4 ms·
I see your point, and I don't necessarily disagree, but for whatever facilitate does actually mean, you'd still have to be a knowing participant in the matter.
by jstarfish 9y ago
I see your point, and I don't necessarily disagree, but for whatever facilitate does actually mean, you'd still have to be a knowing participant in the matter.
In this context, I can only speculate the language was added wrt the editing of specific ads. They weren't assisting in their publication, they weren't supporting their publication, but they did know what they were and made changes to...facilitate...those ads staying published and under the radar of authorities.
But I do see your point, and agree that it will likely be used for some unforeseen interpretation.
- rayiner 9y agoYou keep saying “participant.” The law basically removes the word “participation” by defining it to mean things other than what everyone would consider “participation.” You just have to be a knowing “facilitator.” Toyota can’t deny that it “knows” that it’s cars are used to “facilitate” drug deals. It’s not a “participant” in those drug deals, but the whole point of this law is to get rid of the “participation” requirement.
- ewrong 9y agoSurely there is still a distinction between knowing that people use your product to do bad things & knowing that specific people are doing specific bad things and continuing to allow it.
- cft 9y agoThe problem is that the cost to argue this legal distinction in a civil court could be in the $500,000 - $1,000,000 range. Fine for Facebook, deadly for your gaming or crypto forum provider.