Section 230 Immunizes TikTok Against Suit Brought By Parent Whose Child Died Participating In A ‘Blackout Challenge’
from the underneath-all-the-claims,-it's-still-user-generated-content dept
Earlier this year, the mother of child who died of asphyxiation while participating in the so-called “Blackout Challenge” sued TikTok, alleging the company was directly responsible for her 10-year-old daughter’s death. The lawsuit claimed this wasn’t about third-party content, even though the content that the child allegedly emulated was posted on TikTok. Instead, the lawsuit tried to avoid the obvious Section 230 implications by framing its allegations as intentionally flawed product design.
Plaintiff does not seek to hold the TikTok Defendants liable as the speaker or publisher of third-party content and instead intends to hold the TikTok Defendants responsible for their own independent conduct as the designers, programmers, manufacturers, sellers, and/or distributors of their dangerously defective social media products and for their own independent acts of negligence as further described herein. Thus, Plaintiffs claims fall outside of any potential protections afforded by Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act.
TikTok has long been controversial for content its users post. Much of this controversy is manufactured. Someone hears something about a new and potentially dangerous “challenge” and pretty soon news broadcasts all over the nation are quoting each other’s breathless reporting to turn something few people engaged in into “viral” moral panics. According to the lawsuit, this particular “challenge” showed up in the 10-year-old’s “For You” section — an algorithmically sorted list of recommendations, some of which is generated by the user’s own interests.
The plaintiff seeking closure via the court system is out of luck, though. It doesn’t matter how the allegations are framed. It matters what the allegations actually are. The lawyers representing the child’s mother wanted to dodge the Section 230 question because they knew the lawsuit was unwinnable if they met that head on.
The legal dancing is over (at least until the appeal). Section 230 immunity can’t be avoided just by trying to turn the algorithmic sorting of user-generated content into some sort of product design flaw. The federal court handling the lawsuit has tossed the suit, citing the very law the plaintiff wanted to keep out of the discussion. (via Law and Crime)
From the decision [PDF]:
Section 230 provides immunity when: (1) the defendant is an interactive computer service provider; (2) the plaintiff seeks to treat the defendant as a publisher or speaker of information; and (3) that information is provided by another content provider. 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). Here, the Parties agree that Defendants are interactive computer service providers, and that the Blackout Challenge videos came from “another information content provider” (third-party users). They dispute only whether Anderson, by her design defect and failure to warn claims, impermissibly seeks to treat Defendants as the “publishers” of those videos. It is evident from the face of Anderson’s Complaint that she does.
In addition to that, Anderson wanted TikTok to be treated as a certain kind of publisher, the kind that creates content and publishes it. But there are zero facts to back that claim. Hence the shift of focus to defective design and consumer safety torts under the rationale that it’s TikTok’s recommendation algorithm that’s deliberately and dangerously broken. It doesn’t work. TikTok is indeed a publisher, but a publisher of user-created content, which is definitely covered by Section 230. [Emphasis in the original.]
Anderson bases her allegations entirely on Defendants’ presentation of “dangerous and deadly videos” created by third parties and uploaded by TikTok users. She thus alleges that TikTok and its algorithm “recommend inappropriate, dangerous, and deadly videos to users”; are designed “to addict users and manipulate them into participating in dangerous and deadly challenges”; are “not equipped, programmed with, or developed with the necessary safeguards required to prevent circulation of dangerous and deadly videos”; and “[f]ail[] to warn users of the risks associated with dangerous and deadly videos and challenges.” (Compl. ¶¶ 107, 127 (emphasis added).) Anderson thus premises her claims on the “defective” manner in which Defendants published a third party’s dangerous content.
Although Anderson recasts her content claims by attacking Defendants’ “deliberate action” taken through their algorithm, those “actions,” however “deliberate,” are the actions of a publisher. Courts have repeatedly held that such algorithms are “not content in and of themselves.”
That does it for the lawsuit. The court concludes by reiterating that the lawsuit is about user-generated content, even if it hopes to be perceived as about something else by attacking TikTok’s recommendation algorithms. You can argue that TikTok should perform better moderation, especially when recommending content to minors, but you can’t argue the tragic death is unrelated to content posted by TikTok users. If immunity is the perceived problem, the court suggests parents stop hiring legal representation and start talking to their elected representation.
Nylah Anderson’s death was caused by her attempt to take up the “Blackout Challenge.” Defendants did not create the Challenge; rather, they made it readily available on their site. Defendants’ algorithm was a way to bring the Challenge to the attention of those likely to be most interested in it. In thus promoting the work of others, Defendants published that work—exactly the activity Section 230 shields from liability. The wisdom of conferring such immunity is something properly taken up with Congress, not the courts.
That’s the correct judicial take. Unfortunately, there are far too many elected representatives seeking to destroy Section 230 immunity and First Amendment protections for platforms, although most care more about keeping them and their buddies extremely online than about the tragic deaths of impressionable social media users.
Filed Under: blackout challenge, liability, negligence, product design, section 230
Companies: tiktok
Comments on “Section 230 Immunizes TikTok Against Suit Brought By Parent Whose Child Died Participating In A ‘Blackout Challenge’”
I know I know… sue the local media for doing stories about the challenge and putting the idea to search for it in your kids head… that’ll pay big.
blinks
What's this?
Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »
I think the headline should read “Section 230 allows TikTok to get a lawsuit they were already immune to dismissed without going through discovery first.”.
Re:
Yeah, a good point. Here’s something I wrote over in the Ars Technica comments (in response to our own Toom1275, discussing a sealion who was insisting that 230 prevents judges from deciding cases):
Re: Re: A minor cut to an elephant is a deadly wound to a mouse
230 doesn’t just protect TikTok or Facebook or Twitter or the tiny handful of large social media sites run by a handful of companies. It protects every single person who runs a messageboard, or a Mastodon instance, or a website with a comments section, or anything else on the Internet that allows third-party content.
Given how often those attacking 230 frame it as going after the major platforms I feel it’s always worthwhile to point out that while they certainly benefit from the law the primary beneficiaries are the smaller platforms, whether those that might compete with the major ones or those that are in their own little niche.
