4 ms·
Counterpoint: I can't see how a speedometer overlay is anything except an attractive nuisance.
by spacemanmatt 5y ago
Counterpoint: I can't see how a speedometer overlay is anything except an attractive nuisance.
- sneak 5y agoWould you say the same thing for a GoPro?
- spacemanmatt 5y agoNo. Do you think that a GoPro somehow invites use in dangerous circumstances? (Yes, I do mean the GoPro itself, including its software, and I do mean to exclude GoPro's marketing collateral and all the UCC they didn't ask for from this analysis)
- okamiueru 5y agoShouldn't the counterpoint be how the driver somehow is no longer responsible for the vehicle? Which, is why it would be absurd for Snapchat to be accountable? To me, this seems no different than the driver claiming they aren't fault because "someone dared me to".
- colejohnson66 5y agoDoesn’t that just describe the majority of Snapchat filters?
- Sohcahtoa82 5y agoA filter that makes you look like a dog does not encourage dangerous behavior the way a speedometer overlay does.
- spacemanmatt 5y agoThe attractive nuisance doctrine applies to the law of torts in some jurisdictions. It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children. [Wikipedia] In my view, the driver is still liable (and that mustn't ever change) but Snapchat should have to prove to a judge that they shouldn't also be found liable.