Trump implicates Scarborough in murder.

[little_monkey]

Because if platforms could be sued for what someone else posts on their site, they would all have to shut down.

That doesn't explain that you can sue the New York times even though it was Mr X who defamed you, while if Mr X chose Twitter to defame you, Twitter cannot be sued. The reality is that social media were given protection, not available to the other media. It's why you have so much disinformation on the internet. Not good for democracy...

[Mountain Man]

That doesn't explain that you can sue the New York times even though it was Mr X who defamed you, while if Mr X chose Twitter to defame you, Twitter cannot be sued.

Because nothing gets printed in the pages of the New York Times without someone explicitly approving the content and making the choice to publish it. On the other hand, when you post something to Twitter, it's enitrely automated. There's nobody sitting at Twitter HQ reading and approving every submission. Think of it as the difference between an official letter published by a college, and the public bulletin board at the student union. The college controls and is therefore accountable for the content in the one but not the other.

[Sparko]

That doesn't explain that you can sue the New York times even though it was Mr X who defamed you, while if Mr X chose Twitter to defame you, Twitter cannot be sued. The reality is that social media were given protection, not available to the other media. It's why you have so much disinformation on the internet. Not good for democracy...

The difference is that the NYT would be the creator of the information being published. They either wrote it themselves or paid for someone else to write it, then they passed it through an editor, and then published it. They "touched" it all along the way and created it. When you post on tweb, or facebook, your post is your creation. You are responsible for your own words, they are just providing you a place to be heard/seen. They did not pay you for your words, nor did they write your words. At best they moderate it for whatever rules they have (profanity, nudity, violence, etc) So they are not liable for what you say. If you defamed someone on facebook, then you are personally liable to be sued. But facebook is not.

Think of it like the classified section of the newspaper. The NYT would not be responsible for things you say in a classified or personal section. You would be though.

[oxmixmudd]

The difference is that the NYT would be the creator of the information being published. They either wrote it themselves or paid for someone else to write it, then they passed it through an editor, and then published it. They "touched" it all along the way and created it. When you post on tweb, or facebook, your post is your creation. You are responsible for your own words, they are just providing you a place to be heard/seen. They did not pay you for your words, nor did they write your words. At best they moderate it for whatever rules they have (profanity, nudity, violence, etc) So they are not liable for what you say. If you defamed someone on facebook, then you are personally liable to be sued. But facebook is not.

Think of it like the classified section of the newspaper. The NYT would not be responsible for things you say in a classified or personal section. You would be though.

That is reasonable if they don't know about what was published.

But what about if they do know exactly what was published, exactly how wrong it is, but they look the other way and allow it to persist - even though they know it is wrong, even though they know it is libel.

Seems to me once they know about it, they are responsible for tagging it at the least if it is patently untrue, or libel etc.

Seems a compromise law where they have x time respond to notification of the problem element, where x is tied to potential impact. The problem there is how much manpower would that require. But keying it to #hits could make it managable, so that when notification of the problem link arrives, # hits for that item drives its priority to be fixed. The more popular specific misinformation is, the more likely it is to get flagged if it is false or illegal in some way like libel.

A cat and mouse would ensue, where purveyors of misinformation would make copies under new linkid's to keep hits low, where a next level of response would be needed to identify duplicate information under different identitifiers* and the use of cumulative hit count - rinse, repeat with a new variation.

*or up front prevention of posting duplicate information under different linkids using hashes of the data content etc.

[Sparko]

That is reasonable if they don't know about what was published.

But what about if they do know exactly what was published, exactly how wrong it is, but they look the other way and allow it to persist - even though they know it is wrong, even though they know it is libel.

Seems to me once they know about it, they are responsible for tagging it at the least if it is patently untrue, or libel etc.

Seems a compromise law where they have x time respond to notification of the problem element, where x is tied to potential impact. The problem there is how much manpower would that require. But keying it to #hits could make it managable, so that when notification of the problem link arrives, # hits for that item drives its priority to be fixed. The more popular specific misinformation is, the more likely it is to get flagged if it is false or illegal in some way like libel.

A cat and mouse would ensue, where purveyors of misinformation would make copies under new linkid's to keep hits low, where a next level of response would be needed to identify duplicate information under different identitifiers* and the use of cumulative hit count - rinse, repeat with a new variation.

*or up front prevention of posting duplicate information under different linkids using hashes of the data content etc.

You are expecting the platform to know everything posted on their platform and completely understand whether or not it is true and if it is defaming someone, etc. That's an impossible task.

If you post something defamatory about a colleague on facebook, how is facebook supposed to know who you are, or your colleague or the circumstances of the situation you are posting about, if it is true or not, etc?

It's a pretty deep rabbit hole to start checking every post for whether it is true, or defamatory. I think Trump is saying what you do: That if they DO claim to know and start interfering with posts to the point they are judging whether they are factual or defamatory, etc, then they ARE responsible and become a publisher.

That's why it is better NOT to take such a stance. Better to just moderate specific terms and conditions, like profanity, violence, obvious criminal activity and so on. Then you can't be held responsible.

