EPTAnd again, they are allowed to do this because they have liability protection that was created back in 1995 for anyone hosting content on the internet. Google/Youtube, twitter, reddit and Facebook have all designed systems to take advantage of that protection by being as hands off as possible, because it allows them to avoid liability and responsibility if someone is harmed as a result of their services. And that is a protection that the New York Times or the National Review website does not enjoy, because they author their own content. But google/facebook have news feeds that are designed to compete in the news market.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 74
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And again, they are allowed to do this because they have liability protection that was created back in 1995 for anyone hosting content on the internet. Google/Youtube, twitter, reddit and Facebook have all designed systems to take advantage of that protection by being as hands off as possible, because it allows them to avoid liability and responsibility if someone is harmed as a result of their services. And that is a protection that the New York Times or the National Review website does not enjoy, because they author their own content. But google/facebook have news feeds that are designed to compete in the news market. | ||
|
brian
United States9633 Posts
instead i’m pretty sure the correct route for making whole would be to attack the publisher of the article directly. they wrote and host said article. would you sue the paperboy that distributed this article as well? what liability does google have in disseminating this information that the paperboy does not? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And I would sue the news paper for knowingly publishing false information about me. The paperboy works for the news paper. The thing is that the news paper wouldn’t do that because they know it is a serious liability. Google does not need to care because they are immune from liability, and therefore they not required to care about possible harm to the public. | ||
|
brian
United States9633 Posts
On April 05 2018 02:41 Plansix wrote: I would argue that Google is the publisher, though they set up a system where they can claim they are not the publisher. But they now know that their system will deliver false, defamatory information when that man’s name is typed in. And they don’t feel the need to remove it, even though they are fully aware it is causing harm. And I would sue the news paper for knowingly publishing false information about me. The paperboy works for the news paper. The thing is that the news paper wouldn’t do that because they know it is a serious liability. Google does not need to care because they are immune from liability, and therefore they not required to care about possible harm to the public. they are by definition not the publisher. they don’t have their own news stories. they provide the link to the publisher. surely you can’t sue both the actual publisher and google as publishers of this slander. only one of them can be the publisher of one particular article. you say ‘the newspaper’ wouldn’t do this, but it’s exactly what we’re talking about. if the Times published the story in the article, for arguments sake because the victim declined to be mentioned by name so we don’t know who wrote it, you’re arguing we sue Google for returning the Times article. And my contention is that’s as silly as suing the paperboy. Or 7-11 for selling The Times (as a means of eliminating the direct subordinate scenario. it honestly hasn’t even occurred to me that a paperboy actually works for the paper.) or suing the hotdog stand on the corner because they’re also providing this article. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On April 05 2018 02:41 Plansix wrote: I would argue that Google is the publisher, though they set up a system where they can claim they are not the publisher. But they now know that their system will deliver false, defamatory information when that man’s name is typed in. And they don’t feel the need to remove it, even though they are fully aware it is causing harm. And I would sue the news paper for knowingly publishing false information about me. The paperboy works for the news paper. The thing is that the news paper wouldn’t do that because they know it is a serious liability. Google does not need to care because they are immune from liability, and therefore they not required to care about possible harm to the public. Is google the publisher if I google 'Matt Taibi' and it links to a Rolling Stone article he wrote? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22008 Posts
Now if the publisher takes it down and Google still returns a cached version then you have a point. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 05 2018 02:44 brian wrote: they are by definition not the publisher. they don’t have their own news stories. they provide the link to the publisher. surely you can’t sue both the actual publisher and google as publishers of this slander. only one of them can be the publisher of one particular article. you say ‘the newspaper’ wouldn’t do this, but it’s exactly what we’re talking about. if the Times published the story in the article, for arguments sake because the victim declined to be mentioned by name so we don’t know who wrote it, you’re arguing we sue Google for returning the Times article. And my contention is that’s as silly as suing the paperboy. Or 7-11 for selling The Times (as a means of eliminating the direct subordinate scenario. it honestly hasn’t even occurred to me that a paperboy actually works for the paper.) or suing the hotdog stand on the corner because they’re also providing this article. But they are capable of blocking the false information. They just choose not to. They are making a choice to not block information that they know to be false. And the problem with going after the publishers of this information is that they are often judgment proof. Which means that liability has little meaning to them because they don’t have money. At best the person could seek an order to force that person to take down the false information, but that does not mean they wouldn’t put it back up. Or even comply. And holding someone in contempt of court is costly and often not successful. And this all assumes the offending part is a US citizen and the server is in the US. If poster of the false information outside of the US, the US citizen has no remedy. Google has created an automated system that someone from another country could use to ruin your life with false information. And their solution for you to solve that problem is to bring a claim against the publisher of the information, rather than using the tools they have to remove it. Tools they use to remove things that their paying customers and advertisers want removed. On April 05 2018 03:01 Gorsameth wrote: Yeah I don't see the point of going after Google instead of the publisher of the actual article. Now if the publisher takes it down and Google still returns a cached version then you have a point. I have to assume that source of the search results isn’t going to respond to a lawsuit or the person isn’t capable of bringing a lawsuit against the publisher. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
