4 ms·

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 fo

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?
        nickff 5y ago
        That case was indeed about copyright infringement, but: >"Courts have held that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves, from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances, understanding that those who behave in such manner should be treated as those who had actual knowledge. I will bet on anything, but only at odds which result in a positive expected outcome. The question is what terms and odds you're giving.

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?
        nickff 5y ago
        That case was indeed about copyright infringement, but: >"Courts have held that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves, from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances, understanding that those who behave in such manner should be treated as those who had actual knowledge. I will bet on anything, but only at odds which result in a positive expected outcome. The question is what terms and odds you're giving.