4 ms·
clearly the likelihood of harm to the OP is significant, but what's also clear is that many others are at risk. A frustrating dilemma indeed--a kind of damage
by doug1001 11y ago
clearly the likelihood of harm to the OP is significant, but what's also clear is that many others are at risk.
A frustrating dilemma indeed--a kind of damage caused through the fb platform, that presents the biggest risk to those without fb accounts, and the most obvious means of prevision is...to sign up for fb.
always enjoyed Mr Shaw's writing on technical subjects; deep practical wisdom, complete contempt for empty authority, and very dry humor--to wit (from the OP):
"Imagine if this person decided to start [p]osting offensive messages pretending to be me. [W]ell honestly I doubt this guy could do that better than me, but the point is, they could invent some form of slander that would ruin my book sales."
- pdkl95 11y ago> sign up for fb This is exactly the wrong way to deal with this problem. Like the term "identify theft" where liable party is the bank lending to someone without proper identity verification, this shift the responsibility to the victim. Currently, Mr Shaw (or anybody else in a similar situation) has no relationship with Facebook. From his perspective, Facebook simply stated to libel him. If he instead decided to play into Facebook's game and open an account, the disclaimers in Facebook's ToS probably limit his legal options. Facebook gains a significant legal advantage if you choose to fight by their rules.
- doug1001 11y agonot what i said or even suggested, i mentioned it as the most apparent solution, particularly given that fb (obviously) recommends this solution, as indeed they did not Jed Shaw.