[Cow Poke]

You are expecting the platform to know everything posted on their platform and completely understand whether or not it is true and if it is defaming someone, etc. That's an impossible task.

If you post something defamatory about a colleague on facebook, how is facebook supposed to know who you are, or your colleague or the circumstances of the situation you are posting about, if it is true or not, etc?

It's a pretty deep rabbit hole to start checking every post for whether it is true, or defamatory. I think Trump is saying what you do: That if they DO claim to know and start interfering with posts to the point they are judging whether they are factual or defamatory, etc, then they ARE responsible and become a publisher.

That's why it is better NOT to take such a stance. Better to just moderate specific terms and conditions, like profanity, violence, obvious criminal activity and so on. Then you can't be held responsible.

Not only that, but each time you say "facebook" or "the platform" above, you're actually talking about an employee who may well have their OWN axe to grind, or prejudices, or agenda.

[oxmixmudd]

You are expecting the platform to know everything posted on their platform and completely understand whether or not it is true and if it is defaming someone, etc. That's an impossible task.

Not true. Read more carefully. I said x days to respond once notified of a problem. They aren't responsible till they are notified. Then they must respond based on the popularity (a rough measure of impact) of the potential misinformation/libel etc.

If you post something defamatory about a colleague on facebook, how is facebook supposed to know who you are, or your colleague or the circumstances of the situation you are posting about, if it is true or not, etc?

It's a pretty deep rabbit hole to start checking every post for whether it is true, or defamatory. I think Trump is saying what you do: That if they DO claim to know and start interfering with posts to the point they are judging whether they are factual or defamatory, etc, then they ARE responsible and become a publisher.

That's why it is better NOT to take such a stance. Better to just moderate specific terms and conditions, like profanity, violence, obvious criminal activity and so on. Then you can't be held responsible.

How can I get you to actually read what I'm posting Sparko? Did you see these words:

But what about if they do know exactly what was published, exactly how wrong it is, but they look the other way and allow it to persist - even though they know it is wrong, even though they know it is libel.

Your response seems to imply you didn't, because I'm talking about that set of posts that they do know about, and you are talking about every post everywhere which we would both agree is impossible to fully police.

So I'm talking about when they DO know what is there and then ignore it, when they do know it has a large potential impact. And I'm talking about a way to help bring issues to light that are problems, recognizing the limited capacity to address it all or know everything that is there, but making them legally liable to respond when notified based on the potential impact of the misinformation. If I post something that libels you, but 3 people look at it over a week - you can take that up with those people directly and sue me if you like. But if Trump implicates a senator in a murder that is known to be false with millions of views and shares, the damage there is huge and if the owners of the website know about it and do nothing, they are complicit. So there needs to be something in between no responsibility and absolute responsibility.

[Sparko]

Not true. Read more carefully. I said x days to respond once notified of a problem. They aren't responsible till they are notified. Then they must respond based on the popularity (a rough measure of impact) of the potential misinformation/libel etc.

Again, how are they to judge what is libel or not?

"Dear Facebook, Fred is defaming me by saying I am selling stolen merchandise out of my basement. Please ban him, thanks"

[Whateverman]

I trust them because their stories withstand scrutiny.

Then you probably don't actually read Breitbart too much:

https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/stat...69781027373056

[JimL]

Again, how are they to judge what is libel or not?

"Dear Facebook, Fred is defaming me by saying I am selling stolen merchandise out of my basement. Please ban him, thanks"

The case against libel with respect to Trumps tweeted insinuations of murder against Scarborough have already been investigated and it is known what happened. It's on camara. The lady in question had a heart condition, complained to her fellow employees earlier in the day that she wasn't feeling well, and later in the day fainted and hit her head on the furniture. Scarborough was actually a thousand miles away at the time. That's how they judge whether it's libel or not, the facts are well known.

[Leonhard]

Why are we even discussing it anymore? Isn't it clear to everyone, on both sides, that Trump stuck his foot in his mouth and that's that?

[Mountain Man]

Then you probably don't actually read Breitbart too much:

https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/stat...69781027373056

Whatever, man.

[DivineOb]

Whatever, man.

He needs to change his name to ThatsTheTruthMan.

[Whateverman]

I trust them because their stories withstand scrutiny.

Then you probably don't actually read Breitbart too much:

https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/stat...69781027373056

Whatever, man.

So, you claim you read Breitbart because their stories withstand scrutiny, but then refuse to scrutinize stories of theirs which appear patently stupid?

I hope you realize that this doesn't paint your intellectual integrity in a particularly good light.

Read whatever you want, but if you meant what you said about Breitbart, then you'll care about stories of their which don't even stand up to casual scrutiny.

[Mountain Man]

So, you claim you read Breitbart because their stories withstand scrutiny, but then refuse to scrutinize stories of theirs which appear patently stupid?

I hope you realize that this doesn't paint your intellectual integrity in a particularly good light.

Read whatever you want, but if you meant what you said about Breitbart, then you'll care about stories of their which don't even stand up to casual scrutiny.

I'm not sure how showing images of deliberately provocative headlines proves your point.