Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by hubie on Saturday March 23, @10:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-analogous-price-of-digital-liberty dept.

TLDR**: families of the victims in Buffalo sued social media for providing a defective product that can damage the mental heath and radicalize some people. Defendants asked dismissal under the "we are only a public message board" Section 230, court says "naaah, mate, plaintiff pointed a compelling enough finger to your engagement algos which earn you the money. Those (civil) lawsuits may go ahead (and I'll keep my popcorn handy)".

YouTube, Facebook, Reddit must face lawsuits from Buffalo shooting survivors

The plaintiffs, who include family members of the victims and survivors of the shooting, argue that the platforms "negligently, defectively and harmfully designed 'products' that drove Gendron to the materials and they are therefore liable based on product liability theories."
...
Feroleto dismissed arguments brought by the social media companies that they served merely as message boards for third-party content. The defendants argue that as such, they are not liable under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act or the First Amendment.

"The Court has determined the complaint sufficiently pleads viable causes of action to go forward at this stage of the litigation," the order states.

straight from the legal-horse's mouth (i.e. the court order, the "verdict" as it comes)

The defendants contend that no matter how the plaintiffs frame their complaint the only conceivable actionable activity of the defendants is the hosting of third-party content on their platforms. If that is the case, even plaintiffs would acknowledge the third-party content would make the defendants immune from suit due to the CDA. However, plaintiffs contend the defendants' platforms are more than just message boards containing third-party content. They allege they are sophisticated products designed to be addictive to young users and they specifically directed Gendron to further platforms or postings that indoctrinated him with "white replacement theory."

[...] Specifically defendants point to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 ("CDA" or § 230 ) as requiring dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint... In New York, the Court of Appeals followed other Courts interpretations of the CDA in Shiamili v. Real Estate Group of New York,
Inc. (17 NY3d 281 [2011]). The Court found determining immunity from state law liability under Section 230 of the CDA requires the Court to take into consideration, "if (1) [defendant] is a provider or user of an interactive computer service; (2) the complaint seeks to hold the defendant liable as a publisher or speaker; and (3) the action is based on information given by another information content provider" (Shiamili at 286-287).

On the other hand, plaintiffs contend the defendants platforms should be considered "products" which makes Section 230 irrelevant. Under that premise, what constitutes a product under New York law is not confined to tangible chattels... The Court of Appeals also emphasized the following factors in determining whether an item is a product: (1) a defendant's control over the design and standardization of the product, (2) the party responsible for placing the product into the stream of commerce and deriving a financial benefit, and (3) a party's superior ability to know—and warn about—the dangers inherent in the product's reasonably foreseeable uses or misuses.
...
Many of the social media/internet defendants have attempted to establish that their platforms are mere message boards and/or do not contain algorithms subjecting them to the protections of the CDA and/or First Amendment. This may ultimately prove true. In addition, some defendants may yet establish that their platforms are not products or that the negligent design features plaintiffs have alleged are not part of their platforms. However, at this stage of the litigation the Court must base its ruling on the allegations of the complaint and not "facts" asserted by the defendants in their briefs or during oral argument and those allegations allege viable causes of action under a products liability theory.

** the TLDR as I understood the stuff, I'm offering no warranties


Original Submission

This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23, @10:53PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23, @10:53PM (#1350017)

    These cases against social media are obviously in addition to the criminal cases (NY and Federal) against Gendron. I see the news items but don't pay close attention, there may also be movement to sue his parents who could have kept better track of his activity? It's going to be a long process, for example, at least at one point the Feds were going for death penalty, while NY doesn't have that option.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24, @01:18AM (65 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24, @01:18AM (#1350027)

    This is such bullshit. All lawsuits against "social media" need to be dismissed with extreme prejudice! Here, we have free speech law that is supposed to stop all censorship, but it has been rendered toothless by corrupt judges.

    I hope some day we can create a fully accessible, truly indelible internet, beyond the reach of all the world's authoritarians

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Hauke on Sunday March 24, @02:46AM (60 children)

      by Hauke (5186) on Sunday March 24, @02:46AM (#1350041)

      Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/1357/ [xkcd.com]

      In other words, I am not the government. If I host a site and you post something that I don't like, there is no law saying I have to leave it up.

      Cheers!

      --
      TANSTAAFL
      • (Score: 4, Touché) by khallow on Sunday March 24, @03:48AM (28 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 24, @03:48AM (#1350047) Journal
        The court above is the government. And if hosting speech makes your forum liable for Orwellian speechcrime by you, then XKCD's argument no longer applies. It's not a provider showing you the door, it's government showing you the door.
        • (Score: 2) by quietus on Sunday March 24, @06:25AM (11 children)

          by quietus (6328) on Sunday March 24, @06:25AM (#1350074) Journal

          Or, in other words, the government -- any government really -- is a suppressing authority which has nothing to do with society.

