>>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

>>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.