4 ms·
So if I sent a note with the content you just described to everyone I know via UPS and you define this content as a crime, then UPS should be held liable in fac
by checker 6y ago
So if I sent a note with the content you just described to everyone I know via UPS and you define this content as a crime, then UPS should be held liable in facilitating this crime? So therefore UPS needs to inspect the content of every package that it delivers to avoid culpability in crimes like this?
Or somehow UPS is different from a social media entity. Then what legally is a social media entity?
These are interesting times. The rules will certainly change; it remains to be seen if they will ultimately change for the better.
- hartator 6y agoIf the UPS was already opening the mail of everyone to add its own pamphlets when you discuss x or y, yes they should be responsible for facilitating crime that they know of then.
- checker 6y agoInteresting, so the implication is that web companies are generating advertising from user-submitted content, therefore it's been read by the company, so therefore any cross-user communication needs to be reviewed by a person or a sufficiently accurate AI for endorsement through publication. So in your framework, transmission of user content + advertising based on that content = culpability. I wonder if social media companies would figure out a way to legally prove transmission of a message without viewing its contents as a way to avoid culpability and maintain some level of profitability.
- heavyset_go 6y agoThis is like suggesting that if you build a spam filter, you need to build a filter that scans content and catches and reports every type of crime possible to commit ever.