Dan2016 said:
Cheers Hog, so that seems like a fair balance between free speech and protections against libel/slander.
It's good to know this stuff. I think there's quite a bit of self-censorship online out of fear of these things.
I am intrigued about the potential bot slander though, in the context of what I've learned from this thread, ie., real person paid bots, as well as intelligent bot programs. I think you're saying effective positive PR is the current antidote, which seems reasonable in our media-spin age, but I do wonder about it from a legal perspective. I think I'm just musing out load now really, not expecting you to directly address my musings, I can't think of any coherent questions to ask you.
I find the whole bot thing, fake news stories and it's implications an interesting modern phenomena.
Most bots just use a blocking teqnique, humans and computer driven bots. You can tell the computer driven bots as often the response doesn't follow the previous statment made. Bots go down the line of;
"Armstrong is a doper" -"there is no evidence, he raised over $500m for cancer research".
You see, total block, you can't move forward.
With Sky there has been a similar progression on the botting. It started with "There's no evidence", then in recent events it's gone to "no rules have been broken, it's a grey area", their block will just keep progression without the acknowledgement that the likelyhood of doping is extremely likely.
Especially now we know Brailsford and Sutton ran the entire sham on their own using alll the funds how ever they pleased. They also shut a lot of people up with fear and paid of just as many. Now the block is "we had a medalist attitude".
It's terms of libel, I've seen a fair amount of towards a few from human bots. Many became very obsessed by Digger and thought they had to take him down by any means. Most of them were rabid.