it seems to me more like google, as well as the original publisher, are providing an archive source that shows what was once printed and released. would you require a library to destroy it's microfiches of old newspaper articles that contain information now known to be false, lest someone looking through old archives find that information? | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On April 04 2018 23:18 On_Slaught wrote: Begun, the Trade War has (that was a super fast response from China...). Unsurprisingly they are focusing the tariffs on Trump voter counties/states. Oh wait, never mind. Apparently there is no trade war. False alarm. Remember now, Trump's policy and strategy on this trade war are clear. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The library example is a little hard to draw that direct line, because they don’t publish things directly into peoples houses. But if a librarian was collecting books showing blacks were genetically inferior and refused to carry any books that refuted the information, that would be a problem for the library. | ||
KwarK
United States43361 Posts
| ||
|
dp
United States234 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18843 Posts
On April 05 2018 03:39 dp wrote: I don't think people realize the difficulty in having false information rooted out by the source. While it may seem easy if say the NYT had an article that falsely stated negative information about you, the way things are reused would make it harder than simply contacting them. Auto-blogs using rss feeds to propagate news stories can have contact information that is out of date, or simply false as to not have to follow up on any hands on work. So while the original articles could have a retraction, dozens of second hand publishers can still show up with no real remedy besides having their listings removed from the search engine itself. I think this post and the preceding dispute over how we ought regard internet media platforms leads to a clear conclusion, namely that we need to reconfigure our notion of liability as it pertains to disseminators of information via digital means. Argument by analogy with more traditional media forms just doesn't quite capture the unique nature of internet media. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45181 Posts
On April 05 2018 03:33 KwarK wrote: I’m baffled that after a year and a half Trump still doesn’t know what a trade deficit is. In Trump's dictionary, a trade deficit is when your fourth wife is uglier than your third wife. In all seriousness, I'm not at all baffled that he doesn't understand basic economics. During his campaign, he even said that he wanted the United States to simply default on the national debt. He thinks that he can just treat the country like it's a failing business, because that's the environment he's experienced in. | ||
|
brian
United States9633 Posts
On April 05 2018 03:07 Plansix wrote: But they are capable of blocking the false information. They just choose not to. They are making a choice to not block information that they know to be false. And the problem with going after the publishers of this information is that they are often judgment proof. Which means that liability has little meaning to them because they don’t have money. At best the person could seek an order to force that person to take down the false information, but that does not mean they wouldn’t put it back up. Or even comply. And holding someone in contempt of court is costly and often not successful. And this all assumes the offending part is a US citizen and the server is in the US. If poster of the false information outside of the US, the US citizen has no remedy. Google has created an automated system that someone from another country could use to ruin your life with false information. And their solution for you to solve that problem is to bring a claim against the publisher of the information, rather than using the tools they have to remove it. Tools they use to remove things that their paying customers and advertisers want removed. I have to assume that source of the search results isn’t going to respond to a lawsuit or the person isn’t capable of bringing a lawsuit against the publisher. i can appreciate that the true source of the information being judgement proof is a problem but i’m not convinced the solution is to take money from those who have it as a secondary means of being made whole. i can also appreciate farva’s position that analogies are a tough fit in the world of the internet. but i’m still not convinced just because some judgement free loser in a basement can effectively defame you using the internet that google is liable. i know we all know this, but google doesn’t own the internet. not only would this not fly in any other industry, we would laugh at the ridiculousness of it. I’m looking forward to reading the specifics of Shefet’s case. i’m interested in what kind of jury could find them liable and not simultaneously Yahoo. And Bing. And AskJeeves. And DuckDuckGo. and Yandex. And Dogpile. And Yippy. you probably see where i’m going. just because the actual defendant is judgement proof or hard to find doesn’t suddenly make a search engine the de-facto at-fault party. and to sue one in particular is particularly offensive, given the above. how can anyone defend that? is the size of their audience the exhibit A? i object, relevance. again, practically speaking, they are no different than the hotdog retailer down the street in this matter. just because they can serve you the content doesn’t make them the owners of the content. i’d like someone to address this. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
Previous times the guard just helped the BP a little here and there at massive cost to the taxpayer. Curious to see what orders they get this time and how expensive it will be. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8226 Posts
On April 05 2018 04:50 On_Slaught wrote: It's official. Trump asking the National Guards to the border. Dunno on numbers yet, but no doubt California and maybe New Mexico will tell him fuck no. Previous times the guard just helped the BP a little here and there at massive cost to the taxpayer. Curious to see what orders they get this time and how expensive it will be. I don't doubt you, but source? Edit: nvm, found one myself  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-calls-military-secure-us-mexico-border-context/ | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22008 Posts
On April 05 2018 04:50 On_Slaught wrote: Ehm, unless I'm reading it wrong its not 'official'. Trump said he is considering it and discussing options. Not that the actual call has gone out for the NG to do so.It's official. Trump asking the National Guards to the border. Dunno on numbers yet, but no doubt California and maybe New Mexico will tell him fuck no. Previous times the guard just helped the BP a little here and there at massive cost to the taxpayer. Curious to see what orders they get this time and how expensive it will be. Normally this wouldn't differ much but with Trump its a big gap. He can still turn in any direction. | ||
| ||
