5 ms·

Why can't Nancy Pelosi sue facebook for $100 billion for allowing a doctored video about her to spread? They can't use the Napster defense of "we're only a plat

Why can't Nancy Pelosi sue facebook for $100 billion for allowing a doctored video about her to spread? They can't use the Napster defense of "we're only a platform."

Despegar 7y ago
Yes they can. Section 230 immunizes them from liability and allows them to moderate (or not) as they please.
kbrwn 7y ago
$1.5 million reasons why she doesn't sue: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000033563&cycle=2016 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000033563&cy...
- MaxLeiter 7y ago
  https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000033563&cycle=2016 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000033563... $16,450 to her in particular for those interested
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
azangru 7y ago
I am confused. Facebook is a person-to-person(s) interaction. If someone wants to show their followers a doctored video, why should Facebook prevent it? (The other day, someone on Reddit reminded that in Russia it’s illegal to repost the Putin gay clown meme [1]. And of course there is the famous Chinese ban of Winnie-the-Pooh images. Is this in any way worse than removing the doctored video of Nancy Pelosi would have been?) [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/04/05/its-now-illegal-in-russia-to-share-an-image-of-putin-as-a-gay-clown/?utm_term=.e0c202192e35 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/04/05...
- frequentnapper 7y ago
  There's a difference between satire and downright slander if the viewers can't tell the difference if something is doctored.
  - Macross8299 7y ago
    An average facebook user being able to ascertain the authenticity of something is a very poor barometer for its authenticity or legality. Average FB user probably couldn't tell you if Panama papers were authentic or not, so should those be banned from dissemination as "fake news"? Plenty of people would like to make those go away as slander, I'm sure.
    - sockpuppet999 7y ago
      Please. Don't fall into the trap of underestimating others intelligence. Even that typical Facebook user from another state has valid reasons and thier opinion or values are no better than my( or Yours) I'm not trying to argue one bit okay? But how exactly do you know the Panama papers are legitimate? Do you have an inside source or did you hear about this issue the same way I did? I agree with you that it fits perfectly into my own world view and I caution you and myself to not take stuff like that as a golden source of true info. No matter how much I'd like to think it's all true, in this day and age one must be more careful about accepting sources of info as gods honest truth because there are folks out there who spend thier lives,fortunes and passions just to mislead or misinform allegedly informed ppl like me( and you)
  - sockpuppet999 7y ago
    Isn't it up to each viewer to determine the difference. Having some authority telling me what is or isn't real is not a world I'd choose the participate in. Let the user decide for themselves- one person's propaganda == another person's trusted source
    - frequentnapper 7y ago
      This is where intent comes in. That's why we have judges and courtrooms and laws against slander and libel. Because those things can do real harm.
tacosx 7y ago
They have a very strong defense thanks to the CDA and DMCA act which these large tech platforms wrote. They wrote themselves blanket immunity for nearly any type of content, in any type of context. https://www.copyrightcontentplatforms.com/2019/03/the-scope-of-cda-and-dmca-protection-for-online-services-continues-to-evolve/ https://www.copyrightcontentplatforms.com/2019/03/the-scope-...
- rlt 7y ago
  Facebook and Google didn't even exist when CDA and DMCA were passed.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

Why can't Nancy Pelosi sue facebook for $100 billion for allowing a doctored video about her to spread? They can't use the Napster defense of "we're only a platform."

Despegar 7y ago

Yes they can. Section 230 immunizes them from liability and allows them to moderate (or not) as they please.

kbrwn 7y ago

$1.5 million reasons why she doesn't sue: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000033563&cycle=2016 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000033563&cy...

MaxLeiter 7y ago
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000033563&cycle=2016 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000033563... $16,450 to her in particular for those interested
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

azangru 7y ago

I am confused. Facebook is a person-to-person(s) interaction. If someone wants to show their followers a doctored video, why should Facebook prevent it? (The other day, someone on Reddit reminded that in Russia it’s illegal to repost the Putin gay clown meme [1]. And of course there is the famous Chinese ban of Winnie-the-Pooh images. Is this in any way worse than removing the doctored video of Nancy Pelosi would have been?) [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/04/05/its-now-illegal-in-russia-to-share-an-image-of-putin-as-a-gay-clown/?utm_term=.e0c202192e35 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/04/05...

frequentnapper 7y ago
There's a difference between satire and downright slander if the viewers can't tell the difference if something is doctored.
- Macross8299 7y ago
  An average facebook user being able to ascertain the authenticity of something is a very poor barometer for its authenticity or legality. Average FB user probably couldn't tell you if Panama papers were authentic or not, so should those be banned from dissemination as "fake news"? Plenty of people would like to make those go away as slander, I'm sure.
  - sockpuppet999 7y ago
    Please. Don't fall into the trap of underestimating others intelligence. Even that typical Facebook user from another state has valid reasons and thier opinion or values are no better than my( or Yours) I'm not trying to argue one bit okay? But how exactly do you know the Panama papers are legitimate? Do you have an inside source or did you hear about this issue the same way I did? I agree with you that it fits perfectly into my own world view and I caution you and myself to not take stuff like that as a golden source of true info. No matter how much I'd like to think it's all true, in this day and age one must be more careful about accepting sources of info as gods honest truth because there are folks out there who spend thier lives,fortunes and passions just to mislead or misinform allegedly informed ppl like me( and you)
- sockpuppet999 7y ago
  Isn't it up to each viewer to determine the difference. Having some authority telling me what is or isn't real is not a world I'd choose the participate in. Let the user decide for themselves- one person's propaganda == another person's trusted source
  - frequentnapper 7y ago
    This is where intent comes in. That's why we have judges and courtrooms and laws against slander and libel. Because those things can do real harm.

tacosx 7y ago

They have a very strong defense thanks to the CDA and DMCA act which these large tech platforms wrote. They wrote themselves blanket immunity for nearly any type of content, in any type of context. https://www.copyrightcontentplatforms.com/2019/03/the-scope-of-cda-and-dmca-protection-for-online-services-continues-to-evolve/ https://www.copyrightcontentplatforms.com/2019/03/the-scope-...

rlt 7y ago
Facebook and Google didn't even exist when CDA and DMCA were passed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]