5 ms·

Facebook is careful about this. On the fact check in question, Facebook only says "Missing Context" and "Independent fact-checkers say this information is missi

Facebook is careful about this. On the fact check in question, Facebook only says "Missing Context" and "Independent fact-checkers say this information is missing context and could mislead people." Only if you click through to the independent site do you see a specific claim labeled as misleading: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-forest-management-and-several-other-causes-contribute-to-wildfire-severity-and-total-area-burned-in-the-western-united-states/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores...

cblconfederate 5y ago
So he then proceeds to sue the fact-checkers. There is definitely liability here from which social media have been shielded so far
- shkkmo 5y ago
  The fact checker is included in the lawsuit.
temp8964 5y ago
If Facebook paste “this information is missing context and could mislead people” under every single post/story, it would still stand true but it would be bad for the business.
- burkaman 5y ago
  That's true, I guess, but we're discussing legal issues here. I think that would still be legal even though it would be dumb.
  - nickff 5y ago
    If they were to do it to every post, they probably wouldn't be libeling anyone, but if they do it selectively, I think they may be guilt of libel. As an example, imagine that Yelp or AngelList posted "beware: this business may be perpetuating a fraud". If they did it to every business, it would be a general warning, not singling it out; but if they did it to a small proportion of businesses, and it turned out that many of the 'targets' were not committing fraud, it would be libel.
    - edmundsauto 5y ago
      Only if there was evidence of malice.
      - nickff 5y ago
        It seems like there would be evidence of willful blindness, which is more or less equivalent to malice.
        edmundsauto 5y ago
        This is probably not up to the legal standard, but I suspect you know that. There are valid reasons to not support big tech, but is this case really one that you want to advocate?
        nickff 5y ago
        I don't have anything in particular against 'big tech', but this (Facebook) case does seem like an example of (enabling) libel via willful blindness to me. I also think Yelp and other sites are close to, or past that line as well (in how they enable extortion of many small businesses by fraudulent 'reviews'). Merriam-Webster defines "Willful Blindness" as: >"deliberate failure to make a reasonable inquiry of wrongdoing (as drug dealing in one's house) despite suspicion or an awareness of the high probability of its existence" The case law would also appear to go against Facebook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Aimster_Copyright_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Aimster_Copyright_Litiga...
        edmundsauto 5y ago
        Am I missing something (IANAL), or is that case about copyright infringement? I guess we'll find out whether or not this case against FB will move forward, but I'd be willing to put down a wager that FB will prevail. Are you equally confident in your position?
        5y ago

cblconfederate 5y ago

So he then proceeds to sue the fact-checkers. There is definitely liability here from which social media have been shielded so far

shkkmo 5y ago
The fact checker is included in the lawsuit.

temp8964 5y ago

If Facebook paste “this information is missing context and could mislead people” under every single post/story, it would still stand true but it would be bad for the business.

burkaman 5y ago
That's true, I guess, but we're discussing legal issues here. I think that would still be legal even though it would be dumb.
- nickff 5y ago
  If they were to do it to every post, they probably wouldn't be libeling anyone, but if they do it selectively, I think they may be guilt of libel. As an example, imagine that Yelp or AngelList posted "beware: this business may be perpetuating a fraud". If they did it to every business, it would be a general warning, not singling it out; but if they did it to a small proportion of businesses, and it turned out that many of the 'targets' were not committing fraud, it would be libel.
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    Only if there was evidence of malice.
    - nickff 5y ago
      It seems like there would be evidence of willful blindness, which is more or less equivalent to malice.
      - edmundsauto 5y ago
        This is probably not up to the legal standard, but I suspect you know that. There are valid reasons to not support big tech, but is this case really one that you want to advocate?
        nickff 5y ago
        I don't have anything in particular against 'big tech', but this (Facebook) case does seem like an example of (enabling) libel via willful blindness to me. I also think Yelp and other sites are close to, or past that line as well (in how they enable extortion of many small businesses by fraudulent 'reviews'). Merriam-Webster defines "Willful Blindness" as: >"deliberate failure to make a reasonable inquiry of wrongdoing (as drug dealing in one's house) despite suspicion or an awareness of the high probability of its existence" The case law would also appear to go against Facebook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Aimster_Copyright_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Aimster_Copyright_Litiga...
        edmundsauto 5y ago
        Am I missing something (IANAL), or is that case about copyright infringement? I guess we'll find out whether or not this case against FB will move forward, but I'd be willing to put down a wager that FB will prevail. Are you equally confident in your position?
        5y ago