3 ms·

They should be held legally culpable for libellous claims they make. I dont care if their pre-LLM ai says "thingy bad". They are responsible for the scripts or

They should be held legally culpable for libellous claims they make. I dont care if their pre-LLM ai says "thingy bad". They are responsible for the scripts or black boxes they control. I dont care if they dont give a reason. Claiming bad/malicious/etc site is 100% libel. And doubly so, anybody who has been forced to agree to a ToS with binding arbitration should have it removed for libel.

otterley 8mo ago
> Claiming bad/malicious/etc site is 100% libel. No it isn't. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation Please, use words correctly.
- hamdingers 8mo ago
  The words in your link do not support the words in your comment. Don't be snarky unless you are certain you're correct. > a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. They falsely marked the site unsafe[1] on a published list[2], the results weren't checked and couldn't be appealed[3] and OPs site was taken down[4].
  - MadameMinty 8mo ago
    Sounds textbook to me.
  - habinero 8mo ago
    It does. "Unsafe" is not a fact, it's an opinion.
    - rtsam 8mo ago
      "When Google marks a site as "unsafe" or "dangerous" in Chrome or search results, it is a factual finding based on automated detection of specific, technical security threats, rather than a subjective opinion. These warnings are triggered by Google’s Safe Browsing technology, which scans billions of URLs daily to protect users from malicious content" Opinions and facts in a legal context usually comes down to who is saying what. Someone personally says "this soup is bad" on a review site = opinion. A news site plastering it on their front page = fact. A person saying something as an individual is usually considered an opinion. A company doesn't have that same protection.
      - habinero 8mo ago
        Nope. Not correct. Companies have the same 1A rights, too. In the US, it really doesn't matter who says it, the only thing that matters is who it's being said about. If you are a "public figure" -- which is a much broader category in 1A law than you think -- then in order to prove defamation, you have to prove the thing was false _and_ that the person saying it knew it was false at the time. Not that they were mistaken, not that they were careless, not that they knew later, they deliberately lied and knew they lied as they said it. If your next question is "how do you prove what someone was thinking", then yes. That is the reason it's nearly impossible.
        rtsam 8mo ago
        Not talking about 1A rights or public figures. We are talking about Opinions (Protected) vs Facts (Not Protected) Defamation cases where individuals say something are usually considered opinions and companies are usually considered facts in the eyes of the courts. I say "Usually" Defamation also DOES NOT require intent, but it requires a minimum level of fault (negligence) Google saying something is unsafe in the web search or browser would not be considered an opinion because of their position of authority. It would not even be a debate since Google has already said they make decisions based on facts and data presented to them. The only question is are they negligent in their assessment or response to a false report. And what would be the damages. In the case of a phishing report that is false courts would already consider it defamation per se (damages presumed)

otterley 8mo ago

> Claiming bad/malicious/etc site is 100% libel. No it isn't. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation Please, use words correctly.

hamdingers 8mo ago
The words in your link do not support the words in your comment. Don't be snarky unless you are certain you're correct. > a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. They falsely marked the site unsafe[1] on a published list[2], the results weren't checked and couldn't be appealed[3] and OPs site was taken down[4].
- MadameMinty 8mo ago
  Sounds textbook to me.
- habinero 8mo ago
  It does. "Unsafe" is not a fact, it's an opinion.
  - rtsam 8mo ago
    "When Google marks a site as "unsafe" or "dangerous" in Chrome or search results, it is a factual finding based on automated detection of specific, technical security threats, rather than a subjective opinion. These warnings are triggered by Google’s Safe Browsing technology, which scans billions of URLs daily to protect users from malicious content" Opinions and facts in a legal context usually comes down to who is saying what. Someone personally says "this soup is bad" on a review site = opinion. A news site plastering it on their front page = fact. A person saying something as an individual is usually considered an opinion. A company doesn't have that same protection.
    - habinero 8mo ago
      Nope. Not correct. Companies have the same 1A rights, too. In the US, it really doesn't matter who says it, the only thing that matters is who it's being said about. If you are a "public figure" -- which is a much broader category in 1A law than you think -- then in order to prove defamation, you have to prove the thing was false _and_ that the person saying it knew it was false at the time. Not that they were mistaken, not that they were careless, not that they knew later, they deliberately lied and knew they lied as they said it. If your next question is "how do you prove what someone was thinking", then yes. That is the reason it's nearly impossible.
      - rtsam 8mo ago
        Not talking about 1A rights or public figures. We are talking about Opinions (Protected) vs Facts (Not Protected) Defamation cases where individuals say something are usually considered opinions and companies are usually considered facts in the eyes of the courts. I say "Usually" Defamation also DOES NOT require intent, but it requires a minimum level of fault (negligence) Google saying something is unsafe in the web search or browser would not be considered an opinion because of their position of authority. It would not even be a debate since Google has already said they make decisions based on facts and data presented to them. The only question is are they negligent in their assessment or response to a false report. And what would be the damages. In the case of a phishing report that is false courts would already consider it defamation per se (damages presumed)