          I thought -- like Hauke -- you had civics classes in the United States: you know, for the people, by the people. Don't you?

          • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Sunday March 24, @07:48AM (10 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 24, @07:48AM (#1350078) Journal

            Or, in other words, the government -- any government really -- is a suppressing authority which has nothing to do with society.

            In other words, you choose to make an argument no one in this thread made. There's a huge difference between a private entity censoring speech on a forum owned and operated by the private entity and censorship by a powerful government via proxy private entities. In the first case, one can always go to another forum with different rules and preferences. In the case of government-caused censorship, one has to go beyond the government's influence to speak.

            Consider this. You've frequently posted stories from Meduza.io. Imagine if they couldn't find anyone to host their content because of fear of lawsuits? It's one thing if Meduza's ISP drops you because the owner is a Putin fan. They can at least find a new home - maybe even cover the cost of the move with a lawsuit on said owner, say if a contract is breached. But it's far more legally defensible to get out of a contract that can reasonably be expected to get you sued.

            Here, one of the obvious consequences of this lawsuit would be a strong, global discouragement of emotionally unstable people (and/or Internet Tough Guys) just because they might poise a legal risk to anyone in the public forum business.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24, @08:33PM (9 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24, @08:33PM (#1350124)

              A service provider should never be allowed to choose its customers as long as they can pay for the connection. If anything we should demanding that all ISPs be a dumbpipe that offers filtering services for a fee. Content providers are free to do as they please.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 24, @10:13PM (8 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 24, @10:13PM (#1350137) Journal

                A service provider should never be allowed to choose its customers as long as they can pay for the connection.

                Here, it's not even that. They're just getting sued for who chose to use its connection.

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 24, @10:52PM (7 children)

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 24, @10:52PM (#1350143) Journal

                  Here, it's not even that. They're just getting sued for who chose to use its connection.

                  Incorrect. Go read again the "(3) a party's superior ability to know—and warn about—the dangers inherent in the product's reasonably foreseeable uses or misuses."

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24, @11:29PM (5 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24, @11:29PM (#1350150)

                    Well damn! We should definitely be able to sue publishers of the bible and koran then...

                    Whatever, we're only encountering another attempt at censorship which has to be crushed by any means necessary

                    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @12:08AM (4 children)

                      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @12:08AM (#1350156) Journal

                      We should definitely be able to sue publishers of the bible and koran then...

                      Should? But you are already able, right now.
                      Build you case showing harm to you or your family (to have a standing) and the responsibility of the editors/publishers, then go for it.

                      --
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 25, @12:20AM (3 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @12:20AM (#1350161) Journal

                        Build you case showing harm to you or your family (to have a standing) and the responsibility of the editors/publishers, then go for it.

                        Same goes for the civil trial above. I'm disappointed it hasn't been rejected already. Show harm, then we have something to talk about.

                        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @01:13AM (2 children)

                          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @01:13AM (#1350180) Journal

                          Build you case showing harm to you or your family (to have a standing) and the responsibility of the editors/publishers, then go for it.

                          Same goes for the civil trial above.

                          Do you deny that is exactly what is happening in this very civil trial above?
                          The families of the deceased (being harmed by the homicide) are alleging part of responsibility to publishers, who made use of their recommendation algos without warning of potential harm to its users, in a service they provide to public under terms that make it a "product" in the jurisdiction they are living (and sue).

                          The judge said "I can't refute their argument as compelling, the final settlement of the matter is above my pay grade, let the suit travel up the the appropriate level of competence. I will not dismiss the case"

                          --
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 25, @05:09AM (1 child)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @05:09AM (#1350218) Journal

                            [c0lo:] Build you case showing harm to you or your family (to have a standing) and the responsibility of the editors/publishers, then go for it.

                            [khallow:] Same goes for the civil trial above.

                            [c0lo:] Do you deny that is exactly what is happening in this very civil trial above?

                            Of course. You should too. Consider the narrative:

                            The families of the deceased (being harmed by the homicide) are alleging part of responsibility to publishers, who made use of their recommendation algos without warning of potential harm to its users, in a service they provide to public under terms that make it a "product" in the jurisdiction they are living (and sue).

                            There's several ridiculous features to this claim. First, no standing. The deceased weren't shot by social media. Instead, it's a weird narrative of the actual user, the shooter somehow being harmed by social media and then shooting the victims because of that harm.

