7 ms·

What expertise in law do you have to make such a stunning conclusion about Facebook's liability? Is there any precedent for media companies being held liable ov

by Kranar 5y ago

What expertise in law do you have to make such a stunning conclusion about Facebook's liability? Is there any precedent for media companies being held liable over such a thing? Do you also understand that if it were true that Facebook could be held legally liable for what you're claiming, that it wouldn't matter if they admit it or not. Admission of liability or guilt is never a requirement to be awarded damages or subject to penalties in any circumstance. Is it your position that if someone produces content that causes depression, that they are liable for damages? Do you also extend this legal opinion you likely just made up and have no subject matter knowledge on to other forms of media or websites? Depressing music? Depressing novels? Depressing video games? Or is it only depressing social media websites that you feel are held to some kind of standard about depression?

zepto 5y ago
Generally, admitting that your product causes a medical problem makes it easy for people to sue you over it. You’re right that they could be sued even if they don’t admit it, but then they would have a defense which would be far weaker if they had already admitted it.
- Kranar 5y ago
  Okay, let's say I don't believe you and I have made a good faith effort to look into this subject and have found no evidence that anyone has ever been sued for causing depression, do you have any evidence or way to substantiate your claim and demonstrate to me that you are correct? I am aware of emotional distress lawsuits, but what's being claimed here is quite different. Do I have no choice but to take you at your word that you're right about what is a pretty big legal claim being made here. Are people just making up things about how the law works, or am I genuinely just very ignorant on this subject? In other words, can you cite the legal principal here, or precedent, or some kind of actual reference that shows some kind of informed discussion is taking place on this subject instead of a bunch of people making uninformed claims that sound appealing? From my uninformed point of view that I am happy to be challenged on, suing Facebook for causing depression makes about as much sense as suing McDonald's for obesity. There is no legal principal upon which one could successfully do so and while people have tried, they failed miserably [1] (as in the case was dismissed with prejudice, which is one of the worst outcomes). [1] https://money.cnn.com/2003/01/22/news/companies/mcdonalds/ https://money.cnn.com/2003/01/22/news/companies/mcdonalds/
  - open0 5y ago
    > From my uninformed point of view Due to the tone of your over-confident first post, initially I thought you were a lawyer on Facebook's payroll making a deceitful argument. You really think Facebook's lawyers would advise disclosing a link between Facebook usage and depression found in their internal studies? Do you really think that Facebook would even ever allow for that conclusion to be reached in this particular internal study? Come on.
    - oh_sigh 5y ago
      Those are different questions than what OP got at with "If they did admit a link it would open Facebook to unimaginable legal liability" Admitting to this fact could just be bad PR. Or bad for their growth and retention metrics, while not changing their legal liability.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - mdorazio 5y ago
    I would say your effort wasn't very high then. Keywords to search for are "Mental anguish" and "Emotional distress". "Depression" is not a thing you can really sue for, but mental harm associated with it definitely is.
    - Kranar 5y ago
      Given your response that you think emotional distress could in anyway be applicable here, I am fairly confident at this point that few people are properly informed to discuss the legality of this with the degree of certainty and authority that is being expressed. For one, as per White v. Monsanto [1] mental anguish and emotional distress requires "conduct that is heinous and beyond the standards of civilized decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society." I think at this point it's quite clear that people are just speaking from a very superficial understanding or outright just making things up about this topic but are doing so as if they are subject matter experts and while this is a open discussion forum and you can say whatever you want, I suppose I expected better. [1] https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=16203665367533693646&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=1620366536753369...
- Groxx 5y ago
  Especially true if you are holding evidence that you knew it caused medical problems, but ignored that evidence and continued doing stuff that made it worse because it makes more money. At that point you pretty much have to start bribing people to look away, like the cigarette industry is notorious for. Facebook has practically zero incentive to research damages they might be causing. Sure, they could do the ethically responsible thing and try to discover and mitigate issues... but if they were doing that, we wouldn't be at this state, would we?
  - decide 5y ago
    They have done causal research and they have hidden it from FBers asking for results of the study. Members from the well-being team tried to conduct research but was refused do to it because of “legal and PR” reasons. The well-being team was shut down. All this will come out in lawsuits if/when they happen. Likely through attorney generals and not individuals.

by Kranar 5y ago

zepto 5y ago

Generally, admitting that your product causes a medical problem makes it easy for people to sue you over it. You’re right that they could be sued even if they don’t admit it, but then they would have a defense which would be far weaker if they had already admitted it.

Kranar 5y ago
Okay, let's say I don't believe you and I have made a good faith effort to look into this subject and have found no evidence that anyone has ever been sued for causing depression, do you have any evidence or way to substantiate your claim and demonstrate to me that you are correct? I am aware of emotional distress lawsuits, but what's being claimed here is quite different. Do I have no choice but to take you at your word that you're right about what is a pretty big legal claim being made here. Are people just making up things about how the law works, or am I genuinely just very ignorant on this subject? In other words, can you cite the legal principal here, or precedent, or some kind of actual reference that shows some kind of informed discussion is taking place on this subject instead of a bunch of people making uninformed claims that sound appealing? From my uninformed point of view that I am happy to be challenged on, suing Facebook for causing depression makes about as much sense as suing McDonald's for obesity. There is no legal principal upon which one could successfully do so and while people have tried, they failed miserably [1] (as in the case was dismissed with prejudice, which is one of the worst outcomes). [1] https://money.cnn.com/2003/01/22/news/companies/mcdonalds/ https://money.cnn.com/2003/01/22/news/companies/mcdonalds/
- open0 5y ago
  > From my uninformed point of view Due to the tone of your over-confident first post, initially I thought you were a lawyer on Facebook's payroll making a deceitful argument. You really think Facebook's lawyers would advise disclosing a link between Facebook usage and depression found in their internal studies? Do you really think that Facebook would even ever allow for that conclusion to be reached in this particular internal study? Come on.
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    Those are different questions than what OP got at with "If they did admit a link it would open Facebook to unimaginable legal liability" Admitting to this fact could just be bad PR. Or bad for their growth and retention metrics, while not changing their legal liability.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- mdorazio 5y ago
  I would say your effort wasn't very high then. Keywords to search for are "Mental anguish" and "Emotional distress". "Depression" is not a thing you can really sue for, but mental harm associated with it definitely is.
  - Kranar 5y ago
    Given your response that you think emotional distress could in anyway be applicable here, I am fairly confident at this point that few people are properly informed to discuss the legality of this with the degree of certainty and authority that is being expressed. For one, as per White v. Monsanto [1] mental anguish and emotional distress requires "conduct that is heinous and beyond the standards of civilized decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society." I think at this point it's quite clear that people are just speaking from a very superficial understanding or outright just making things up about this topic but are doing so as if they are subject matter experts and while this is a open discussion forum and you can say whatever you want, I suppose I expected better. [1] https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=16203665367533693646&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=1620366536753369...
Groxx 5y ago
Especially true if you are holding evidence that you knew it caused medical problems, but ignored that evidence and continued doing stuff that made it worse because it makes more money. At that point you pretty much have to start bribing people to look away, like the cigarette industry is notorious for. Facebook has practically zero incentive to research damages they might be causing. Sure, they could do the ethically responsible thing and try to discover and mitigate issues... but if they were doing that, we wouldn't be at this state, would we?
- decide 5y ago
  They have done causal research and they have hidden it from FBers asking for results of the study. Members from the well-being team tried to conduct research but was refused do to it because of “legal and PR” reasons. The well-being team was shut down. All this will come out in lawsuits if/when they happen. Likely through attorney generals and not individuals.