784
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
784 points (95.9% liked)
Technology
59197 readers
799 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
On the very specific point of liability, while the shooter is the specific person that pulled the trigger, is there no liability for those that radicalised the person into turning into a shooter? If I was selling foodstuffs that poisoned people I'd be held to account by various regulatory bodies, yet pushing out material to poison people's minds goes for the most part unpunished. If a preacher at a local religious centre was advocating terrorism, they'd face charges.
The UK government has a whole ream of context about this: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97976/prevent-strategy-review.pdf
Google's "common carrier" type of defence takes you only so far, as it's not a purely neutral party in terms, as it "recommends", not merely "delivers results", as @joe points out. That recommendation should come with some editorial responsibility.
This is more akin to if you sold a fatty food in a supermarket and someone died from being overweight.
Radicalizing someone to do this isn't a crime. Freedom of speech isn't absolute but unless someone gives them actual orders it would still be protected.
Don't apply UK's lack of freedom of speech in American courts.
🙄
Specific text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373
Oh pretending you were always talking about US when BOTH of your previous links are from the UK? Come on bro...
And you're citing a law and not considering how it's applied for the last couple centuries or even years. In very broad terms, you can't just claim they said something inflamatory and that person did something. For the most part they need to be rather specific for that law to apply.
"Someone should do something about that mosque" isn't the same as saying "Someone should blow up that specific mosque". And almost every time this comes up the radicalization knows how to avoid going over the line. But if I posted a message that said "someone should blow up that mosque" It would be myself that would get in trouble, not lemmy, or Youtube or where ever I posted it.
The problem is "Solicit, command, induce, or otherwise endeavor to persuade" That's usually far more specific than you seem to think. It's part of the way organized crime was able to survive so long, until RICO cases were made, and those cases basically bypass this by saying there's a (Criminal) "enterprise".
The other problem you have is complaining about the "Algorithm" but not understanding that itself would likely be a defense in that it's designed to promote retention, not radicalization, but that would even assume it'll get to court, which in this case it'll almost certainly not. The fact they're not going after a specific person probably means they're targeting a vague "radicalization" which hey, you have a good point in your first link. The radicalization would be illegal under UK law. But if he did in the US, he likely would not be in jail.
But then again we don't jail people for teaching dogs to do the nazi salute, so yeah, strange. We have different laws here that I still don't think you understand.
I know perfectly well the laws of your country, and that the links I originally posted apply to the UK. My comments were about principles, rather than the specifics of US law, which again could apply to the US.
Google is quite wilfully recommending certain things that increase engagement, they're metric-ed up the eye balls. Facebook has internal documents that clearly state they know they're actively promoting harmful content.
He was not jailed, he was fined and it was for saying things “antisemitic and racist in nature”. The link has some of the things he said that are clearly not so innocuous as you seem to portray given the rise of the right wing. The whole "it's a joke" defence is also pretty well documented as a modern phenomena of the right wing.
You are misinformed and if you have any sympathies for that guy, you have the wrong priorities at best, or at worst are resorting to the usual alt right talking points.
As a matter of principle, you're right on one account, which is that I do not place the ultimate value on freedom of speech. The fact that American companies have a strangle hold over the public sphere and the dynamics of speech is problematic.
So absolutely has no value in this discussion, thanks for clarifying.
I didn't click this link, because I don't really care. My father was Jewish, and he could say all Jewish people should be killed and I still would say he doesn't deserve to be put in jail. Sorry, your outrage doesn't override the first amendment. It's not "It's a joke" defense.. it's "There's freedom of speech". Hard stop. Are their limitations to it? Sure, but I'm pretty sure he's not hitting those bars.
No you're talking about "Principles" which means you're in the wrong topic and the wrong discussion. And you're not misinformed, but willfully ignoring the reality of the situation. Maybe you're angry you're not right and you're trying to defend your position, but here's the thing, your position doesn't matter, the law matters... And no one is keeping score, so it's ok, you're wrong here, just stop making up shit.
I always love this point. "If you don't agree with me, you're the enemy." I guess the ACLU is the Alt-Right, as is any lawyer who defends someone charged with saying something that hurt someone's feelings.
As for "priorities". If you think freedom of speech isn't important, let's think about that. It's great right now, Nazi's can't say shit, you can say anything you want to them. But what's that, a future where someone you don't like is in power, and suddenly you can't say anything and some party (potentially Nazis) can.... Oh shit, well maybe Freedom of Speech IS actually important.
I'll repeat this again, "principles" don't matter, laws do.
That's fine, but we're all talking about an American case, let's focus on American laws, and not "What dublet feel is right".
This is the last time I'm responding to you because you've made it clear you're talking about the world according you. I live in a real place, with actual laws, where this case is taking place. It's called the United States of America. It doesn't matter where you live, it doesn't matter what laws apply to you. We're talking about a specific place and specific laws. When you want to talk about those laws... well find someone else because you've already wasted enough of my time, but until you focus on how the world actually works, really no one should waste their time discussing your version of the law... because it has no basis in reality.
Roseanne Barr is jewish and recently denied the holocaust but also said that it should have happened.
Sure we're not gonna put her in jail but she's a guaranteed laughing stock and everyone knows it.
She straight up wrecked her career with that kind of thinking.
You don't have to go to jail for everyone to hate you for what you are. Have fun not being in jail lol
This is true, but public reaction isn't the same as government intervention. People are accountable for their actions to others. The government can't limit speech but businesses can limit speech on their premises, and individuals can hold people accountable.
That saying Rosanne fucked herself years earlier with the "Ambien tweet" and that was decades after pissing off everyone while grabbing her crotch when singing the national anthem. She's had a lot of controversies. The fact she even had a platform to say something about the holocaust is insane, considering her career was toast after the Ambien thing. Which kind of sucks for her because the Conners are still going strong.
I mean I don't even care about government intervention. My point was you don't need to be put in jail for being a bad person.
If you're a bad person- you'll get treated as such.
No. It's actually more akin to someone designing a supermarket that made it near impossible for a fat person to find healthy food and heavily discounted fatty foods and someone died from being overweight.
And that still would be legal.
Mcdonalds has existed for decades with that model. The only lawsuits against them are usually settled, and about shit where they knowingly lied like about Transfats. You can't blame Mcdonalds for your unhealthy eating, you can't blame one supermarket because it doesn't sell what you think is healthy. So sure, your version is perfectly fine too... and yet is still legal.
Ever been to a candy store? A chocolate shop? Even Cheescake Factory is really unhealthy in general and still is a major chain? At some point personal responsibility is what it comes down to.
Do you not remember those two girls who tried to sue McDonald's for making them fat?
It prompted a movie and a book...
And how did that case end?
Hint: Not well You can try to sue anyone for anything. There's just no guarentee it'll work, and it didn't there.
There are cases that do work, such as about transfats but that is about specifically misleading someone, not supplying something unhealthy. Also that was settled, not fully through the courts.
so?
the case in OP is still going on so we don't know how it will end yet. I was just pointing out something that already happened cause the metaphor used matched that case. Like, it was funny to mention something like that when it already happened and we know how it played out.
We don't know how the case in OP is gonna play out. You can't predict the future.