5 ms·

While I agree you shouldn't be able to sue service providers, I think it is different because Twitter and Facebook recommend things for you to read and amplify

While I agree you shouldn't be able to sue service providers, I think it is different because Twitter and Facebook recommend things for you to read and amplify the message. The recommendation/amplification aspect is what needs liability.

roywiggins 6y ago
What about bookstores? They make recommendations too. Imagine if every used bookstore had to send every book they resold to a lawyer to make sure it didn't defame anyone.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  If a bookstore promoted a libelous book to millions of people, then yeah, I'd expect them to be as liable as the publisher and author.
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    They absolutely aren't treated the same as publishers: "Thus, newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters are liable for republication of libel or slander because they have editorial control over their communications. On the other hand, bookstores, libraries, and other distributors of material are liable for republication only if they know, or had reason to know, that the statement is defamatory." https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law/libel-and-slander https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law... In other words: they aren't expected to have actually read every word of every book they sell. Publishers, newspapers, etc, are. But if a book defames me on page 154, the law doesn't hold the bookstore responsible unless it knew. Once it does know, you could probably sue. But that's not the same as treating it like a publisher- it's a different standard.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    In brief searching I could not find a case where this was true. I don't think bookstores have a duty to read and fact check every book they sell in order to insure that no third party is damaged. It appears to me that they have a duty to the whomever they bought the books with to adhere to whatever contract they signed and a duty to the buyer to provide what the buyer paid for in terms of it actually being Stephen King's IT and not for example the result of their cat walking over their keyboard printed on 597 pages. It doesn't appear that they even have a duty to the buyer for it to be a good and useful work. The duty you want to imagine is real would seem to be impossible to reasonably provide because the cost of paying out every time they were wrong would mean books would all cost $500 and in turn the book stores would all shut down. The only viable way to sell books would be to run a website overseas in a less insane jurisdiction selling epubs. If you wanted to take it to the next level and enforce liability for anything that goes over the wire you could just give up 99.9% of content in the universe?
- tt433 6y ago
  You can wager that the human involved with book recommendations will do a better job than an algorithm trying to show you metaphorical train derailments or car accidents 24/7
anfilt 6y ago
but where do you draw the line? Does a search engine count?
- postmeta 6y ago
  maybe we could have a system where if the company is open source/transparent with their recommendation engine and data they are free from liability, but if they profit off the recommendation/notification content they are liable. profit motive for recommendation/amplification is probably what damages humans at scale
panarky 6y ago
If 60 Minutes interviews the US President, and the US President says that a pandemic is not dangerous, and viewers rely on that statement to the detriment of their respiratory systems, should the injured viewers or their estates be able to sue 60 Minutes for amplifying the US President's untrue and harmful statements?
- robomartin 6y ago
  No. They are, quite literally, reporting the truth. They are reporting EXACTLY what the president said. It isn't their job --at least not what I think the job the US Constitution should protect-- to create their own version of what he said, embellish it or modify it in any way, in support or opposition. I don't want news anchors to creatively interpret reality for me. I want facts. The interpretation is mine, not theirs. Most of them are politically biased liars.
  - postmeta 6y ago
    profit motive for recommendation/amplification is probably what damages humans at scale
  - panarky 6y ago
    Is it acceptable for 60 Minutes to choose who they put on their show? If, in their judgement, the US President is saying something that is false or dangerous, are they within their rights to say so, or to decline to broadcast that segment at all?

roywiggins 6y ago

What about bookstores? They make recommendations too. Imagine if every used bookstore had to send every book they resold to a lawyer to make sure it didn't defame anyone.

nitrogen 6y ago
If a bookstore promoted a libelous book to millions of people, then yeah, I'd expect them to be as liable as the publisher and author.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  They absolutely aren't treated the same as publishers: "Thus, newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters are liable for republication of libel or slander because they have editorial control over their communications. On the other hand, bookstores, libraries, and other distributors of material are liable for republication only if they know, or had reason to know, that the statement is defamatory." https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law/libel-and-slander https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law... In other words: they aren't expected to have actually read every word of every book they sell. Publishers, newspapers, etc, are. But if a book defames me on page 154, the law doesn't hold the bookstore responsible unless it knew. Once it does know, you could probably sue. But that's not the same as treating it like a publisher- it's a different standard.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  In brief searching I could not find a case where this was true. I don't think bookstores have a duty to read and fact check every book they sell in order to insure that no third party is damaged. It appears to me that they have a duty to the whomever they bought the books with to adhere to whatever contract they signed and a duty to the buyer to provide what the buyer paid for in terms of it actually being Stephen King's IT and not for example the result of their cat walking over their keyboard printed on 597 pages. It doesn't appear that they even have a duty to the buyer for it to be a good and useful work. The duty you want to imagine is real would seem to be impossible to reasonably provide because the cost of paying out every time they were wrong would mean books would all cost $500 and in turn the book stores would all shut down. The only viable way to sell books would be to run a website overseas in a less insane jurisdiction selling epubs. If you wanted to take it to the next level and enforce liability for anything that goes over the wire you could just give up 99.9% of content in the universe?
tt433 6y ago
You can wager that the human involved with book recommendations will do a better job than an algorithm trying to show you metaphorical train derailments or car accidents 24/7

anfilt 6y ago

but where do you draw the line? Does a search engine count?

postmeta 6y ago
maybe we could have a system where if the company is open source/transparent with their recommendation engine and data they are free from liability, but if they profit off the recommendation/notification content they are liable. profit motive for recommendation/amplification is probably what damages humans at scale

panarky 6y ago

If 60 Minutes interviews the US President, and the US President says that a pandemic is not dangerous, and viewers rely on that statement to the detriment of their respiratory systems, should the injured viewers or their estates be able to sue 60 Minutes for amplifying the US President's untrue and harmful statements?

robomartin 6y ago
No. They are, quite literally, reporting the truth. They are reporting EXACTLY what the president said. It isn't their job --at least not what I think the job the US Constitution should protect-- to create their own version of what he said, embellish it or modify it in any way, in support or opposition. I don't want news anchors to creatively interpret reality for me. I want facts. The interpretation is mine, not theirs. Most of them are politically biased liars.
- postmeta 6y ago
  profit motive for recommendation/amplification is probably what damages humans at scale
- panarky 6y ago
  Is it acceptable for 60 Minutes to choose who they put on their show? If, in their judgement, the US President is saying something that is false or dangerous, are they within their rights to say so, or to decline to broadcast that segment at all?