3 ms·

Can anyone with a background in law comment on whether or not this is serious? Because it doesn't seem serious. Primarily the amount asked for, but also the que

Can anyone with a background in law comment on whether or not this is serious? Because it doesn't seem serious. Primarily the amount asked for, but also the question of jurisdiction as well as the question collective culpability. For example, Facebook wasn't alone in this. YouTube, Twitter, and others had similar issues in varying intensities.

bufferoverflow 5y ago
They would have to prove that FB caused the genocide, and then they would have to prove the damages caused by FB alone. Doubt they will be able to do either.
- jetrink 5y ago
  > then they would have to prove the damages caused by FB alone INAL, but that doesn't sound correct. See for example, several liability[1], in which responsibility is divided among parties. > They would have to prove that FB caused the genocide That doesn't sound right either. For example, Facebook could have exacerbated the situation, in which case they are responsible for some portion of the harm done. 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/several_liability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/several_liability
  - nradov 5y ago
    Moral responsibility for a genocide doesn't imply any legal liability. Those are entirely separate issues. If you think Facebook is liable then please cite a specific precedent.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      The previous poster isn't definitively stating there is legal liability - but they are setting the stage and providing evidence as to why such liability might be legally considered. It isn't the job of internet commentators to litigate - and, Facebook is one of the rather new cohort of companies involved with social media on a global scale. There have been cases in the past when local social clubs and media outlets have incited violence - but nothing of this scale exists in precedent to my knowledge because this is an entirely novel scale. I'd also mention that there AFAIK was no intentional effort on Facebook's part to make the situation worse specifically - but building a system that causes harm can cause liability even if that harm is unintended. No factory owner ever intended for their employees to lose limbs in heavy machinery, but they have been repeatedly held liable for it. I personally think the case against Facebook is weak - but I am certainly aware that I don't have nearly enough visibility on the internals to make any sort of definitive statement.
austincheney 5y ago
Why does the amount not seem serious? A Texas jury awarded a $301 billion settlement last week for a drunk driving fatality.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  That's not serious, either. Such verdicts inevitably get reduced on appeal. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/health/jnj-risperdal-verdict-reduced.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/health/jnj-risperdal-verd... - $8B down to $6.8M, "Large jury verdicts are frequently reduced after trial".
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  That sounds rather silly. The sort of thing that brings the law into disrepute.
kleinsch 5y ago
FB stock went up the day the lawsuit was filed, so the market clearly doesn't think it has much of a chance.
nradov 5y ago
It's obviously not serious. This is a PR stunt intended to produce media attention and pressure Facebook into changing corporate policies. There is no way that Facebook will ever have to pay damages. The plaintiffs are essentially abusing the court system. However I don't really blame them since there's no other way to get the attention of Facebook management.
- newfonewhodis 5y ago
  > The plaintiffs are essentially abusing the court system How do you figure? What else can they do to seek restitution or reform?

bufferoverflow 5y ago

They would have to prove that FB caused the genocide, and then they would have to prove the damages caused by FB alone. Doubt they will be able to do either.

jetrink 5y ago
> then they would have to prove the damages caused by FB alone INAL, but that doesn't sound correct. See for example, several liability[1], in which responsibility is divided among parties. > They would have to prove that FB caused the genocide That doesn't sound right either. For example, Facebook could have exacerbated the situation, in which case they are responsible for some portion of the harm done. 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/several_liability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/several_liability
- nradov 5y ago
  Moral responsibility for a genocide doesn't imply any legal liability. Those are entirely separate issues. If you think Facebook is liable then please cite a specific precedent.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    The previous poster isn't definitively stating there is legal liability - but they are setting the stage and providing evidence as to why such liability might be legally considered. It isn't the job of internet commentators to litigate - and, Facebook is one of the rather new cohort of companies involved with social media on a global scale. There have been cases in the past when local social clubs and media outlets have incited violence - but nothing of this scale exists in precedent to my knowledge because this is an entirely novel scale. I'd also mention that there AFAIK was no intentional effort on Facebook's part to make the situation worse specifically - but building a system that causes harm can cause liability even if that harm is unintended. No factory owner ever intended for their employees to lose limbs in heavy machinery, but they have been repeatedly held liable for it. I personally think the case against Facebook is weak - but I am certainly aware that I don't have nearly enough visibility on the internals to make any sort of definitive statement.

austincheney 5y ago

Why does the amount not seem serious? A Texas jury awarded a $301 billion settlement last week for a drunk driving fatality.

ceejayoz 5y ago
That's not serious, either. Such verdicts inevitably get reduced on appeal. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/health/jnj-risperdal-verdict-reduced.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/health/jnj-risperdal-verd... - $8B down to $6.8M, "Large jury verdicts are frequently reduced after trial".
kwhitefoot 5y ago
That sounds rather silly. The sort of thing that brings the law into disrepute.

kleinsch 5y ago

FB stock went up the day the lawsuit was filed, so the market clearly doesn't think it has much of a chance.

nradov 5y ago

It's obviously not serious. This is a PR stunt intended to produce media attention and pressure Facebook into changing corporate policies. There is no way that Facebook will ever have to pay damages. The plaintiffs are essentially abusing the court system. However I don't really blame them since there's no other way to get the attention of Facebook management.

newfonewhodis 5y ago
> The plaintiffs are essentially abusing the court system How do you figure? What else can they do to seek restitution or reform?