3 ms·

It's not off topic. The person I was responding to was using that as an indication that they should be responsible for 20% of the liability and that is totally

It's not off topic. The person I was responding to was using that as an indication that they should be responsible for 20% of the liability and that is totally incorrect. I outlined what it actually was and that is not an indication of liability for wrongdoing by the users of the distribution method.

TZubiri 2y ago
Yeah that was me. There's a lot of nuance in what we are saying, I feel you are not being quite precise: "The person I was responding to was using that as an indication that they should be responsible for 20% of the liability and that is totally incorrect. " I didn't say that charging 20% means you have 20% of the liability, although I don't think it's unreasonable if you posit that it follows naturally from what I said. I said that charging money for a service creates an expectation of some kind of consideration, that is something in exchange. So the company would be liable for services of value equal or close to equal to 20% of the price that the customer paid. You might argue that in the aggregate this might be close to 20% of the liability, but liabilities might be very big or they might be 0. Also the consideration itself is a liability ( an obligation to perform services) So yeah, not the same thing at all. And what I say is out of scope is saying that some price is too high, we are getting into a free market/controlled prices debate that is completely unrelated to damages of lack of consent in sex and distribution of sexual images.
- snapplebobapple 2y ago
  And I have been correctly saying that this is foolish because it will destroy the entire internet communication industry and we get far more social benefit than drawback from said industry. If everyone has to know everything on their service then they can't let users post anything. Further, this has been well litigated already for other telecom services (i.e. for the phone company) and is why there is no liability for the telecom company if you, for example, use their cellular network to set off a bomb in a crowded area. It doesn't matter what the price is, the price is a signal of a totally separate problem, as I have already said. As I've also already said, this censorship nonsense of the last decade is indicative of editorializing and therefore in that instance it would make sense to have some liability to the platform, as they are exercising editorial control over what is being published above and beyond legality.
  - TZubiri 2y ago
    "And I have been correctly saying that this is foolish because it will destroy the entire internet communication industry and we get far more social benefit than drawback from said industry. If everyone has to know everything on their service then they can't let users post anything. Further, this has been well litigated already for other telecom services (i.e. for the phone company) and is why there is no liability for the telecom company if you, for example, use their cellular network to set off a bomb in a crowded area." I get this is the underlying gist of the debate, but it doesn't follow at all from the deep thread, which focuses on a very specific point. "It doesn't matter what the price is, the price is a signal of a totally separate problem, as I have already said. As I've also already said, this censorship nonsense of the last decade is indicative of editorializing and therefore in that instance it would make sense to have some liability to the platform, as they are exercising editorial control over what is being published above and beyond legality" I'm sorry but you have no capacity for keeping a discussion. You bring the subject of free speech and politics in what originally is a rape case with almost no relevance. Try to separate your free speech concerns to a separate top level comment or wherever it would be appropriate (probably not top level). And try to engage with the specific argument of a thread. Encapsulate, this is a nuanced topic, you can't repeat the base argument in a depth 7 comment.
    - snapplebobapple 2y ago
      The person i responded to made the claim that becauae they are paid they should be liable for some portion, which is wrong for economic and freedom reasons. Reading comprehension is clearly a problem here but it is not my problem.

TZubiri 2y ago

Yeah that was me. There's a lot of nuance in what we are saying, I feel you are not being quite precise: "The person I was responding to was using that as an indication that they should be responsible for 20% of the liability and that is totally incorrect. " I didn't say that charging 20% means you have 20% of the liability, although I don't think it's unreasonable if you posit that it follows naturally from what I said. I said that charging money for a service creates an expectation of some kind of consideration, that is something in exchange. So the company would be liable for services of value equal or close to equal to 20% of the price that the customer paid. You might argue that in the aggregate this might be close to 20% of the liability, but liabilities might be very big or they might be 0. Also the consideration itself is a liability ( an obligation to perform services) So yeah, not the same thing at all. And what I say is out of scope is saying that some price is too high, we are getting into a free market/controlled prices debate that is completely unrelated to damages of lack of consent in sex and distribution of sexual images.

snapplebobapple 2y ago
And I have been correctly saying that this is foolish because it will destroy the entire internet communication industry and we get far more social benefit than drawback from said industry. If everyone has to know everything on their service then they can't let users post anything. Further, this has been well litigated already for other telecom services (i.e. for the phone company) and is why there is no liability for the telecom company if you, for example, use their cellular network to set off a bomb in a crowded area. It doesn't matter what the price is, the price is a signal of a totally separate problem, as I have already said. As I've also already said, this censorship nonsense of the last decade is indicative of editorializing and therefore in that instance it would make sense to have some liability to the platform, as they are exercising editorial control over what is being published above and beyond legality.
- TZubiri 2y ago
  "And I have been correctly saying that this is foolish because it will destroy the entire internet communication industry and we get far more social benefit than drawback from said industry. If everyone has to know everything on their service then they can't let users post anything. Further, this has been well litigated already for other telecom services (i.e. for the phone company) and is why there is no liability for the telecom company if you, for example, use their cellular network to set off a bomb in a crowded area." I get this is the underlying gist of the debate, but it doesn't follow at all from the deep thread, which focuses on a very specific point. "It doesn't matter what the price is, the price is a signal of a totally separate problem, as I have already said. As I've also already said, this censorship nonsense of the last decade is indicative of editorializing and therefore in that instance it would make sense to have some liability to the platform, as they are exercising editorial control over what is being published above and beyond legality" I'm sorry but you have no capacity for keeping a discussion. You bring the subject of free speech and politics in what originally is a rape case with almost no relevance. Try to separate your free speech concerns to a separate top level comment or wherever it would be appropriate (probably not top level). And try to engage with the specific argument of a thread. Encapsulate, this is a nuanced topic, you can't repeat the base argument in a depth 7 comment.
  - snapplebobapple 2y ago
    The person i responded to made the claim that becauae they are paid they should be liable for some portion, which is wrong for economic and freedom reasons. Reading comprehension is clearly a problem here but it is not my problem.