6 ms·

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

by 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...
  - will4274 5y ago
    Does Facebook actually need to inflict the distress or just be complicit? Cause I have little doubt that "conduct that is heinous and beyond the standards of civilized decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society" takes place on social media - after all, high schoolers use social media.
  - zepto 5y ago
    Earlier you said: > From my uninformed point of view that I am happy to be challenged on Now you say: > 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 How would you know, if your point of view is uninformed? Are you a lawyer?
    - 5y ago

by Kranar 5y ago

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...
- will4274 5y ago
  Does Facebook actually need to inflict the distress or just be complicit? Cause I have little doubt that "conduct that is heinous and beyond the standards of civilized decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society" takes place on social media - after all, high schoolers use social media.
- zepto 5y ago
  Earlier you said: > From my uninformed point of view that I am happy to be challenged on Now you say: > 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 How would you know, if your point of view is uninformed? Are you a lawyer?
  - 5y ago