The major platforms could and almost certainly would survive a 230 repeal because they can afford the resulting legal fees required to slog through the cases that would get dismissed on first amendment grounds even without 230, smaller platforms would most certainly not as for many a single lawsuit could very well be all that it took to sink them even if they ultimately would have won.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Wow! Posting Saying, Not Only Does 230 Immunize Tiktok for Recklessly Promoting a Challenge that Encouraged Children to Kill Themselves, But It Would Ruin the Internet to Limit Sec. 230
So here I am reading an article discussing the legal reasoning of a court’s decision that TikTok is immune for promoting and targeting the Blackout Challenge that induced several children to kill themselves. The argument, well, it’s indeed how courts are looking at 230. For example, the provision about platforms taking good faith steps to moderate content, that’s, sort of irrelevant when it comes to promoting videos encouraging people to choke themselves. Or steal Kia’s. Or beat up teachers. Who could moderate such stuff? I mean, as all Tech Dirt readers know, “moderation at scale is impossible” (Per Tech Dirt, that’s “moderation”, not “perfect moderation”, but who’s quibbling about the difference around here?)
Anyway, the legal analysis sounded to me like a pretty strong argument for modifying 230, to at least impose some responsibility on platforms for selecting harmful postings to promote and to even target selected vulnerable users with, based on the vast data these platforms collect about their users. But wait, this is Tech Dirt. Without “platforms” that aggressively target users with anything that seems likely to get the user’s attention, and of course, allowing “platforms” to use stats about user engagement to sell ads, not to mention, allowing “platofrms” to sell the service of actually targeting specific ads on vulnerable users, hey, in TechDirt world, the Internet would be ruined. Obviously. As we all know. The price of liberty is letting big, money grubbing companies to target kids with “challenges” to do reckless things to kill themselves, without any danger of liability because they’re just platforms and have nothing to do with the content they’re promoting and targeting, because, I guess, those promotion and targeting systems according to Tech Dirt have nothing to do with the content being promoted and targeted, of course.
Or wait, you wouldn’t need immunity if, without immunity, the “platform” would be legal liable, I suppose. So, what we need to do is protect TikTok in the name of freedom to promote and target from actions they would be otherwise liable for under standards applicable to say, print publishers. In other words freedom of speech beyond what’s protected by the First Amendment, necessary so that we can enjoy our online social media without those companies having to worry about stuff like, what otherwise actionable harm they’re causing.
Excuse me for ranting a bit, yes TikTok promoted this challenge, and yes it was targeted, and yes the challenge encouraged the kids to do something that was dangerous and reckless and cost several kids’ lives.
Re:
Let me stop you there, bub. If TikTok actually “promot[ed] and target[ed]” any illegal activity according to federal law, §230 doesn’t immunize against it. That there was no evidence that Tik Tok actively promoted those videos means that it was the fault of the people who made those videos on TikTok and not ByteDance (owners of TikTok) themselves.
The rest of your rant is very confused.
Re: Re:
I’d posit that the rest of his rant was strong evidence that the drugs had finally kicked in….
Re: Re: Re:
… or finally worn off…
Re:
If you put liability on sites for what users post, they will only allow publication of what an editor can vet, with most submissions being ignored and deleted. Under such a legal system, a social media site can not exist. Also, you hand control of culture back to the publishers labels and studios, as the editorial control required would kill the likes of Jamendo.
Do you really want to return to a world where you can only get published if an editor agrees to publish your work? That is a world where 99% of human creativity is never seen by anybody other that the creator, and maybe family and close friends.
Re: Re: Better content moderation....
Well, Elon is trashing twitter right now, but I think part of the reason content moderation at scale is impossible is due to the difficulty of leveraging the community to do it.
That is, to moderate at scale, you need to be able to ask the community to put in a little painless effort at moderation. I already put in too much time on Tik-Tok, why not find a way to trust me a little and get my potentially useful rating on random videos? Techdirt does some of that, but I think larger sites need to experiment with doing more, kind of like twitter’s birdwatch.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and there’s a reason it’s difficult: The vast majority of users on a given service probably don’t want to do moderation work when they log into the service.
Re: Re: Re:
That will fail for larger communities because too many decisions will be disputed, as no two people will agree on every decision, and thousands will get into loud arguments over the same decisions.
Re: Re: Re:
“That is, to moderate at scale, you need to be able to ask the community to put in a little painless effort at moderation”
Define “painless”. If you’ve a black trans woman, for example, moderating against racial, transphobic hate might be slightly more painful than having the site do it for you, because you have to experience the abuse before it’s moderated.
That’s a slightly extreme example, but to give another cliche – if all you’re trying to use a site for is to watch cat videos and see photos of your family, why would you put up with having to moderate abuse?
“Techdirt does some of that”
Techdirt is already a smaller subset of self-filtered individual interested in a relatively narrow set of subject. There’s less problems with, say, someone coming here and seeing some idiot trying to misrepresent a story, compared to some other places where a casting decision in a kids’ movie will lead to a torrent of racial and homophobic abuse if not moderated.
Re: Re: Re:2 Indeed...
As to “painless”, I’ll go for “takes little more effort than looking at whatever you might already be looking at” … see Techdirt’s “Flag” button. Your abused, odd user is probably already blocking assholes, but if s/he can get a shared list, reaching he/r gets way harder, especially if normal people also use that blocklist. Reputation is a thing, especially if there’s friction to gain it and positive feedback for it.
I have yet to see an argument about that “flag” button at Techdirt; I’m thinking extending that kind of voting, maybe with an “approve” button.
I’ve also yet to see anyone complain about the “funniest and most insightful comment of the week” contest on Techdirt; that and the membership program incentivise better posts, and participation is completely optional, so it’s very painless.
Also, there are subreddits with their volunteer moderators, they do seem to function.
So there’s lots of ideas available in terms of crowdsourcing the moderation effectively. It’s complicated, so it’s gonna need that experimentation silicon valley is famous for!
Re: Re: Re:3
That reminds me, I’ve been meaning to ask…. Can we get a third category please? I’d like to see “Stupidest Post Of The Week”, or perhaps “Most Flagged Post Of The Week”. Oh wait, I repeat myself.
I can’t be the only one who’d like to see this, anyone else?
sumgai
Re: Re: Re:4
Given that would just encourage the trolls to be as vile and toxic as possible(above what they already act like) that would not be an improvement.
