5 ms·

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.

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.