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
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 23 2024, @10:53PM
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 2024, @01:18AM (65 children)
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 2024, @02:46AM (60 children)
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 2024, @03:48AM (28 children)
(Score: 2) by quietus on Sunday March 24 2024, @06:25AM (11 children)
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 2024, @07:48AM (10 children)
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 2024, @08:33PM (9 children)
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 2024, @10:13PM (8 children)
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 2024, @10:52PM (7 children)
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 2024, @11:29PM (5 children)
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 2024, @12:08AM (4 children)
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 2024, @12:20AM (3 children)
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 2024, @01:13AM (2 children)
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 2024, @05:09AM (1 child)
Of course. You should too. Consider the narrative:
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:
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.
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.
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 2024, @06:36AM
Oh, wow, much nice, so narratives!
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".
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
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 2024, @12:09AM
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Mykl on Sunday March 24 2024, @10:10PM (1 child)
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 2024, @10:16PM
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 2024, @10:49PM (13 children)
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 2024, @12:23AM (5 children)
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 2024, @12:44AM (4 children)
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.
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 2024, @05:22AM (3 children)
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 2024, @06:50AM (2 children)
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 2024, @11:18AM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25 2024, @11:49AM
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.
I invite you to read TFAs again. Here's a selection of I found relevant
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 2024, @12:31AM (6 children)
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 2024, @01:17AM (5 children)
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 2024, @01:30AM (4 children)
Totally irrelevant to this case.
toodles :-)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25 2024, @02:19AM (3 children)
"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 2024, @03:19AM (1 child)
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 2024, @05:13AM
Remember where all this started? With my
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 2024, @05:26AM
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 24 2024, @04:16AM (1 child)
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: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 24 2024, @06:10AM
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 24 2024, @11:03PM (28 children)
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 2024, @12:17AM (20 children)
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 2024, @12:33AM (19 children)
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 2024, @12:39AM (3 children)
The court of laws has no business in violating the First Amendment.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25 2024, @01:02AM (2 children)
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 2024, @05:28AM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25 2024, @06:40AM
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 2024, @12:54AM (14 children)
:-) 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 2024, @01:22AM (13 children)
IANAL. Are you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2024, @01:25AM (12 children)
Don't have to be. I said the only just solution. Justice, not law
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25 2024, @02:00AM (11 children)
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 2024, @02:42AM (10 children)
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 2024, @02:47AM (9 children)
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 2024, @03:02AM (8 children)
Now what? Nothing. You are welcome to your opinion, but not to censor anybody.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25 2024, @03:49AM (7 children)
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 2024, @04:02AM (6 children)
I'm not blocking access to anything, but censorship shall not be permitted, ever. The lawsuit is a fraud.
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 2024, @04:09AM (5 children)
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 2024, @05:31AM (3 children)
The AC is still right though.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 25 2024, @06:43AM (2 children)
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 2024, @11:07AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 26 2024, @07:31PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2024, @07:49PM
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 2024, @12:22AM (6 children)
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 2024, @12:58AM (5 children)
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.
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 2024, @01:21AM (4 children)
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.
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 2024, @01:48AM (3 children)
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"?
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 2024, @03:10AM (2 children)
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 2024, @03:43AM (1 child)
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 2024, @04:05AM
Then we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.
(Score: 2) by Spamalope on Sunday March 24 2024, @04:24PM (1 child)
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 2024, @11:09PM
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 2024, @04:10PM (1 child)
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.
Don't put a mindless tool of corporations in the white house; vote ChatGPT for 2024!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 25 2024, @08:50PM
*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 2024, @01:01AM (6 children)
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 2024, @02:07AM (3 children)
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 2024, @02:36AM (2 children)
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 2024, @05:03AM (1 child)
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:
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 2024, @07:31PM
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 2024, @11:38PM (1 child)
> 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 2024, @11:51PM
Yes, and I agree, the parents are responsible for their children, and when in school, the staff is responsible, not "social media"