4 ms·

No, because new malware / legitimate apps are third party content. It's like how you can't sue Facebook or Twitter for someone using their platforms to spread i

No, because new malware / legitimate apps are third party content. It's like how you can't sue Facebook or Twitter for someone using their platforms to spread illegal content or plan violence. What usually helps in these cases is that the platforms demonstrate good faith and fund moderation teams to remove harmful content once it is discovered. Likewise any malware on the App Store would get removed as soon as it becomes "popular." Now maybe you'd have a case if Apple or Google did nothing to remove this app, but that sort of laissez faire control doesn't really seem likely at this point.

marcus_holmes 5y ago
As I understand it, though, that only applies if the platform doesn't control what is posted. Given that the app stores have an extensive vetting process, and complete control over what can and cannot be accepted, why are they not responsible for that content?
- nexuist 5y ago
  Some platforms like Discord allow individual communities to set screening options for media like photos/videos. If someone posts e.g. nudity the platform is supposed to reject the message from sending. However, if the nudity filter fails, that doesn't give you legal authority to sue Discord; once again it's a good faith effort and I think any court would agree that Discord tried its best to prevent said content from being posted, it just failed in this one case. Deciding to pre-screen content doesn't make you responsible for it, especially if the malware tries to hide itself. If someone brought an American flag to a football game and then unfurled it to reveal a swastika, I don't think anyone would blame the security guards at the entry checkpoint for not catching it.
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    I think if a security check that extensively searched every part of every single entrant to a venue failed to find a gun, and that gun was used to injure other people at that venue, then the victims would have grounds to sue whoever performed that security check, yes. Especially if that security check refused admission to anyone with recording equipment at over 100% success (i.e. they turned away many people because they thought they had recording equipment, or might at some point have it). Where the security check is obviously more about protecting the venue's revenue stream than protecting the attendees, despite being advertised as necessary for the safety of the attendees.
    - marcus_holmes 5y ago
      Thinking about it more - this focus on removing commercial threats instead of security threats is what bugs me. If your screening efforts remove 110% of all apps that break your commercial terms of service, but only 50% of all apps that harm users, how is that screening a "good faith" attempt to protect your customers?
      - nexuist 5y ago
        The problem is that this does not model the situation accurately; there is no known malware available for download on the App Store to my knowledge. Any apps that actually do get past review unfairly (by using private APIs or otherwise) are quickly removed. Your model implies that Apple is willingly letting malware stay up on the App Store, which is not the case.

marcus_holmes 5y ago

As I understand it, though, that only applies if the platform doesn't control what is posted. Given that the app stores have an extensive vetting process, and complete control over what can and cannot be accepted, why are they not responsible for that content?

nexuist 5y ago
Some platforms like Discord allow individual communities to set screening options for media like photos/videos. If someone posts e.g. nudity the platform is supposed to reject the message from sending. However, if the nudity filter fails, that doesn't give you legal authority to sue Discord; once again it's a good faith effort and I think any court would agree that Discord tried its best to prevent said content from being posted, it just failed in this one case. Deciding to pre-screen content doesn't make you responsible for it, especially if the malware tries to hide itself. If someone brought an American flag to a football game and then unfurled it to reveal a swastika, I don't think anyone would blame the security guards at the entry checkpoint for not catching it.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  I think if a security check that extensively searched every part of every single entrant to a venue failed to find a gun, and that gun was used to injure other people at that venue, then the victims would have grounds to sue whoever performed that security check, yes. Especially if that security check refused admission to anyone with recording equipment at over 100% success (i.e. they turned away many people because they thought they had recording equipment, or might at some point have it). Where the security check is obviously more about protecting the venue's revenue stream than protecting the attendees, despite being advertised as necessary for the safety of the attendees.
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    Thinking about it more - this focus on removing commercial threats instead of security threats is what bugs me. If your screening efforts remove 110% of all apps that break your commercial terms of service, but only 50% of all apps that harm users, how is that screening a "good faith" attempt to protect your customers?
    - nexuist 5y ago
      The problem is that this does not model the situation accurately; there is no known malware available for download on the App Store to my knowledge. Any apps that actually do get past review unfairly (by using private APIs or otherwise) are quickly removed. Your model implies that Apple is willingly letting malware stay up on the App Store, which is not the case.