                            Moving on, the indiscriminate spray [thehill.com] of lawsuits against so many targets indicates that the plaintiffs aren't focusing on companies that actually caused harm, but rather just seeking money-laden targets:

                            The families of the victims in the Buffalo supermarket shooting from last May have sued more than half a dozen Big Tech companies alleging that they gave the shooter a platform to take in racist and violent views before committing the shooting.

                            Diona Patterson, Barbara Mapps and Shawanda Rogers, whose loved ones were killed in the shooting, and survivor Latisha Rogers filed the lawsuit in New York Supreme Court in Erie County on Friday against social media companies like Meta, Facebook’s parent company; Snap, Inc., which runs Snapchat; Discord; Amazon, which owns Twitch; and Reddit.

                            The lawsuit also names Google, the dark web messaging site 4chan, the body armor company RMA Armament, the firearm company Vintage Firearms and the shooter’s parents.

                            There's a reason the news stories keep saying "sued social media". Because they got a large swath of it in the lawsuit. There's no way they have evidence that everyone on that list is doing the steer people to radicalization thing which is somehow alleged to be the source of harm (if I read the stories correctly).

                            Then the alleged remedy: "without warning of potential harm to its users". As I noted above, there's no evidence of actual harm. But consider the remedy itself. Even if we were to suppose that there is genuine risk to users of pretty generic social media products from radicalization how does warning boilerplate do anything useful about that risk? One of the big things missed here is that official warnings routinely help legitimize the radical message. For a Godwin example, the Nazi party of Germany used the evidence of trials and lawsuits (for defamation, hate speech, even assault and murder) to claim with considerable success that their movement was being suppressed by the establishment (and their Jewish masters, of course).

                            This is especially pernicious because these radicalization detection tools routinely get misused for government suppression of dissent. For example, Twitter and Facebook were suppressing conspiracy theories about the origins of the covid virus allegedly in a Chinese lab. Well, now US government agencies are echoing [soylentnews.org] those concerns (I can find more recent stuff if there is interest). False positive suppression of speech on these grounds (which would be the same tools for finding radicalization messages to warn about) lends credibility to anything subject to the same.

                            The judge said "I can't refute their argument as compelling, the final settlement of the matter is above my pay grade, let the suit travel up the the appropriate level of competence. I will not dismiss the case"

                            If so, he shouldn't be a judge. It should be a simple matter to go through that list and the alleged claims against each entry, and toss out the ones (almost all the list to be honest) that are nonsense. Maybe even throw it out entirely and force them to redo a more serious list. I don't think that is at all too harsh. If the plaintiffs don't like the ruling, then they can appeal to the higher pay grade themselves.

                            Finally, I want to make a point about radicalization. This narrative of the lawsuit presents it as a somehow "vulnerable" person just doing stuff on the internet, the behavioral algorithms somehow detect that the person is "vulnerable" and steer them towards bad guy communication, and the person becomes more radicalized. What's missed with this is that such people seek out this material and seek to be radicalized. It's their need. They won't be dissuaded by warning messages.

                            This is a flaw of democratic societies: free people occasionally do bad or stupid speech. Democracy or the capability to prevent people from saying the stuff you don't like: choose one.

                            Until social media companies redesign their products to prioritize community safety over advertising revenue, teenagers like Gendron will continue to be radicalized on their platforms and the endless cycle of racist and antisemitic carnage pulverizing our society will continue unabated

                            This reminds me of a poster I read in my workplace which baldly stated "Safety never hurt no one." But in reality, it's easy for intentions not to meet expectations even in work environments. Efforts to fix one type of safety problem can exacerbate another. What makes it work well enough is that it's a continuous process not a one time thing. If people are tripping over the oil rag safety can that you helpfully put out, you can always reorganize the workspace - often just a matter of a few minutes of effort. There is no similar corrective process for bad law or court rulings. That stuff sticks around. Here, the lawsuit doesn't meet any of the rational reasons for civil lawsuits: no standing, no harm, indiscriminate targeting, no reasonable way that the defendants could address the alleged problems, and enormous problems for society if we were to try to remedy the situation. It should be rejected outright. Instead considerable resources will be squandered on this.

                            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @06:36AM

                              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @06:36AM (#1350228) Journal

                              Oh, wow, much nice, so narratives!

                              The deceased weren't shot by social media.

                              Irrelevant. Other examples:
                              - the absence of mens rea does not automatically absolve one of responsibility of the harm caused by their actions and manslaughter. This needs to be decided on a court
                              - the absence of rules regarding a certain pollutant does not preclude harm to people living downstream being caused by that pollutant being discharged by a water treatment plant. No matter if the pollutant was created by someone or occurred by natural causes in special conditions.
                              Mind you, until now we were in the context of "do they have a standing?" not establishing the responsibility of whom is that harm. The families of the deceased did suffer a harm, they have a standing.