Re: Re: Re:5
Errr, that was meant as a rhetorical question, aimed specifically at Chozen. Though you’re correct, he’d probably not get the dig at him – I didn’t use any profanity or call him names.
Re: Re: Re:6
Apologies if my comment came across as hostile, it wasn’t intended that way, it’s just the idea in general has been brought up before and the trolls are already toxic enough without being ‘rewarded’ with public recognition beyond the people who poke at them already.
Re: Re: Re:3
Apart from the quickly flagged comments by those claiming that being flagged is censorship.
Which also have a dedicated user base.
With the larger social media sites, there are people who get upset if they are under continuous attack, and would simply stop using sites where that occurred. Also, on the larger sites, the paid moderators have problems due to the awful stuff they have to deal with.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Sadly, Ken, the only thing TD knows how to do is blame the parents when a kid kills themselves or dies in any way. They love talking about how “nerd harder” is impossible, but ignore how complex parenting is, or the idea that parents may not keep up with every online trend, or that parents may not have enough hours in the day to parent because a lot of parents work fucking hard to provide for their kids, or that their kids may keep stuff hidden from their parents. Does anybody here remember when you told your parents about every single thing you saw and did online? Nah, I didn’t think so.
For example, it’s very clear that its late tech advocate Aaron Swartz’s parents’ fault that he killed himself. He didn’t suck it up and man up like he should have, and it’s his parents’ fault for not teaching him. Right? Or is the only one responsible for Aaron’s suicide himself, as an individual, as the hyper-libertarian folks would take it? You guys seem fond of that one as well. No external factors are ever to blame. Aaron being harassed constantly by law enforcement and more had nothing to do with his suicide.
Like Adam said 9 years ago, a lot of y’all’s comments on this site make me sick. None of y’all have matured in the last decade.
Re: Re:
No one here has said “the parents are responsible for the death of their child”. I would say that the parents, at worst, did not keep a close eye on what content their child was watching—but that doesn’t rise to the level of criminal culpability.
I don’t think anyone here would dispute that parenting is hard. But that can’t be a reason to hold TikTok liable for a child’s death—especially when TikTok didn’t directly and knowingly compel that child to kill herself.
That rhetorical gimmick is bullshit.
It had a lot to do with his suicide. That said: None of those people directly killed him. His decision to die by suicide was his own—pressured and influenced by outside factors, yes, but it was still his own decision.
Then leave and be troubled by us no more. (No, seriously, if you hate us this much, not reading the site at all should do wonders for your mental health.)
Re: Re:
Can you propose any means by which such problematic videos are detected before kids can see them? Do you realize just how many videos are posted on TikTok per minute? Do you want an open Internet, or a publisher controlled Internet?
All the above questions are related to the scale of the Internet and the impossibility of perfectly accurate moderation, assuming that the boundaries of what should be allowed or blocked can be agreed on. (Hit any two people will disagree on edge cases of moderation, especially over what is or is not suitable for kids).
Re: Re:
Are you fscking kidding me? If that’s your major take-away from having read this site, and its’ comments, for the last 9 years, then I have no words to express my dismay at your lack of discernment. I can only blame that on your parents. Oops, I did it again.
Listen pal, the only reason parenting is “hard” is because one had less-than-stellar parenting examples while growing up. IOW, what goes around comes around, and all that. Children of ‘good’ parents tend to become good parents themselves. Parenting is “hard” only in that tough love is sometimes required. What matters is how it’s applied, and that’s the bottom line. Love and trust… if you can’t apply them in the proper proportions (meaning, liberally), then your child is not going to come out on the other end as a good parent, period.
(Father of 4, grandfather of 9, great-grandfather of 3 and counting. And I’d lay money that there are others here who could top that, if they were to wish to say so… (But I’m not issuing a challenge, you understand.))
Re: Re:
I have a great deal of difficulty determining whether you actually believe this, or whether you simply didn’t add a “/s” at the end to indicate it was parody/sarcasm.
Re: Re:
They love talking about how “nerd harder” is impossible, but ignore how complex parenting is, or the idea that parents may not keep up with every online trend, or that parents may not have enough hours in the day to parent because a lot of parents work fucking hard to provide for their kids, or that their kids may keep stuff hidden from their parents.
Nerding harder is far from impossible.
But the question of nerding harder in the context you’re using it is as a substitute for parenting harder. To which I pose this question – are you sure this a nerding problem?
Are we really ready to go down the “b’wanasee da algorhythm!’ with all of these parents who have plenty of time to complain about something they heard might be in a library book, but can’t find the time to watch their child choking themselves blue?
Despite parents being busier than ever before, they also seem to have an inordinate amount of time in many places to rally against certain school curriculums, library books, and using litterboxes in lieu of a toilet.
There’s plenty of time, when you’re not occupied with the latest piece of stupid that parents are getting behind.
Re: Re:
So you admit you want an internet where your access to information is controlled by the fucks in power then.
I already live in such a sad state of affairs. It is horrible shit despite the whole “soft touch” of it all.
Maybe you’d prefer to be a Murdoch simp, but people like you make me physically ill, very angry and forces me to curb MY murderous urges.
YOU want the state to have total control down to SLAPP being an everyday thing against criticism, comapnies to HAPPILY let the government dictate corporate policy that ISN’T limited to workplace safety, and far worse.
I don’t need more successful totalitarian states to kill off democracy, and brownshirts like you can take your concern trolling and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
Re: Re:
If you can’t see the difference between a platform making automated recommendations that led to very unfortunate consequences, and law enforcement stretching the law specifically to go after someone for a non-violent crime, I’m not sure you’re in a position to be convinced of anything. I will note, though, that you’re entirely willing to use someone else’s suicide to push your distaste for users on a forum that have very little significant impact. And that’s telling.
You know, for someone who hates this site, you sure put a lot of effort in keeping track of comments just to shit on everyone else ten years later.
Re: Re: You won’t be missed or even noticed.
<—— Door is that way
Re: Re:
Sadly, all Techdirt’s critics know how to do is make up the dumbest lies that anyone can debunk for themselvs with mere seconds of actually reading.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Techdirts critics are well earned. Mike rurally stepped in in calling Vijaya Gadde a champion of free speech only to have it leaked that very week that Vijaya Gadde was on a DHS committee conspiring against American’s rights.
