6 ms·
Families of San Bernardino Shooting Sue Facebook, Google, Twitter
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- aub3bhat 9y agoWait not suing Apple? To clarify Apple refused to unlock the phone, thus I expected them to be a target of the lawsuit as well. Not saying they should have been sued or that this lawsuit has any merit.
- gruez 9y agoWhat did they do? All they did was refuse to unlock the perpetrator's phone. How do they have standing in that?
- chc4 9y agoIf they are sueing for allowing ISIS propaganda to be spread on Social Media, they might as well sue for not policing iMessage as well, I guess.
- misnome 9y agoThey enabled the perpetrator's planning and communications by supplying him the phone. I mean, they are just as culpable as Facebook, Google and Twitter... ...i.e. not at all, but a large and wealthy company to try and extort a settlement from.
- usaphp 9y agoBy this logic you can sue the clothing company that provided them with clothes during their felony
- finid 9y agoI think the guy was wearing underwear at the time, so Hanes? can be sued too.
- NeutronBoy 9y agoThat's pretty much the point the GP was trying to make.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y agoThere are all sorts of parallels between open Internet/encryption and the gun rights debate. It will be interesting to see how it all sorts out in the end. For example, in the future could we see a joint campaign by the NRA and the EFF?
- tonysdg 9y agoIronically relevant XKCD: https://www.xkcd.com/504/ https://www.xkcd.com/504/
- freditup 9y ago> [The lawsuit] asserts that by allowing Islamic State militants to spread propaganda freely on social media, the three companies provided "material support" to the group and enabled attacks such as the one in San Bernardino. > A number of lawsuits have been filed in recent years seeking to hold social media companies responsible for terror attacks, but none has advanced beyond the preliminary phases. Here's another recent example of this [0]. At first glance of the definition for material support [1], these lawsuits might seem (legally) reasonable. Luckily though, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act [2] makes these lawsuits fairly baseless. I can't imagine the consequences if social media providers were liable for all content posted on them... (Disclaimer: IANAL in the least) [0]: http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-lawsuits-social-media-terror-20170119-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-lawsuits... [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339A https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339A [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
- holly4 9y agoGood. It's high time. Misguided people are generally surrounded by misguided people. Therefore the like/retweet/view counters of their content over-amplifies whatever narrative is already in their heads. It's like watching a very badly trained neural network getting worse. They just don't have access to a good corrective mechanism. I hold Facebook, Youtube and Twitter responsible for training a whole bunch of people to value their reactions over their ability to think.
- meloss2 9y agoYou are going to get downvoted to hell here but you are right. The Indian Army just shutdown social media for a month in Kashmir. Not because they are scared of the cat videos, but they have no way to control the spread of misinformation (and subsequent violence) every time a terrorist attack happens. Lots of times its just a bunch of kids egging on a bunch of kids.
- cyberferret 9y agoYou know - initially my reaction was "You're crazy!", but then I thought - "You actually make a good point". Anecdotal case in point: I am really trying a self imposed exile from Twitter these days, especially in view of the current US political climate. If I go to a right centric Twitter stream, I am confronted with a deluge of hyperbole, rage, anger, memes, whatever. And it is EXACTLY the same if I visit a left centric stream too. Anyone who spends an inordinate amount of time in one or the other, can easily start to believe that what is within the respective bubble is the reality of the world. "If you gaze long enough into the abyss, then the abyss gazes into you..." I don't know what the solution is here. Perhaps social media companies have to be more hardline about cracking down on "fake news" and hate speech and cutting it off before it can spread? Not sure that is possible at all?!
- dntbgoat 9y agoThat's like suing the coffee shops for the revolution
- cloakandswagger 9y agoOr suing gun manufacturers for shoo-- https://www.rt.com/usa/369036-sandy-hook-gun-manufacturing-lawsuit/ https://www.rt.com/usa/369036-sandy-hook-gun-manufacturing-l... ..Oh
- thesmallestcat 9y agoI don't think it's a valid comparison. Not making a statement on the Sandy Hook suit's merit, but clearly the San Bernardino couple didn't shoot up the place with tweets and wall posts.
- post_break 9y agoNot a valid comparison? It's the exact comparison. What about suing the truck manufacturers when that terrorist ran over a bunch of people, or Boeing for 9/11, etc. Just because they are a manufacturer of firearms doesnt excuse them from this ideology.