                              Now, while they may (or may be not) right of suing the publishers, they are entitled to search for remedies within the bounds of the laws, whether you like it or not. One judge denied her/his competency in determining whether or not they are right in suing the publishers, the judge just said "based on the law of the land, the case has merit, dig for the relevant facts and decide based on them".

                              There's no way they have evidence that everyone on that list is doing the steer people to radicalization thing which is somehow alleged to be the source of harm

                              The absence of evidence is not to be taken as the evidence of the absence without research.
                              You show me studies which say at least "we looked seriously and the hypothesis of radicalization by social media is undecidable" (if not outright refuted) and you may convince me.
                              Just keep in mind, even if you convince me or not, those families are still entitled to make allegation against the publishers until a law or legal precedent saying the contrary is established. And this:
                              - irrespective of their motivation - they do have the right to pursue their happiness and maybe this make them happier than without any remedy for the harm they incurred. I assert it is anyone opposing their action who has no standing.
                              - one expects that the law/legal precedent will take those studies (would they exist) into account with higher priority than just a narrative about a hypothetical harm from any restriction

                              This narrative of the lawsuit presents it as a somehow "vulnerable" person just doing stuff on the internet, the behavioral algorithms somehow detect that the person is "vulnerable" and steer them towards bad guy communication has an interest in bad guys communication so it steers her/him towards it in disregard whether or not the person is "vulnerable" or not

                              FTFY
                              As in my example about water treatment plant discharging yet-unknown pollutants, it doesn't mean there is no harm (even when not intended) or that a new behavior cannot be found for a better balance between the rights to ""Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" with the "right of free speech".

                              What makes it work well enough is that it's a continuous process not a one time thing.

                              And the action of those families cannot be a part of the process? Not like a process is something so fluid that one can't know when one stage ends and the next starts. So why you deny outright that the action of those families falls outside of the process?

                              It rather seems to me that your narrative is targeted against starting a "social media safety process" whatsoever.

                              --
                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 25, @12:09AM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @12:09AM (#1350157) Journal
                    I disagree of course. This can be said of any social media provider, even SN. I don't grant that "further radicalization" of "vulnerable people" is even a misuse of social media much less a reasonably foreseeable danger.
        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Mykl on Sunday March 24, @10:10PM (1 child)

          by Mykl (1112) on Sunday March 24, @10:10PM (#1350134)

          But the Social Media company isn't being held liable for hosting speech - it's being held liable for deliberately and actively directing a vulnerable person toward hosted speech that was liable to further radicalize them.

          If I were to start watching one or two Andrew Tate videos on YouTube, you can bet that the algorithm would continue to serve up more and more of them to me, until my entire feed was flooded with content of that type. If I were someone who was subject to influence (and most people are), I would start to subconsciously believe that most other people feel the same way. After all, these videos seem to make up the majority of YouTube content (from what I can see). This would further drive my reinforcement bias and potentially create a new Andrew Tate disciple. Alternatively, let's say that the algorithm does _not_ start recommending stuff to me based on what I've watched. My feed would then perhaps occasionally see a Tate video, but would also contain alternative viewpoints (along with cat videos and reposts of TikTok dances).

          • (Score: 2, Disagree) by khallow on Sunday March 24, @10:16PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 24, @10:16PM (#1350138) Journal

            But the Social Media company isn't being held liable for hosting speech - it's being held liable for deliberately and actively directing a vulnerable person toward hosted speech that was liable to further radicalize them.

            The complaint does sound pretty stupid when you word it that way. Even if they actually found a way to do so, and the person were further radicalized as a result, there's two things to observe: the vulnerable person chose that outcome, and second, unless the company is actively encouraging people to commit crimes, merely being further radicalized is not legally actionable.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 24, @10:49PM (13 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 24, @10:49PM (#1350142) Journal

          And if hosting speech makes your forum liable for Orwellian speechcrime by you

          You are making an argument nobody actually involved in the legal battle made.

          For one, it is a civil case (thus the state took no standing in it) and then it doesn't attack the act of hosting, but the act of promoting that speech in spite of knowing the dangers of doing so.

          Note: don't try the "no speech is ever dangerous" argument, I'll drop out of the discussion if you do.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 25, @12:23AM (5 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @12:23AM (#1350165) Journal

            For one, it is a civil case (thus the state took no standing in it) and then it doesn't attack the act of hosting, but the act of promoting that speech in spite of knowing the dangers of doing so.