Furthermore that committee suggested the DHS launder government propaganda through third party information non-profits and Mike just happens to own a third party information non-profit. It looks very bad for Mike and the criticism is well deserved.
Re: Re: Re:2
And the reason for all that 1A violation?
Russia, 2016, and domestic (white) terrorists and their supporters like Chozen here.
It’s a sad state of affairs when the cause of all that 1A violation is speaking right in front of us.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Russia Russia Russia
Tell me was that Russian interference ever proven in a court of law?
The DOJ dropped all charges against Concord Management because they had no case.
Re: Re: Re:4
Then what did Manafort plead guilty to?
Re: Re: Re:2
Thank you for proving my observation so perfectly.
Re: Say what?!
Oh, come the fuck on already. (At least you admitted that your epistle was a rant, I’ll give you that.)
In fact, any algorithm is not going to know shit from shinola when it comes to where (to whom) it is placing a recommendation. Certainly you (if you’re sane) aren’t going to tell us that you’ve never heard of false identification, are you? Because that’s exactly what’s happening more than 99% of the time a minor signs up, they fake their identification values, and Presto! Voila!, they are considered to be full-fledged valid adults. Wny? Because no social media platform (momentarily disregarding the cluster-fuck being proposed by Musk) wants to inhibit their growth-of-eyeballs numbers.
I’m sure I need not detail that any further, do I?
So the court was correct – if you don’t like Section 230 shit-canning your payday, then take it up with your elected law-makers. But one word of advice – be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. And while I wouldn’t give two shits in a fart storm if that happened to you, but I’d give a very big fuck if you forced that on me. Me, I want an open internet, not a government regulated one, nor one that clogs the courts to the point where they can’t get anything done in a reasonable amount of time. But hey, if I’m in the minority here, and you get what you want, then there are always options, like other countries where the government is a little more sane. So be it, come what may.
Swing and a miss. If the coding was dangerous then you’d think users would be dropping dead left and right but since the only danger is what it might point someone to, that being third party content, 230 rightly applies here unless they could show that those running the platform deliberately and knowingly pointed that particular user towards that particular content with intent to do harm, something that would be financial and PR suicide for any platform and therefore isn’t very likely to say the least.
It’s tragic that her kid managed to kill themselves due to following along with some stupid ‘challenge’ but blaming the easiest and richest target is not how anything gets fixed beyond billable hours by whatever lawyer conned her into the lawsuit. Take the money slated for legal fees and use it to pay for therapy, I guarantee that will result in a better outcome for all involved.
Re:
Come to that, it’s a wonder that judges don’t sanction lawyers who bring these suits before them. Not for wasting the court’s time, but for exactly what you said, conning those who are grieving and therefore highly susceptible to having their hopes raised that “someone will pay for this needless suffering”.
Attorneys: the one profession where you get paid, win or lose. (Unless you work for #45.)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Enjoye it WHile It Lasts
Enjoy it while it lasts Tim. There is no way Section 230 is making its way out of Gonzalez v. Google without some kind of test at the least. After that all these shitty 9th circuit rulings go back to apply the Gonzalez Test/Standard just like all the shitty 9th circuit gun control cases are going back to apply the Heller standard.
Re:
Yes or no, Chozen: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
Re: Re:
Out of morbid curiosity I know Koby always runs for the hills whenever you ask that but has Chozen ever been stupid enough to answer it?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
I have no problem answering it. Stephen is a stupid fucking autistic with the mind of a 10 year old. Government has that power as was decided in Pruneyard.
Re: Re: Re:2
Pruneyard only applies to a small portion of physical shopping malls, and only in California at that. You seem to be the only person here who is incapable of understanding that fact.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
“Pruneyard only applies to a small portion of physical shopping malls”
And Brown v. Board of Education only applies to schools lol
Shut the fuck up you ignorant dipshit!
Re: Re: Re:4
lmao you got nothin’
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Nope
Nope you are just too stupid to get it.
Let me spell it out for you. If Pruneyard only applies to ” small portion of physical shopping malls” then Brown v. Board of Education only applies to schools.
Re: Re: Re:6
Yes, Chozen, and?
1A also implies they have the right to do just that.
Or are you trying to say that no one has any freedom to associate with whomever they like?
Freedom of expression, bitch, also means the FREEDOM TO ASSOCIATE. And I’m stating here that I don’t want to associate with your white worshipping, race traitor ass.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
“Or are you trying to say that no one has any freedom to associate with whomever they like?”
There is no such right in the Constitution. There is a right to group speech and group assembly. This has been called by some freedom of association. No reasonable person considers a venue of speech to be the speech or the association of the venue. That you fucking morons think it does just proves you are not reasonable people.
No reasonable person ever considered Trumps tweets to be Twitter’s speech you stupid fuck.
Re: Re: Re:8
Okay, I’mma have to put this rabid argument down because it’s starting to scare off the trash pandas.
The thing about the freedom of association is that it doesn’t matter whether people consider certain kinds of speech to be the speech of the platform itself. Twitter may not condone hate speech being on the platform and its employees may not post that kind of speech, but if the platform becomes overrun with hate speech, people will still associate Twitter—or the experience of being on Twitter, at least—with hate speech. Chances are good that those people will leave Twitter, too—and they’re allowed to do that for that specific reason regardless of how you feel about it.
Twitter employees don’t have to approve of or post hate speech for people to think of Twitter as a platform where hate speech flourishes. If you can’t understand why people wouldn’t want to associate with Twitter once they make that connection, that’s your problem, and you’re the only one who can solve it.
Re: Re: Re:9
A bar doesn’t have to put up a ‘Racists welcome!’ sign to become known as a bigot-friendly business, they just need to refuse to kick out the patrons loudly making racist statements towards anyone not lily-white.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
“The thing about the freedom of association is that it doesn’t matter whether people consider certain kinds of speech to be the speech of the platform itself. Twitter may not condone hate speech being on the platform and its employees may not post that kind of speech, but if the platform becomes overrun with hate speech, people will still associate Twitter—or the experience of being on Twitter, at least—with hate speech. Chances are good that those people will leave Twitter, too—and they’re allowed to do that for that specific reason regardless of how you feel about it.”
That’s a statutory issue not a Constitutional one you fucking moron.
