pull down to refresh

October 7 victims and relatives sue Meta: Broadcast Hamas attack atrocities livewww.ynetnews.com/article/ofrtqd69e
202 sats \ 16 comments \ @Scoresby 4 Aug news
I haven't experienced something horrible like this, but I really don't understand the purpose if such law suits.
If we want to be able to see things live on the internet, if we want to be able to learn about events in the world as they happen, how can we expect the platforms on which such things are broadcast to take down everything horrible as it happens?
One of the things that has the best chance of limiting the expansion of state power is the ability we all have to broadcast poor behavior of state actors live. If we limit this ability because it gets used for other bad things, aren't we just choosing to give up our ability to hold gov'ts accountable?
write
preview
this territory is moderated
related posts
117 sats \ 2 replies \ @jbschirtzinger 4 Aug
The issue is that Meta is making money from the murder of your relatives, in this scenario. It'd be like getting ten million zaps on a post of the murder of your mom or something.
reply
105 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 4 Aug
they're also providing the service of me being able to livestream the cop who pulls me over, or livestreaming the protest I'm watching downtown. I don't see why they should be expected to provide this service for free. I don't see how one could expect them to be the arbiter of when this veers into something they shouldn't make money from.
reply
107 sats \ 0 replies \ @jbschirtzinger 4 Aug
Did news stations run advertisements during 9-11 coverage? Well then, there is the precedent.
edit: point to be made, those places make plenty of money.
reply
102 sats \ 6 replies \ @SimpleStacker 4 Aug
I really don't understand the purpose if such law suits.
If you had a chance to get a big settlement, wouldn't you take it? Or would you refuse out of principle?
I don't really see how they have a legal case though, I thought Section 230 would pretty well shield Meta in this case. Unless there is some other conflicting anti-terrorism law or something.
reply
30 sats \ 5 replies \ @Scoresby OP 4 Aug
They are suing them in Israel. Don't know if they have some kind of section 230 reciprocity.
But, yes, I'm sure I'd also jump at the money...or maybe not. It's kinda like with car accidents. If someone rear-ends you and they're insurance pays for the fixes to your car, do you also sue them just cause you can probably get some pain and suffering bonus damages from their insurance company? I think the current attitude is yes, that's exactly what you do. "Because insurance companies have tons of money." (I've actually heard this from people) How do people not see that this just drives up the costs for insurers and we all end up paying it?
I was rear-ended several years ago. They paid for the damage to my car and we left it at that.
I like to think if someone did something horrible to me or my family, I'd go hunt them down and do something horrible to them. I also like to think I wouldn't waste time thinking about Facebook on my way.
reply
102 sats \ 4 replies \ @SimpleStacker 4 Aug
The system as a whole degrades, but it's still individually rational to get what you can out of it. (If you don't sue, the system degrades either way because you can't prevent other people from making lawsuits). It's a classic Prisoner's Dilemma.
Resolving disputes between parties is never easy... throughout history people have turned to kings and judges for such services, and wise rulers are praised for their just decisions. I do wonder how democratically elected laws and courts compare to the wisest kings of the past.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby OP 4 Aug
well crap. it seems like my moral compass isn't suited to modernity.
reply
102 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 4 Aug
i'm not saying it's right, only that it's predictable.
i'm just not sure that shielding companies from liability (which would be the main policy solution), would be much better.
reply
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 4 Aug
but what are they liable for? I don't think the Oct 7 attacks happened because of Facebook. I don't understand why the platform should be liable any more than the cell phone service used to coordinate the attacks or even the food growers who produced food that was eaten during the attacks.
view all 1 replies
102 sats \ 4 replies \ @sudonaka 4 Aug
Never pass up the chance for legal settlement money 💵👍
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby OP 4 Aug
But don't you think you'll end up paying the costs of those legal settlements because the system as a whole is degraded by such an attitude?
reply
102 sats \ 2 replies \ @sudonaka 4 Aug
I’m being sarcastic. It’s disgusting and another sign of complete moral bankruptcy
reply
7 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 4 Aug
Sorry, I'm awful at picking up sarcasm via text.
reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @sudonaka 4 Aug
That’s ridiculous how could anybody have that problem ever
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @RamPl 4 Aug outlawed
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.