            Civil cases are both allowed and limited by legislative law and heard in court. Here, the court didn't reject the case which is a poor sign.

            This case is incredibly flimsy and could be made of any public forum that has the bad luck of hosting the speech of someone who causes harm.

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @12:44AM (4 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @12:44AM (#1350171) Journal

              Civil cases are both allowed and limited by legislative law and heard in court. Here, the court didn't reject the case which is a poor sign.

              No disrespect meant or implied (this time... :grin:) but, when it comes to the matter of laws, between the opinion of a statistician and the opinion of a court of law, I prefer to choose the one of the court of law as the one more credible.

              This case is incredibly flimsy and could be made of any public forum that has the bad luck of hosting the speech of someone who causes harm.

              Incorrect. Any passive forum (i.e. one that do not use engagement algos and recommendations) is automatically protected by article 230 of the "Communications Decency Act of 1996"

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 25, @05:22AM (3 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @05:22AM (#1350220) Journal

                (i.e. one that do not use engagement algos and recommendations)

                That exception isn't relevant (or legally recognized for that matter). The lawsuit is on the basis of defective use of such algorithms. But not using such algorithms doesn't immunize you since the alleged danger is still there. I see it like handrails on a foot bridge or stairs. If the court rules that defective handrails are lawsuit-worthy, they won't rule less harshly for someone who didn't put handrails in.

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @06:50AM (2 children)

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @06:50AM (#1350232) Journal

                  The lawsuit is on the basis of defective use of such algorithms.

                  Says who? The court?

                  All I'm seeing is "The Social Media is provided in terms that made it a product based on the definition we use around here - the guys have standing. I will not decide if the product is indeed defective or not, go ahead with the original suit and determine based on whatever facts you discover"

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 25, @11:18AM (1 child)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @11:18AM (#1350244) Journal
                    How can the product be defective? What's the case for the discovery phase? The court says that those questions have been answered well enough to move the trial forward.
                    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @11:49AM

                      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @11:49AM (#1350247) Journal

                      How can the product be defective? What's the case for the discovery phase?

                      You surely are able to read and I trust you don't need an interpreter. If I'm wrong, please note I don't offer those kind of services.

                      The court says that those questions have been answered well enough to move the trial forward.

                      I invite you to read TFAs again. Here's a selection of I found relevant

                      However, at this stage of the litigation the Court must base its ruling on the allegations of the complaint and not "facts" asserted by the defendants in their briefs or during oral argument and those allegations allege viable causes of action under a products liability theory.

                      My understanding: the appeal to NY Supreme Court requesting the dismissal of the original case is denied, and so the original case may progress further.
                      But, by all means, feel free to discard my understanding and... ummm... do your own research :grin:

                      --
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @12:31AM (6 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @12:31AM (#1350166)

            Note: don't try the "no speech is ever dangerous" argument, I'll drop out of the discussion if you do.

            Then you may as well, because it's true. The burden is entirely on the audience to act out civilly, regardless what they see or hear on the internet. They can say what they want, what they do is different, and all responsibility is upon them not to cause harm to others by their actions

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @01:17AM (5 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @01:17AM (#1350181) Journal

              Then you may as well, because it's true.

              Shouting Fire in a crowded theater when there's no fire.

              And I'm out.

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @01:30AM (4 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @01:30AM (#1350187)

                Totally irrelevant to this case.

                toodles :-)

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @02:19AM (3 children)

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @02:19AM (#1350195) Journal

                  Shouting Fire in a crowded theater when there's no fire.

                  Totally irrelevant to this case.

                  "Would you sleep with me for $1M?"
                  "Yes"
                  "Fine. Here's $100"
                  "I'm not a whore"
                  "Oh, we are past that, my dear. You admitted there isn't an absolute right to free speech, we're now only haggling over where those limits should be"

                  See yea, mate.

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @03:19AM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @03:19AM (#1350207)

                    Wow, that's pretty far off base there, buddy. Sure wish you could be logical in these matters, and at least try to use a reasonable analogy. This case is about the internet. If I shout "FIRE!" on the internet, are you gonna run out of your house all naked and stuff in a panic and step on the dog? Sorry, your gag doesn't work here

                    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @05:13AM

                      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @05:13AM (#1350219) Journal

                      Wow, that's pretty far off base there, buddy.

                      Remember where all this started? With my

                      Note: don't try the "no speech is ever dangerous" argument

                      Either failed to take stock (or did you choose to ignore it?) that the context of my note does not use the "but on the internet" restriction, or you noted it and still went on a "switcheroo" path (aka "moving goal posts").

