pull down to refresh

102 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 4 Aug \ parent \ on: October 7 victims and relatives sue Meta: Broadcast Hamas attack atrocities live news
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.
write
preview
this territory is moderated
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.
reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 4 Aug
I don't think the platforms should be liable, but one line of argument is that the platforms are not neutral to content. They do their own content moderation and remove content which is illegal or objectionable. Thus, if the Oct 7 broadcasts can be deemed illegal in some context, and if the platforms are already picking and choosing what content to moderate, then there could be an argument that they should've moderated those videos as well.
This was my point about wise kings. You can try to encompass every scenario within the bounds of a legal code, but there are too many variations to get every case right by the strict letter of the law. In the past, you'd have kings and judges make these judgment calls. I guess we still do, but within a much more confined legal environment, as well as much more input from the populace through the election of political and judicial leaders.
reply