things other people watched a lot of?

Monetization = TikTok directly pays you a share of the ads / impressions of your videos.

Many influencers do of course receive external compensation (YouTube requires a direct mention of such compensation in the video, not sure about TikTok's views.)

TikTok's monetization can range depending on the types of ads they can put in front of your content (from personal experience, "family friendly" content gets much higher rates), but typically fall in the 2-3 cents per 1000 views range. So 1 million views ~ $25.

But first you have to be approved as a monetizable partner, which usually requires a certain threshold of regular content production, views, etc.

Bat Boy is a strange comparison, considering he's an obviously fictional character.

Lying for sales, page views, etc? I guess I could have made it more clear.

For me it's no longer in the territory of "lying" when it's as obviously ludicrous at face value as the whole Bat Boy mythos. At that point it's closer to deadpan comedy.

It's fine but then you're in "The Onion" territory. WWN has an "interesting" take on what is news, but weirdly gets some things right.

I thought he was Bruce Wayne's illegitimate son?

Delusional people are delusional.

She will undoubtedly 1) claim how unfair it is that she's held accountable for her actions, and 2) create some fantasy where the fact she's being sued is 'proof' the professor is a murderer. And she has a TikTok following that will support her delusions, and probably contribute to her defense Kickstarter campaign.

See: anti-vaxxers, election denialists, Alex Jones devotes.

Welcome to the social media driven world.

IIUC, you guessed at her future behavior, and then used it as evidence for an emerging trend.

That seems hasty and unfair.

It’s already been done see Alex Jones.

YDNUC (You Do Not Understand Correctly).

TikTok has a very dark side that you see from time to time. The amount of bullying, accusations, and falsehoods being spread is insane. But then again that’s social media for you. These just have a more personal feel given a face is in front of them instead of an avatar/username.

its all dark, nobody should use that format

> TikTok has a very dark side that you see from time to time

Its all social media, you don't need to single one out. Twitter is just as bad, Instagram is just as bad. Facebook used to be just as bad when it was popular.

I want to agree… but I’ve seen some truly insane stuff coming out of tik tok. Maybe it just seems worse because these people are “face to face” with us in most cases, vs Twitter it’s just “some crazy writing 120 characters.”

And yet somehow kiwi farms was the one cloudflare decided to take down. Still amusing.

I was about to say that a fool who believe in their own foolishness is more dangerous than a lying crook but then we have Alex Jones, a lying crook who’s at least as dangerous as that delusional and heartless psychic.

Seems that suing these people and hurting them financially is the only available tool to combat them.

While it’s not a popular view in some circles, I do believe that platforms should be held some responsibility for aiding in the promotion of these dangerous liars as they profit directly (ads) and indirectly (user engagement) from them.

Filing is here,

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23528145/scofield-v-g...

It's interesting that the slanderer came to these conclusions as a result of Tarot. I've been seeing a weird resurgence of Tarot recently.

Did they foresee the lawsuit?

Hopefully the damages granted are substantial enough to be a warning to others producing that kind of content. A short jail term would have been a much more stronger lesson but I doubt that will happen.

The TikToker Ashley Guillard is a 'psychic'.

Some of her videos can be seen here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDqrLJ-N6LU

I've wondered if monetization of libel and slander lawsuits could be a business for social media firms. Provide tools and legal support for users who want to sue other users.

I think I would be less likely to use a social media site if its operator was trying to convince other users to sue me as part of a monetization strategy.

Probably not. The average person doesn't have the money to fund a lawsuit, and the average defendant doesn't have the money to pay a judgement, so it's hard to see how you scale it up beyond onesie twosies lawsuits. Also the people that have that kind of money generally have lawyers already so don't need those services. And finally I just don't see from a PR perspective, social media companies evicting families from their houses so the house can be sold at auction to fund a judgement because one person said something mean about another on the platform.

It would be the libel/slander equivalent of copyright trolling. That works by just legally extorting a few thousand dollars per target, under the threat of much larger penalties if they are forced to go to court.

There's no copyright equivalent of a SLAPP motion, so things would likely go very different than copyright trolling and result in your being held liable for a lot of defendants attorney fees.

That's before even considering that anyone claiming they've been defamed would likely qualify as a public figure, or limit-public figure, so the bar would be very high.

Defeating a SLAPP motion is not hard, if you actually have anything resembling a case. So the question is: how common are actually libelous statements on social media? I suspect they are quite common.

Would most targets qualify as public figures? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Remember, the point of this is not to quash public criticism of the powerful, it's to extract money. There is no need for the purported victim to be a public figure.

I had the same idea. If you get attacked by a social media mob of 100 people, hit back and demand, say, $10K from each person. Some people would pay to avoid being unmasked.

> I've wondered if monetization of libel and slander lawsuits could be a business for social media firms.

If it didn't forfeit § 230 protection, monetizing on-platform defamation would certainly undercut the political basis for that protection.

And without § 230, the platform would be liable (and, as a big pockets defendant, the most likely lawsuit target) for any on-platform defamation.

Devin Nunes approves.

Twitter spent their own legal resources on an (indirect) defense of that anonymous user. Likely cost them a nontrivial amount of money.

https://www.techdirt.com/2019/09/13/twitter-stands-up-devin-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com