Nov 16, 2023·edited Nov 16, 2023Liked by Jackie Singh
Very good.
I've been targeted by trolls as many of us have, or even by people adjacent to my friends on social media who've been operationalized (sometimes unknowingly) by parroting online-harm operators talking point against others. When these incidents occur, specifically around political topics, IMO, this is a violation of our election process, even if the bad actors are themselves Americans. I believe if such attacks are coordinated by foreign entities like nation-state actors, this is indeed illegal (consider, arguably, the SCL / Cambridge Analytica incident and microtargeting to sway election outcomes for example). While we only cast our ballots for a brief period of time during elections, I believe our political discourse is continually ongoing, and is therefore legally prioritized as higher value speech. While this speech can get classically heated, I'd differentiate this from coordinated attacks with intent to harmfully sway a citizen vote a certain way. Intimidating a voter to cast a vote a certain way, is illegal after all. While we're not always in line to cast our vote, our political speech and discourse also ought to be prioritized under the law from such long-form attacks, intimidation, coercion.
Bravo to your contribution coining such an important term.
Very good.
I've been targeted by trolls as many of us have, or even by people adjacent to my friends on social media who've been operationalized (sometimes unknowingly) by parroting online-harm operators talking point against others. When these incidents occur, specifically around political topics, IMO, this is a violation of our election process, even if the bad actors are themselves Americans. I believe if such attacks are coordinated by foreign entities like nation-state actors, this is indeed illegal (consider, arguably, the SCL / Cambridge Analytica incident and microtargeting to sway election outcomes for example). While we only cast our ballots for a brief period of time during elections, I believe our political discourse is continually ongoing, and is therefore legally prioritized as higher value speech. While this speech can get classically heated, I'd differentiate this from coordinated attacks with intent to harmfully sway a citizen vote a certain way. Intimidating a voter to cast a vote a certain way, is illegal after all. While we're not always in line to cast our vote, our political speech and discourse also ought to be prioritized under the law from such long-form attacks, intimidation, coercion.
Bravo to your contribution coining such an important term.
SAAPP. I love it.
Thank you Jackie!