Re: Re: Re:10
It’s actually neither. It’s a human behavior issue.
Re: Re: Re:10 Emphasis on impotent
Empty impotent threats up next on the chodaboi schedule
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
Homophobia up next for the AC
When a bisexual man makes a hyperbolic fucked in the ass joke, which was a modified George Carlin joke, why did you assume its was rape threat?
Re: Re: Re:12
Because YOU FUCKING DID THREATEN TO RAPE SOMEONE HERE.
Stop lying and polluting the fucking comment section.
You probably aren’t Latino or bisexual, nor an electric engineer at all. Or whatever the fyck you want to make up to seem like you’re smarter than the rest of us.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:13
“Because YOU FUCKING DID THREATEN TO RAPE SOMEONE HERE.”
When?
Re: Re: Re:14
12 May, 2022, at 7:02AM on whatever Timezone Techdirt runs under.
Just linking to it is vile enough. And honestly, since you’re gonna lie about the entire thing, at this point I’m only doing it because I’m an evil asshat.
Disregard if you wish, whitey, because you lied about EVERYTHING.
Re: Re: Re:15
FWIW, TechDirt runs under Pacific Standard Time, which is UTC – 8:00.
Re: Re: Re:14
Can’t even man up enough to take responsibility for your actions, you little bitch.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:13
See this whole ‘you threatened to rape someone’ is what is wrong with this piece of shit blog. You morons repeat stuff so often like ‘Pruneyard’ only applies to shopping centers in California that you actually believe it. That is this entire blog in a nutshell. Someone says something untrue you all start repeating it and you believe it. Mike’s misfits make up a massive echo-chamber.
Re: Re: Re:14
Provide one case, any case, where Pruneyard has been applied to anything other than a Californian shopping center.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:15
Conneticut v. Johnson streight up murder case
“A State, of course, may apply a more stringent state harmless-error rule than Chapman would require. See PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81 (1980). “But . . . a State may not impose such greater restrictions as a matter of federal constitutional law when this Court specifically refrains from imposing them.” Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714, 719 (1975) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, if Connecticut wishes to impose a more stringent standard than the federal rule, it must do so as a matter of state law.”
Environmental Defense Ctr., Inc. v. U.S.E.P.A.
“Informing the public about safe toxin disposal is non-ideological; it involves no “compelled recitation of a message” and no “affirmation of belief.” PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, ”
Pruneyard has been cited some 800 times from criminal cases to environmental cases but I’m not paying for database access for all of it.
Mike has been lying to you.
Re: Re: Re:16
And the relevance of any of them to Twitters moderation is?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:17
Environmental Defense Ctr., Inc. v. U.S.E.P.A.
Because its clearly a 1A case on regulation and compelled speech. Citing Pruneyard the 9th concluded that regulations forcing the distribution of environmental information was not “compelled recitation of a message” or an “affirmation of belief.” Nothing at all to do with a shopping center purely a government regulation with forcing business in the public interest to host speech in that public interest.
Re: Re: Re:12 Still can;t get it up eh?
The only one talking about homosexuality is you rape boi.
Re: Re: Re:8
“There is a right to group speech and group assembly. This has been called by some freedom of association”
So, people can choose who they associate with?
“No reasonable person considers a venue of speech to be the speech or the association of the venue”
“Corporations are people my friend.”
“No reasonable person ever considered Trumps tweets to be Twitter’s speech you stupid fuck.”
No, because section 230 immunised them from that. There did have to be a major decision as to whether they were the government’s speech due to his refusal to separate his private account from official businesses, but that’s a different issue best dealt with by the archivists he’s currently being prosecuted for ignoring with physical documents.
The interesting new thing is that now that Musk owns Twitter, his hate speech and misinformation can be considered both his and Twitter’s own speech under section 230, if I understand correctly.
Twitter made the mistake of allowing Trump to break their rules too often until Jan 6th finally made it so that it was less viable to keep him than remove him. Let’s see what Musk does now that the line is actually blurred.
Re: Re: Re:8
You talk about Gonzalez v Google where the plaintiffs have inextricably associated user content with the service and here you say that no reasonable person will associate Trump’s tweets with Twitter. Logically that means you think that section 230 must go because unreasonable persons should be able to sue a site while a site shouldn’t be able to moderate as they see fit because a reasonable person won’t ever associate a users speech with the platform.
Seems you are a real brainiac…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Gonzalez v Google, is exactly the same issue as the Tic-Toc issue. Google’s algorithm prioritized terroristic content and radicalized terrorists, which is a federal crime. Google is not criminally and civilly responsible for the creation of the ISIS videos they are however criminally and civil for their algorithm recommending the terroristic content.
This is the perfect case to neuter or end 230 because the Federalist wing of the right of the court which would normally bend the knee to cooperate interests cannot allow Google to section 230 their way out of a national defense statute.
Re: Re: Re:6
Yes, both of those things are true. Brown creating a legal precedent that ultimately helped strike down other racial segregation laws doesn’t change the fact that the original ruling was specifically about whether laws mandating racial segregation in schools were unconstitutional.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
When the supreme court makes a ruling it doesn’t just affect that specific statute. For example all gun cases have been sent back to the 9th to apply the Heller standard.
Re: Re: Re:4 Predictable and stupid as ever candycruah
Here comes the hissy for right on schedule.
Re: Re: Re:2
Chozen: Angry incoherent Chozen noises.
Yes.
Re: Re: Re:3
He did answer it, but unfortunately, his answer was not even related to the question.
The answer is, “While Pruneyard applies only to California malls, 1A implies that malls have the right to eject whomever the fuck they want, for whatever fucking reason. This also applies to the shops INSIDE the malls.”
If Chozen stopped trying to wear the Klan Hood at every waking moment he gets, maybe he’d actually get to learn something.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
“While Pruneyard applies only to California malls”
Pruneyard applies to any venue of speech.
If you were correct then Brown v. Board of Educaiton only applies to public schools.
Re: Re: Re:5
No, it doesn’t. Further jurisprudence after SCOTUS decided Pruneyard has narrowed the applicability of its precedent to specific parts of shopping malls within the boundaries of California. If you had any citation of law or legal precedent that said otherwise, you would’ve cited it by now—but you haven’t, so you don’t.
lmao how are you so fucking bad at this, holy shit, I can run circles around you and I’m probably more fucked up than you are
Re: Re: Re:6 Because they have no other options
When the law is on your side, pound on the law.
