4 ms·
because it's general enough that it can be challenged. I have an amazon profile. The reviews are user generated. They certainly rank popularity into categories
by kristopolous 5y ago
because it's general enough that it can be challenged.
I have an amazon profile. The reviews are user generated. They certainly rank popularity into categories.
In fact, I also have a wikipedia user profile as well and there's talk pages and here's the trending topics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Top_25_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Top_25_Report
Same goes with youtube, twitch, imdb, discogs, substack, medium, and oh yes, video games. Lots of UGC video games.
Social media can be bad, toxic, unhealthy, lead to suicide and depression among youth, ok. That's certainly terrible but you get a bunch of snazzy lawyers for billion dollar companies that work for the bottom line in the room, this thing won't stand.
Instead what might work better is to extend liability law to such forums of persuasion. It the parents of a dead kid have grounds to sue Facebook and Facebook knows it, they'll pull back quick. It's a page from the Ralph Nader playbook
- colechristensen 5y agoOn what grounds could it be challenged?
- kristopolous 5y agoIt'd have to be demonstrated. There's always places to hide in generalities. Every word can be quibbled over as not actually applying and thus sitting outside the definition. It's a prohibition against a generally described feature which makes it fundamentally contestable. And say you nab them. Then they just have to do an otherwise meaningless permutation to the feature and claim they're compliant and you're back in court. Ianal btw
- Kim_Bruning 5y agoHrrrm, you're not wrong. I don't think the law is intended to target wikipedia or imdb as such. Some of the others might actually be intentional though.