3 ms·
The problem here is that due process is extremely expensive to obtain. Let's say you have reverse engineered something, but the IP holder claims you stole it,
by cryptonector 4y ago
The problem here is that due process is extremely expensive to obtain. Let's say you have reverse engineered something, but the IP holder claims you stole it, so the provider shuts you down, and now you're losing money and you have to file a lawsuit in a possibly-hostile, far flung jurisdiction, and it may take weeks to get injunctive relief (if you get it), and months or years to settle the case, and all of this while having lost your income and having to foot hefty legal bills. Few will bother. The effect is chilling.
Thus, "reasonable belief", while a legal term of art, is pretty meaningless to users.
> It seems like you want Samsung to not have digital rights.
I wrote nothing of the sort. But now that you put me on the spot, I'll tell you what I want: either that users get better access to due process, or that common carriers to have less power over what they carry (not zero power, just less), or both. While it's true that there are expensive, abusive users out there, we need to strike a better balance for all the users who aren't.
- googlryas 4y agoWhat would "access to due process" look like to you?
- cryptonector 4y agoExcellent question. First, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to challenge any suspensions or bans before they take effect, using an internal appeals process. Second, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to further appeal lost appeals, again, internally. Thirdly, I'd like there to be some civil and criminal liability for making false reports, and some civil liability for common carriers acting on false reports. I.e., the costs to common carriers of acting rashly should be a great deal greater than they are currently.
- googlryas 4y agoIn this system, should Facebook be forced to keep serving child porn, while the child pornographer is going through the internal appeals process?
- Jiro 4y agoThe appeals process is what determines that it's child porn. Also, not all of the things described even count as "forced to keep serving child porn". For instance, civil liability for acting on false reports doesn't force Facebook to keep serving child porn.
- googlryas 4y agoSo a moderator sees a video of 5 year old being raped. Your system needs this content to stay up for a reasonable amount of time for someone to challenge it, and for it to go through an appeals process before the moderator can say that this really is child porn and they can remove the content? I'm responding to this part: > First, I'd like users to get a reasonable amount of time to challenge any suspensions or bans before they take effect, using an internal appeals process
- boondaburrah 4y agoI would like to point out that at some point in this debate the goalposts were moved from a civil case to a criminal one, and the liabilities (and harm) are entirely different.
- googlryas 4y agoNot really. We were talking about terms of service, and I imagine posting child porn is against the ToS. The system proposed lets the content stay up until an appeal period is over.
- boondaburrah 4y agoRegardless of whether or not cp is against the tos, or there is a legal process in place for takedowns, the law against cp existing will kick in faster as sharing it is a criminal act regardless of why, who, or what posted/hosted it, so it won't stay up. It's a moot point. The terms of service under discussion are about copyright infringement. The content itself is not illegal, and the dispute is about the rights to post it. Two very different things.