When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.
When neither the facts not law are on your side, pound on your keyboard and sling insults at anyone who has the audacity to [Citation Needed] any of your claims.
Re: Re: Re:2 A little research before posting?
Y’know, Chozen, I might have been tempted to think about your argument for a moment, if you hadn’t wrapped it in an ad hominem sandwich. I hate the taste of those, haven’t touched one in years.
Oh, and that your argument has been dissected and debunked years ago. You might consider listening to this Make no law podcast, and might read the “Subsequent Developments” section of the Pruneyard wikipedia article.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Wiki
Wiki? Really? Did you write the edits yourself you piece of shit?
Its longer than the section on the case itself you fuckstick. Whoever wrote it has a god damn ax to grind. Can’t your stupid ass understand when you are reading propaganda on wiki you stupid piece of shit?
I don’t disagree with Costco v. Gallant. Cosctco has never been a social congregation venue like a shopping mall. But that did not void Pruneyard in anyway much less as it relates to social media.
So shut the fuck up you stupid piece of shit.
Re: Re: Re:4
Maybe that should tell you something—specifically, how much the post-Pruneyard jurisprudence has whittled down the applicability of Pruneyard to the point where it only applies to a incredibly small amount of area within California’s borders. And if you’ll notice, nothing in that section says it currently applies to social media services.
Make me.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
“Maybe that should tell you something—specifically”
It tells me that someone just like you is gatekeeping the stub. His “name” is Coolcaesar. He has been gatekeeping it for at least 14 years you stupid fuck.
Re: Re: Re:6
I notice that you don’t provide any external evidence as to why the “gatekeeping” is not factually correct, what refutes any claims in the article or why the case applies where you think it does.
Is that because you have never really looked into the facts, or because you know there’s reasons why the “gatekeeping” happened?
Re: Re: Re:7
Or maybe he’s lying through his teeth.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Anyone can hit the edit history tab and see that the stub is being gatekept by some guy named Coolcaesar.
The stub was created January 8, 2008 by Rkmlai. January 15, 2008 Coolcaesar shows up with massive edits and has been controlling the stub ever since.
“I am a lawyer. I hold a J.D. from a well-known law school on the West Coast of North America (the only one mentioned below).
My interests include film, healthcare, higher education, law, transportation, and various cities in California.
I enjoy contributing photographs to Wikipedia, as it gives me a reason to practice and improve my digital photography skills.
I currently own two digital cameras: a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS5 (a point-and-shoot) and a Canon Digital Rebel T5i (a digital SLR).
My six prior digital cameras (which have since been turned in for recycling of reusable components) include an Olympus C-7000 Zoom (point-and-shoot, broke down), an Olympus Stylus 830 (point-and-shoot, obsolete), a Fujifilm S2000HD (bridge camera, obsolete), a Fujifilm S8400W (bridge camera, obsolete), a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH5 (point-and-shoot, broke down), and a GoPro HD HERO 2 (too much hassle to use, obsolete).”
Given the Bio cross-referencing it with the Eric Goldman listed below there is a pretty good probability in my opinion that Coolcaesar is perhaps Eric Goldman given the education, location, and love for photography.
Re: Re: Re:9
No one cares about your impotent fantasies little man.
Re: Re: Re:4
Goddamn, Chunt! You’re a broken motherfucking record with this shit, boy!
It always starts with Pruneyard. Then we pivot to Brown v Board of Education, followed by arguing about needing a stroke 32-B filled out in triplicate needed to leave someone’s house to round out the trifecta of irrelevance.
Then we start talking about fucking railroads, cakeshops, how OAN must be carried by DirecTV and how Texas and Florida can do whatever they want because reasons.
Then you trot out the threats and ‘shut the fuck up’ stuff like you think you’ve made some kind of brilliant point thus once again cementing your superior intellect over the 5 of us Mike’s Misfits who respond.
1100+ posts and it’s all the same, you shitposting ass scab. Get some new fucking material.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Coolcaesar
Yep whole section is gatekeeping by some guy names Coolcaesar.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Gatekeeping
Yep guy’s been gatekeeping the stub for at least the last 14 years.
Coolcaesar your source. What a fucking moron you are.
Re: Re: Re:4
Yes or no: Can you prove that anything in the section you’re whining about is patently false or misleading?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
“In the 2001 Golden Gateway decision, a 4–3 majority of the Court significantly narrowed Pruneyard by holding for a variety of reasons that California’s free speech right does not apply to private apartment complexes – yet they also refused to overrule Pruneyard.[12] Thus, California’s right of free speech in private shopping centers still survives.”
Significantly is editorializing. I don’t see how not applying it to apartment complexes limited it much at all.
The “still survives” tells you that the person writing this is an advocate.
“The shopping center industry strongly opposes the Pruneyard decision as it has resulted in numerous test cases by protesters in California and elsewhere trying to find the boundaries of the Pruneyard rule.[13] Shopping centers have regularly imposed restrictions on unwanted solicitors and appealed the resulting legal cases in the hope of convincing the California judiciary that Pruneyard should be overturned, or at least limited.[13] Since Golden Gateway, decisions by the intermediate Courts of Appeal have generally limited the scope of the Pruneyard rule to the facts of the original case. For example, starting in 1997, the parking lots of many Costco warehouse club stores in California became sites of conflict involving a large number of political activist groups who had gradually become aware of their rights under Pruneyard. In 1998, Costco’s management imposed several restrictions, including a complete ban on soliciting at stand-alone”
This reads like a legal opinion blog. It could have come straight from techdirt. Hell it probably in my opinion is one of TechDirts normal authors.
Re: Re: Re:6 Did you know that—
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.
-Albert Einstein
Re: Re: Re:7
— Michael Scott
Re: Re: Re:6
You could have just said “no” and saved a lot of innocent electrons to give the same answer.
Re: Re: Re:4
I can practically hear your tears hitting the keyboard as you type chimichanga.
Re: Re: Re:4
Meanwhile the source for your paranoid hallucinations looks most like meth.
Re: Re: Re:2
I dunno, from the sound of it, a ten year old would be more restrained and mature than you are.
