4 ms·

> The "first" comment is offtopic; pirated content is not the issue here, We are not talking about links to piratebay. If I post a picture of a cat, someone el

> The "first" comment is offtopic; pirated content is not the issue here, We are not talking about links to piratebay. If I post a picture of a cat, someone else may own the copyright to that; there is no way for a reviewer to tell. This matters a great deal because by arguing against Safe Harbor you want to make Facebook legally responsible for stolen cat pictures because how they order their newsfeed with a popularity algorithm. Today, any website is already responsible for their own publishing, and has Safe-Harbor for user-comments; the New York Times benefits from this as well. If you want to make a narrow argument that Facebook should not have Safe-Harbor for illegal outcomes attributable to the algorithm itself, in its totality over all of Facebook content, rather than any individual post, then by all means. I am sure an intrepid prosecutor could pursue this line of argument today. > The desired course of action is to 1) implement steps to prevent this sort of action in the future, and 2) to hold to account those responsible for those actions, who quite clearly showed wanton disregard for the consequences of their actions. That seems pretty generic. Prosecutors in the US are extremely powerful; they are populist, as they often need to be elected; their Democratic base is incensed. They have every reason and incentive to prosecute those who have posted on Facebook for Riot Act violations; this doesn't seem to have happened; why?

toss1 5y ago
>>by arguing against Safe Harbor you want to make Facebook legally responsible for stolen cat pictures I totally agree that we shouldn't hold them responsible for stolen cat pics posted, and I'd argue that 1) FB can and TBF, probably are, taking measures, and 2) for the copyright issue, I would argue that they should have the same safe harbor as anyone else - if FB receives a takedown notice and responds promptly (as defined however in the safe harbor regs), they are fine. The users would see a 'Sorry, this image/audio/link/whatever removed due to copyright issues." message. I see no reason this would work any differently regardless of the FB amplification algo - only more people would see the disappointing message when it got yanked after notification. >>They have every reason and incentive to prosecute those who have posted on Facebook for Riot Act violations; this doesn't seem to have happened; why? You'd have to ask them directly; I've no access to their thoughts. Maybe they are already. Maybe they are discussing it. Maybe it takes a long time because it would be a difficult case to build against a new technological structure and they're already working the problem. I could see similar opportunities to use RICO statutes, but IANAL, and don't know how to solve that problem in detail. Maybe FB donates to every prosecutor in the country. Maybe the prosecutors don't see the opportunity we described, or think this would be breaking too much new legal ground and want the legislature to give more clear go-ahead first. <-- That is what I think is needed by making curation teams and algos responsible in (roughly) the same way that editors are responsible.

toss1 5y ago

>>by arguing against Safe Harbor you want to make Facebook legally responsible for stolen cat pictures I totally agree that we shouldn't hold them responsible for stolen cat pics posted, and I'd argue that 1) FB can and TBF, probably are, taking measures, and 2) for the copyright issue, I would argue that they should have the same safe harbor as anyone else - if FB receives a takedown notice and responds promptly (as defined however in the safe harbor regs), they are fine. The users would see a 'Sorry, this image/audio/link/whatever removed due to copyright issues." message. I see no reason this would work any differently regardless of the FB amplification algo - only more people would see the disappointing message when it got yanked after notification. >>They have every reason and incentive to prosecute those who have posted on Facebook for Riot Act violations; this doesn't seem to have happened; why? You'd have to ask them directly; I've no access to their thoughts. Maybe they are already. Maybe they are discussing it. Maybe it takes a long time because it would be a difficult case to build against a new technological structure and they're already working the problem. I could see similar opportunities to use RICO statutes, but IANAL, and don't know how to solve that problem in detail. Maybe FB donates to every prosecutor in the country. Maybe the prosecutors don't see the opportunity we described, or think this would be breaking too much new legal ground and want the legislature to give more clear go-ahead first. <-- That is what I think is needed by making curation teams and algos responsible in (roughly) the same way that editors are responsible.