I hope this is not greed, because these companies are about as well funded as they are unconnected/innocent in this incident.
[0] added "provide a platform for" free speech for clarity.
Also, I am aware these platforms moderate, Facebook just committed to hiring 1400ish people to mod the site.
If it's the deaths of your family that pay for a whole planet's free speech, you deserve to be compensated.
The way this is phrased really changed my perspective on this. Thanks.
There are plenty of places where Corporations should currently be being prosecuted for fraud and false advertising. These are places where the people behind them would and should be just as liable for those things (and judges should pierce the corporate veil to prosecute those responsible). This is not those times.
The whole "companies are people" is nonsense. They are simply machines like any other human invention, and can't reasonably be held to have objectives or speech of their own any more than an automobile can.
> A number of lawsuits have been filed in recent years seeking to hold social media companies responsible for terror attacks, but none has advanced beyond the preliminary phases.
Here's another recent example of this [0]. At first glance of the definition for material support [1], these lawsuits might seem (legally) reasonable. Luckily though, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act [2] makes these lawsuits fairly baseless. I can't imagine the consequences if social media providers were liable for all content posted on them... (Disclaimer: IANAL in the least)
[0]: http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-lawsuits...
[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339A
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
https://www.rt.com/usa/369036-sandy-hook-gun-manufacturing-l...
..Oh
To clarify Apple refused to unlock the phone, thus I expected them to be a target of the lawsuit as well. Not saying they should have been sued or that this lawsuit has any merit.
...i.e. not at all, but a large and wealthy company to try and extort a settlement from.
There's social media liability insurance you can get just incase someone tries to drag you into a frivolous lawsuit. The cases all get thrown out, but not before potentially $20-50k in legal bills. The insurance is really just there to cover the legal bills until the plaintiff pays it back after dismissal (which can take a while).
If you run a hosting service or a small social network and don't have enough money to hire a staff lawyer, definitely check out getting some liability insurance to protect yourself from crap like this. It runs about $100/mo for a $5k deductible up to $1 million in coverage, but those numbers probably vary a lot.
These companies want to position themselves as the new media, the gatekeepers of "truth" so to speak. That's why they are pushing "Fake News" and moderating it, classifying it etc. It is basically a strategy to fill the void left by the older mass media companies, which are seen as failing an unable to manufacture consent effectively. So in a way they are signaling "Come to us now, we'll advertise your stuff and mark you competitors ideas as fake". It's a good move really. From a business standpoint, can't blame them there.
I am trying to conduct a mental experiment and imagine what would happen if say CNN gave al-Baghdadi a few minutes here and there to express his views. Or letting the local KKK chapter air their ideas once in a while. Many would agree CNN then might be complicit in inciting violence for example and would share a bit of responsibility. So if these other companies what to play "gatekeepers of truth" game they should also be responsible too?
So as a student all I want to know, is how do I tell I am not working for the "let's do whatever it takes" assholes.
- we have a legal framework for punishing law breakers. If these killers were affecting a political message (e.g. anti-US ideals like freedom, safety) our society has police and judicial means to extract "payment" or prevent this.
- At the civil level if someone/an entity is responsible for stripping civil liberties (this case through murder) I think we must draw a reasonable line. I don't have FB and am concerned w/ Google's privacy policies; however; to pretend a platform provided material support is absurd. Where does it end? Did googling weapons, posting pro-ISIS rants; a search interface and messaging/social network really count? This is reductionist?
- Consider this precedent and then why not sue Verizon for providing the data / internet and phone connectivity? What about Apple or Toshiba for the phone and hardware?
- I see this incident as a mental health issue, that is the underlying cause-- in my opinion.
- There really isn't a "price" for freedom or human life. No amount of money would likely convince me to give up my life. The responsible party is dead, so justice doesn't feel dispensed. Financially, they may be entitled to the estate assets.
- There is a degree of unfairness. Teaching tolerance and treating mental and health issues can help avoid this. This is a tradgedy, the family is likely to have damages >a million dollars (although there is no substitute for a human life) but we can't arbitrarily transfer those costs to a non-complicit party.
TL;DR I am glad you are open to changes in perspective; my comments are my opinion (as is the parent) but that framing struck me as reductionist and a bit of a disingenuous stawman. There are no easy answers unfortunately
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_...
Unless you think an AR15 is specifically designed for killing exotic animals.
Wild hogs aren't exotic animals, which is why you can use normal hunting rifles, and don't need an AR15.