Also, don’t you dare bring in autism as an insult. I for one has been diagnosed as autistic longer than I can remember and we don’t exactly have the easiest time trying to be on the same level socially with everyone else. There’s a lot of amazing people with autism that I know and chances are they’re more mature than me and you. The last thing we need here is your dehumanizing ableism, you delusional manchild.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
“for one has been diagnosed as autistic longer than I can remember and we don’t exactly have the easiest time trying to be on the same level socially with everyone else.”
I’m not surprised people on the spectrum take everything literally and cannot see sarcasm or nuance which is why you fucking morons think a modified George Carlin joke is a rape threat.
Re: Re: Re:4
lmao you think rape is funny
Re: Re: Re:4
Wow. You are legit doubling down.
I don’t even have anything else to say. Fuck you too, asshole.
Re: Re: Re:4
As much as I like to make fun of you little boy by various nicknames. In the end you are just a cunt.
Re: Re: Re:4
Jesus, Chozen, it’s not even about George Carlin anymore.
Carlin would be FURIOUS if he knew who was cooopting his humor and using it to back white supremacy.
And there’s still your entire conduct thus far. Calling names, engaging in probable slander, actually threatening people with rape…
Aren’t you the asshole here? Stop hidiing behind 1A when it suits you and actually embrace the other side of 1A: You are not guantareed a fucking soapbox if you act like a domestic terrorist promoter.
Re: Re: Re:4
I’m not surprised people on the spectrum take everything literally and cannot see sarcasm or nuance which is why you fucking morons think a modified George Carlin joke is a rape threat.
I’m not surprised that an asshole like you can’t see that the root of your moderation problems is that you’re an asshole. It’s a fairly common undiagnosed psychological problem that’s been exacerbated by both the isolation of the pandemic and the existence of echo chambers that only serve to confirm your behavior.
Re: Re: Re:2
D̶i̶p̶s̶h̶i̶t̶ Chozen,
If you truly knew what the Pruneyard decision was all about, you would not have made that statement. Consequently, I must deduce that if brains were dynamite, you couldn’t blow the hat off of your head.
However, your ass seems to be working just fine at spreading your shit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Fuck off you listen to an MBA Mike and a theater major Karl on what Pruneyard is.
Mike has frantically tried to pretend that Pruneyard has been gutted because it doesn’t apply to costco. Which has no bearing what so ever on social media. Cocial media is much more like a mall than it is a costco.
Mike has lied to you morons for years only to have Pruneyard thrown in his fucking face by the 5th circuit.
Re: Re: Re:4
Guess Eric Goldman’s also a liar then.
Please do tell Eric Goldman in his face he’s a liar. Oh, and Ken White, too.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
There are over 1.3 million lawyers in the US. I could give two shits less what two of them think.
Re: Re: Re:6 Say what now?
”
Anyone can hit the edit history tab and see that the stub is being gatekept by some guy named Coolcaesar.
The stub was created January 8, 2008 by Rkmlai. January 15, 2008 Coolcaesar shows up with massive edits and has been controlling the stub ever since.
“I am a lawyer. I hold a J.D. from a well-known law school on the West Coast of North America (the only one mentioned below).
My interests include film, healthcare, higher education, law, transportation, and various cities in California.
I enjoy contributing photographs to Wikipedia, as it gives me a reason to practice and improve my digital photography skills.
I currently own two digital cameras: a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS5 (a point-and-shoot) and a Canon Digital Rebel T5i (a digital SLR).
My six prior digital cameras (which have since been turned in for recycling of reusable components) include an Olympus C-7000 Zoom (point-and-shoot, broke down), an Olympus Stylus 830 (point-and-shoot, obsolete), a Fujifilm S2000HD (bridge camera, obsolete), a Fujifilm S8400W (bridge camera, obsolete), a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH5 (point-and-shoot, broke down), and a GoPro HD HERO 2 (too much hassle to use, obsolete).”
Given the Bio cross-referencing it with the Eric Goldman listed below there is a pretty good probability in my opinion that Coolcaesar is perhaps Eric Goldman given the education, location, and love for photography.”
Re: Re: Re:2
That One Guy, Chozen went sideways:
Answer:
Chozen, Mr Stone was not asking about the state of the law, he was asking about what would be morally correct. You have run sideways.
Re: Re: Re:3
Ah, so their answer was the same debunked delusion they’ve been pushing the whole time, thanks for clearing that up.
Can’t tell if that’s better or worse than Koby’s cowardice but as neither of them are worth the effort to figure that out I suppose it doesn’t matter.
Re: Re: Re:2
.. projects the troll who has never once demonstrated evidence of being mentally competent, ever.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Should? Government has. Pruneyard you dumb fuck!
Re: Re: Re:
If the government has the right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech—as you claim it does—for what reason hasn’t it compelled Twitter to host the exact kinds of speech that Twitter’s TOS explicitly bars from being posted?
Re: Re: Re:
Then why have courts continually shot down Pruneyard as a reason to allow people back on Twitter?
Fucking Idiot.
Re: Re: Re:
Should? Government has.
Can’t. Government has not.
Pruneyard you dumb fuck!
If Pruneyard, then why hasn’t government?
You dumb fuck!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Texas just did you fucking moron.
Re: Re: Re:3
You mean the Texas law that’s still on hold? That’s doing absolutely nothing at the moment, and based on your past predictions doesn’t have a bright future.
But there’s no need for you to get yourself so triggered about it, cupcake.
Stop overreacting.
Don’t get upset.
Calm down.
Look on the bright side.
Relax.
Take a time out.
Breathe a little (or a lot, your choice).
Go to a safe space.
Think some happy thoughts.
Just have yourself a wonderful day, why don’t you? You seem so upset all the time. If coming to this site does that to you, perhaps you should reconsider why you come here.
Because such anger is not a good look.
Re: Re: Re:4
See, all this would make sense if Chozen was posting angry, but he’s not. What you’re recommending is for someone to calm down and think rationally for a bit. That’s not Chozen’s issue. Chozen’s issue is that he comes here to shit on everybody, boast about how much dubiously aged ass he’s penetrating, swear that he’s going to literally and figuratively rape this website, and then react when inevitably nobody believes or tolerates him.