                      --
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 25, @05:26AM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @05:26AM (#1350221) Journal
                    That's a pretty sad argument. One could similarly rationalize murder in the streets because killing someone in self-defense is legal. Or the Bhopal accident (which killed 10k people) because emissions from a car tailpipe are allowed to have small levels of pollutants.
      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24, @04:16AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24, @04:16AM (#1350050)

        In other words, I am not the government.

        Then this isn't about you. Never was, it's about being forced to remove something by the authorities or anybody else. Why did you even step in here?

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 24, @11:03PM (28 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 24, @11:03PM (#1350145) Journal

        Exactly so. It's a case based on the civil law, no government in the picture.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 25, @12:17AM (20 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @12:17AM (#1350159) Journal

          It's a case based on the civil law

          In other words, it's a court case and thus, government is in the picture as that court system. And it's civil law which is created and interpreted by the legislature and court system. Thus, once again, government is in the picture.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @12:33AM (19 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @12:33AM (#1350167) Journal

            In other words, it's a court case and thus, government is in the picture as that court system.

            Is you argument that "The court of laws have no business in settling matters between private citizens, because then the state is involved through the judiciary, and this is a nono"?

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 25, @12:39AM (3 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @12:39AM (#1350170) Journal

              Is you argument that "The court of laws have no business in settling matters between private citizens, because then the state is involved through the judiciary, and this is a nono"?

              The court of laws has no business in violating the First Amendment.

              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @01:02AM (2 children)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @01:02AM (#1350177) Journal

                The court of laws has no business in violating the First Amendment.

                The same suggestion I just gave to an AC somewhere in this thread: feel free to show a standing, open your law case and go all the way to SCOTUS - I think this is how it was agreed to settle the law matters even in a non-amended Constitution

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 25, @05:28AM (1 child)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @05:28AM (#1350222) Journal
                  Why would I need to do that when I can just protest the policy publicly?
                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @06:40AM

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @06:40AM (#1350230) Journal

                    Fine with me. Good luck, you may need it.

                    --
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @12:54AM (14 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @12:54AM (#1350173)

              Is you argument that "The court of laws have no business in settling matters between private citizens

              :-) Please, let's try to stick to the matter at hand. In this case, the only just solution is immediate, complete dismissal. We should not allow one private group censor another any more than we should allow the government to do it. And matters between private citizens should stay between those private citizens. Subjecting third uninvolved parties to such a ruling is definitely a big nono

              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @01:22AM (13 children)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @01:22AM (#1350184) Journal

                In this case, the only just solution is immediate, complete dismissal.

                IANAL. Are you?

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @01:25AM (12 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @01:25AM (#1350186)

                  Don't have to be. I said the only just solution. Justice, not law

                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @02:00AM (11 children)

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @02:00AM (#1350192) Journal

                    Justice, not law

                    Oh, grow up. There's no such thing as Justice in absolute terms, your understanding of justice will be different to the understanding of the others.
                    This is why you need laws, they are the "compromise that compromises but makes a large society possible".

                    You can have a problem with how those laws are made and adhered or enforced and still be a connected to reality. But once you want to throw away the very concept of laws you fall on the "Father, forgive him, for he does not know what he is doing." spectrum (spans from "naively innocent" to "clinically diagnosed idiot")

                    --
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @02:42AM (10 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @02:42AM (#1350201)

                      There's no such thing as Justice in absolute terms

                      Didn't say there was, only that the only just solution to this case is immediate dismissal and all costs paid by the instigator. It is a frivolous lawsuit that is using unjust law that clearly violates our constitution. We should be allowed to jail the people that passed it

                      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @02:47AM (9 children)

                        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @02:47AM (#1350202) Journal

                        Your idea of justice clashes with my idea of justice in this very case. Now... what?

                        --
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @03:02AM (8 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @03:02AM (#1350204)

                          Now what? Nothing. You are welcome to your opinion, but not to censor anybody.

                          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @03:49AM (7 children)

                            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @03:49AM (#1350210) Journal

                            You are welcome to your opinion, but not to censor anybody.

                            Good.
                            I'd suggest you to refrain from blocking the access of those Bufallo, NY people who feel there could be a compromise solution which doesn't conflict with the right of free speech but may lower the frequency of radicalization by social media. I can see one, not perfect, but perhaps good enough.

                            --
                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @04:02AM (6 children)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @04:02AM (#1350214)

                              I'm not blocking access to anything, but censorship shall not be permitted, ever. The lawsuit is a fraud.

                              radicalization by social media

                              See, that right there is bullshit. You cannot blame social media for the choices people make, it bogus. Those Bufallo, NY people have to find another way.