- mter 9y agoThis is not a valid comparison because there is literally a federal law protecting gun manufacturers. There is not a similar law protecting twitter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_...
- reynoldsbd 9y agoLack of a federal law doesn't necessarily make that comparison invalid; perhaps there should even be an analogous law protecting "free speech platforms" that is rooted in the first amendment, similar to how the law you cite it ostensibly rooted in the second.
- wand3r 9y agoWow, horrifying. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt for such a tradgedy and the emotional stress and grief it causes; but this is illogical, dangerous and counterproductive. Terrorism seeks to change our way of life and sueing a company for providing a platform for[0] free speech (which those companies actually already curtail) will not only cause problems to this already slippery slope, but simply displace terrorists to less visible places. I hope this is not greed, because these companies are about as well funded as they are unconnected/innocent in this incident. [0] added "provide a platform for" free speech for clarity. Also, I am aware these platforms moderate, Facebook just committed to hiring 1400ish people to mod the site.
- ChairmanPao 9y agoThey should sue hacker news, too. I meet more pro-terrorist people here than anyplace else.
- jeancl 9y agoThere were quite a few comments about the dishonest culture of the Indian bodyshops on the Infosys thread yesterday. And today I wake up to an Uber criminal probe and Facebook, Google and Twitter getting sued. So as a student all I want to know, is how do I tell I am not working for the "let's do whatever it takes" assholes.
- calvinbhai 9y agoI'm wondering why not sue the ISPs and the utilities that provide electricity or the power generating nuclear reactors / coal power plants? Without any of these, it'd be impossible for ISIS to spread.
- gumby 9y agoI think we should sue the chemical companies for not polluting enough to kill off the shooters.
- finid 9y agoTerrorism seeks to change our way of life... That sounds like the "they attacked us because of our freedom". No, pal. Terrorists are pissed off because of what your govt is doing overseas. They're really not interested in your way of life or your freedom.
- camdenlock 9y agoThis is an incredibly narrow view of the situation. What you're describing is only one of several factors fueling the recent surge of violent Islamist attacks. This is why the consumption of a variety of sources of information on a topic coupled with the application of careful thought and reason is crucial. Dogma helps no one, particularly not when discussing this topic.
- phaus 9y agoDepends on the terrorist. Some organizations want to bring about the end of western influence in the middle east, some are delusional and think they will rule the world.
- finid 9y agoWe started this mess. Recall that we were told that after we get rid of Saddam, that Iraq will become a shinning example for the rest of the ME, and the world. That the guy was such a bad guy that the world will be a far better place without him.
- sien 9y agoThe mess was started a long time age when the Allies stuffed up the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement It is, of course, easy to be wise long after the event.
- pyre 9y ago... or when the Mongols brought about the end of the Golden Age of Islam. ;)
- bitmapbrother 9y agoYet another frivolous lawsuit in the land of the USA.
- kyledrake 9y agoSection 230, Communications Decency Act, no ISP is liable for what third parties do on their site. There's an intense amount of case law backing it up. This lawsuit will likely be dismissed before they even get to a court. It's amazing to me that people even still try. There's social media liability insurance you can get just incase someone tries to drag you into a frivolous lawsuit. The cases all get thrown out, but not before potentially $20-50k in legal bills. The insurance is really just there to cover the legal bills until the plaintiff pays it back after dismissal (which can take a while). If you run a hosting service or a small social network and don't have enough money to hire a staff lawyer, definitely check out getting some liability insurance to protect yourself from crap like this. It runs about $100/mo for a $5k deductible up to $1 million in coverage, but those numbers probably vary a lot.
- rdtsc 9y agoThat's an interesting one. It seems like it wouldn't work at first but then thinking about more maybe there is something there. These companies want to position themselves as the new media, the gatekeepers of "truth" so to speak. That's why they are pushing "Fake News" and moderating it, classifying it etc. It is basically a strategy to fill the void left by the older mass media companies, which are seen as failing an unable to manufacture consent effectively. So in a way they are signaling "Come to us now, we'll advertise your stuff and mark you competitors ideas as fake". It's a good move really. From a business standpoint, can't blame them there. I am trying to conduct a mental experiment and imagine what would happen if say CNN gave al-Baghdadi a few minutes here and there to express his views. Or letting the local KKK chapter air their ideas once in a while. Many would agree CNN then might be complicit in inciting violence for example and would share a bit of responsibility. So if these other companies what to play "gatekeepers of truth" game they should also be responsible too?