4 ms·
The argument that you’re making is extremely flawed. It is similar to: car manufactures can’t guarantee that their cars won’t kill people therefore their produ
by Calvin02 4y ago
The argument that you’re making is extremely flawed.
It is similar to: car manufactures can’t guarantee that their cars won’t kill people therefore their products are flawed and shouldn’t be sold. In this case, the user is held liable for ensuring that it is safely operated.
By your logic, we would stop building roads or ask car manufactures to stop selling cars because people cause accidents that kill other people.
The condition “service providers must moderate content and adjudicate disputes” is what’s flawed.
- Veserv 4y agoNo, the argument I am making is: The Rolling Stone thinks Facebook is providing a defective service (i.e. a service that is net harmful). If you agree with that contention, then you should also agree that Facebook should not offer that service. The comment I was responding to was making the generic argument that: “The problem is too hard. Nobody can make a non-defective solution. Therefore, the provider has no choice except to provide a net harmful service.” That is a flawed argument. You may also disagree with the premise: “Facebook is providing a net harmful service”, but that is independent of the invalidity of the argument presented which assumed it was providing a net harmful service, but they should be allowed to do so anyways due to the argument presented.
- chelical 4y agoNo the argument makes sense. If Ford can't guarantee the Pinto provides an acceptable degree of safety therefore the Pinto is dangerous and shouldn't be sold. The previous poster didn't say all ISPs or all social networks should be banned. They were simply talking about Facebook.