                              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @04:09AM (5 children)

                                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @04:09AM (#1350216) Journal

                                Those Bufallo, NY people have to find another way.

                                Just so you won't be surprised in the near future: they'll go ahead for the now, in spite of your opinion; thus you'll have to deal with it on your side.

                                --
                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 25, @05:31AM (3 children)

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @05:31AM (#1350223) Journal

                                  Just so you won't be surprised in the near future: they'll go ahead for the now, in spite of your opinion; thus you'll have to deal with it on your side.

                                  The AC is still right though.

                                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @06:43AM (2 children)

                                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @06:43AM (#1350231) Journal

                                    Says khalllow.
                                    And c0lo says AC is not right.
                                    All 3 of them posting on the obscure S/N site.
                                    ...
                                    What a waste of time.

                                    --
                                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                                    • (Score: 1, Touché) by khallow on Monday March 25, @11:07AM (1 child)

                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @11:07AM (#1350242) Journal
                                      Sounds like you need to rethink your positions.
                                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 26, @07:31PM

                                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 26, @07:31PM (#1350475)
                                        try making a convincing argument.
                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @07:49PM

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @07:49PM (#1350318)

                                  thus you'll have to deal with it on your side.

                                  Yes, this is where the technology comes in. It is a work in progress. Then we can end this, as you say, "waste of time" once and for all.

                                  And if the case ends badly, there will be appeals.. so there's always that.

                                  This censorship campaign can only bring on a new dark age of tyrannical idiocracy. That is the direction we are heading.

        • (Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @12:22AM (6 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @12:22AM (#1350163)

          Where there is law, there is government. Civil law is on government books, enforced by government courts and government people with guns. Even if not a combatant it is a referee. All lawsuits over content are not worthy of consideration and must be dismissed out of hand with or without your "Section 230". The entire CDA should be completely repealed, it is in direction violation of the 1st Amendment that explicitly states that congress shall make no law. There is no right for one to censor another, only the undue authority.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @12:58AM (5 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @12:58AM (#1350174) Journal

            Where there is law, there is government governance.

            FTFY. And if you don't like it, try a society where the people didn't relinquish their right to live by whatever individual/personal "laws" they fancy, potentially changing their "personal laws" at their whim multiple times a day. My humble suggestion would be to give "A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear" a read before going there.

            The entire CDA should be completely repealed, it is in direction violation of the 1st Amendment that explicitly states that congress shall make no law

            Says an AC on an obscure forum somewhere on the Internet. I wonder if s/he's willing to start a revolution over it.
            Otherwise, s/he is free to go all the way up to SCOTUS (established by Article Three of the United States Constitution) to challenge it, as long as s/he has a standing.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @01:21AM (4 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @01:21AM (#1350183)

              What's this? More pedantry? It takes an organized and well financed government to write and enforce the law. Without government there is no law.

              I wonder if s/he's willing to start a revolution over it.

              Not while we can still vote for it, there's no need for violence, and I doubt anybody else would start one over free speech rights. And, since most people are very right wing, they probably won't vote for real free speech either, so really, only a truly fanciful yet to be invented technical solution can work in the meantime, a single person can come up with that, won't have to wait for the majority to come around. All the violence will come from the authoritarians trying to tear it down, then of course, all bets are off. Let's kill the CDA without them by making it irrelevant, render it toothless.

              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @01:48AM (3 children)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @01:48AM (#1350190) Journal

                What's this? More pedantry? It takes an organized and well financed government to write and enforce the law. Without government there is no law.

                Incorrect.And here's a counterexample to "no law w/o goverment": a contract is the law between two or more sides; they can agree to not involve the state in a dispute, but go to arbitration.

                Note: a single counterexample is what it takes to prove an absolute assertion wrong.

                ----

                Going on a tangent, in a hypothetical world governed exclusively by contracts, the existence of a Ferengi "Rules of Acquisition" codex may help with drafting such contracts and make the governance of business activity easier than without, but is not theoretically necessary (the price to pay for not using them is contracts that spans on thousands pages if they pretend to be bullet-proof)
                If one accepts the existence of the "Rules of acquisition" that governs the way to conduct business, the question becomes"Do you call government the ones that collect/put together/maintain those rules"?

                Let's kill the CDA without them by making it irrelevant, render it toothless.

                Oh, let's not. My vote against your vote.

                (note: I vote for Australian Parliaments, but I imagine there are many Americans who would say something on the line I used above).

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @03:10AM (2 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @03:10AM (#1350206)

                  There you go, Australia has very limited free speech rights. Our law is a bit better on that matter.

                  Like I said before, most people are very conservative and pro censorship. That is why only a (admittedly very difficult) technical solution can possibly defeat them. The law is an ass. Censorship is evil and unjust, even when the majority wants it.

                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25, @03:43AM (1 child)

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @03:43AM (#1350209) Journal

                    Our law is a bit better on that matter.

                    In my opinion, they are a lot worse. Fortunately, I could choose the destination when I took the decision to emigrate and pick Australia instead of US. Nowadays, I can get paid by an US corporation while working in a lot more sane environment.

                    --
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @04:05AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @04:05AM (#1350215)

                      In my opinion, they are a lot worse.

                      Then we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

    • (Score: 2) by Spamalope on Sunday March 24, @04:24PM (1 child)

      by Spamalope (5233) on Sunday March 24, @04:24PM (#1350107) Homepage

      Exactly! These social media companies are among the highest political contributors in the nation!!11!
      They cannot be guilty so long as those funds keep flowing!
      Only in games and on X can the algorithm radicalize people!
      /s
      I think the most likely thing is the case being used to create a record absolving mega donors no matter what (with bipartisan support).

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 24, @11:09PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 24, @11:09PM (#1350147) Journal

        I think the most likely thing is the case being used to create a record absolving mega donors no matter what (with bipartisan support).

        Exactly. I mean, it's not realistic that a bunch of private citizens would sue a private company based on the civil law - whenever is about free speech, it must be a political cabal. /s

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday March 25, @04:10PM (1 child)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 25, @04:10PM (#1350284) Journal

      This is such bullshit. All lawsuits against "social media" need to be dismissed with extreme prejudice! Here, we have free speech law that is supposed to stop all censorship, but it has been rendered toothless by corrupt judges.

      I hope some day we can create a fully accessible, truly indelible internet, beyond the reach of all the world's authoritarians

      You are free to say anything you want on your own platform! Just as you can get a soap box and stand on the street corner harassing people with hateful vile speech.

      Nobody else has to host it for you.

      Sadly, the 1st amendment does not force other people to have to listen. Or host it. But I suppose you can use the 2nd amendment to convince them.

      Some things are so vile that nobody on the planet will host it, or even interconnect with anyone else that hosts it.

      See: 8chan

      Most adults are able to express opinions of all sorts online without being censored or banned. Most adults understand that some people have differing opinions and are tolerant of that. But there are limits where platforms may choose to decline to host some content.

      --
      Since nobody defrags SSDs anymore, they are more (or less?) prone to failure of their seek mechanisms.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @08:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @08:50PM (#1350322)

        *sigh* you too, are misreading the case. It isn't about forcing someone to host your stuff, it's about being sued for hosting it and forcibly removing it by the courts. Like I said, it has to be dismissed with prejudice, and the entire CDA repealed. We can't allow lawsuits over content on the internet. Short of that we need better technology to stop the censors and trackers, and render the whole issue moot. That would be the "holy grail"

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @01:01AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @01:01AM (#1350176)

    The only defective product is the user. I think we should sue the parents, I mean, they supplied the defective DNA that made them stupid and radical

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @02:07AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @02:07AM (#1350193)

      I think we should sue the parents, I mean, they supplied the defective DNA that made them stupid and radical

      You're lucky this is completely idiotic, otherwise I'd tempted to sue your parents based on this very argument.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @02:36AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @02:36AM (#1350197)

        Why? It's just as logical as suing "social media". The internet doesn't make people stupid or violent any more than TV or video games do, which they don't. We have to be vigilant against all censorship.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @05:03AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @05:03AM (#1350217)

          The internet doesn't make people stupid or violent any more than TV or video games do, which they don't.

          Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
          For the time being, there's a lot of evidence that TV and videogames don't make people more stupid or violent, but amassing people on social media can lead to, among others:

          1. burning communication towers because COVID spreads over 5G,
          2. COVID vaccines is govt microchiping you
          3. spreading "stolen election" conspiracies and inciting riots on Capitol on Jan6

          So, maybe there is something special with the Internet?
          Correlation is not causation, but burying your head in the sand in spite of existing correlations is stupid.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @07:31PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @07:31PM (#1350316)

            So, maybe there is something special with the Internet?

            Nope, it's the people, doing what they have always done, just more of it, at a faster pace. This is just a campaign for censorship. Don't fall into the trap

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @11:38PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @11:38PM (#1350344)

      > I think we should sue the parents, ...

      As mentioned in the very first post, way up there just below tfa.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @11:51PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25, @11:51PM (#1350349)

        Yes, and I agree, the parents are responsible for their children, and when in school, the staff is responsible, not "social media"

(1)