Chozen is a bully looking for easy targets, which is why he gets off on assuming everyone else is on the autism spectrum. He dishes it out and can’t take it. He’s the cringey millennial who runs a prank YouTube channel and thinks yelling “IT’S JUST A PRANK, BRO” excuses him being an obnoxious douchebag.
Re:
Chozen, you do realize you have a ZERO for your track record here.
Just about every thing you posit will happen… doesn’t.
Most recently, remember that time you said the Texas AG could use “must carry” laws because of “viewpoint discrimination” in order to force DirecTV to carry OAN?
If you thought that was such a simple easy task, why didn’t the Texas AG take your advice and just do it that way?
I doubt you could name one thing you posited would happen that actually did happen.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
“Most recently, remember that time you said the Texas AG could use “must carry” laws because of “viewpoint discrimination” in order to force DirecTV to carry OAN?
If you thought that was such a simple easy task, why didn’t the Texas AG take your advice and just do it that way?”
Off the top of my head there is still a civil suit on-going. Why would the AG drop the hammer at this time?
And I never said he is. I said he could. Could and Should are words you on the spectrum kids have trouble with.
Re: Re: Re:
If he actually had that power, I imagine he would’ve used it the moment DirecTV gave OANN the boot. So why didn’t he use that power if he had it?
Re: Re: Re:
You’re still wrong you fucking idiot.
There is now another you being a fucking idiot moment to mock you about… how you are so fucking stupid you don’t know how a threaded comments section works. Add that to public house and forcibly removing trespassers to things that you are a fucking idiot and know nothing about.
Re: Re: Re:
Why would the AG drop the hammer at this time?
Welp, if he was waiting for the right time, ‘OAN floundering without a major carrier while their audience plummets further’ suggests he might want to consider a bit of urgency.
Re:
It’ll be nice to know that those cases will mean Mike will finally have to ban your polluting ass from here.
Re: Re:
That’s honestly the best thing. Cuntface is so stupid it doesn’t even realise it’s arguing to be mandatory for its bullshit to be banned outright.
Re:
Any day now codwollop. Any day now…
beyond the rhetoric
What they want to say is that while its legal to show this on the internet to anyone and everyone, its a liability to show it to this girl and anyone like her.
I know I know… sue the local media for doing stories about the challenge and putting the idea to search for it in your kids head… that’ll pay big.
blinks
Re: Click-itis
@TAC:
Part of the problem of click-itis is that we are seeing a significant drop in critical thinking in local and even national news — once upon a time, advertisers would have been mad if the local news said “hey, a new challenge!”, instead of saying “Hey, kids are getting hurt by this new challenge — ER doc says he was unable to revive kid who tried the choking challenge, funeral arrangements tomorrow” or “New challenge sending kids to the hospital”.
Not gonna solve that problem with laws…or lawsuits!
Re: Re:
I don’t really buy that. The media do “DANGEROUS NEW THING IS KILLING CHILDREN” stories all the damn time, often amplifying, exaggerating, or even completely making up things that aren’t really happening in any significant numbers (see the recent “rainbow fentanyl” coverage).
Re: Re: Re:
I nearly fell out of my chair the other day.
A new OTA media channel, Newsy (Scripts Howard owned) did a segment where they spoke to a poison control spokesperson who laid out that there had been no calls about the latest panics.
I was shocked that rather than the rainbow drugs for kids at halloween story they actually debunked it.
They gave the stats for years about halloween calls, about how they have no evidence of it happening.
Gave the baseline common sense instruction of if the wrapper is funky dump it.
Re: Re: Re:2
It’s sad that that’s so unusual as to be notable and surprising.
And y’know, the media could really do everybody a service if they’d stick to reminding parents what the greatest danger is to their kids on Halloween: cars.
Re: Re: Re:3
But its much easier to blame the boogeymen rather than suggest perhaps being a parent is a better play.
The problem is their job isn’t telling people the news anymore, its getting high enough ratings so they can charge more for advertising slots.
I mean I get they need to pay for a newsroom, but feeding a constant stream of ripped from FB fear stories is making society worse but ad revenues are up!!
Re: Re:
My vote still is humans suck.
The facts optional view of reality has been growing, and zomg a challenge isn’t much of a blip these days.
People are showing up at school board meetings screaming about litter boxes.
People are claiming drag queens molest children (while ignoring the huge number of religious types arrested every couple of days).
Humans are easily mislead and accept it as fact.
Humans allow themselves to be exploited by simple mind games & once they get into the rabbit hole there is no escape.
The media doing it is just the latest thing that fell into what works.
Smoking isn’t harmful, Global Warming isn’t man made, Plastic is recyclable, Trump won….
Society is the problem, pity its filled with humans who are sure only they know the truth.
TikTok is a Chinese company hosted in China.
Therefore, they are not subject to US laws.
That is why Trump’s order to shut down tikTik in America could never have been enforced.
A Chinese company operating in China does not have to obey US laws.
Re:
I’m fairly certain they have to comply with US laws if they have physical operations in the US, which they do.
Fair Enough..
You are right..the traditional media has amplified plenty of total made-up BS (rainbow fentanyl, reefer madness, moral panics such as video games, pop rocks exploding in stomachs, roving gangs looking for people flashing their headlights at them) and amplified lots of stupid challenges, like the Tide Pod challenge. Where would you put NSFW “No nut November”?
So right now, we can’t let any facts or statistics beyond a few anecdotes get in the way of our theories, hmm??? I wonder if Mr Masnick knows a media scholar who can put numbers to the moral panics and the really bad suggestions in both the old and the new media.
Picked up from Newsy, it might help the slow reading group understand 230.
They were talking about political ads & how an OTA channel can’t be held liable for the content of a political ad, that they are required to carry. That the law protects them because they didn’t make the ad, they just gave it the airtime.
Reality time!
Let’s cover and move on a simple fact:
If your child is motivated to try a blackout challenge (whatever that is), or eat tide pods, or hang from an noose, or stick a bag over their head…
The parent is at fault. These are common sense issues where a child, old enough to navigate social media independently, would never attempt to recreate.
On the tech side of things, it’s different.
The premise of for you and suggested content is an unclear aspect of modern, post 2000s, web. One I’m not sure should be without fault and one that is full of problems.
For someone who has ever bit of tracking turned on and every major privacy option turned off; suggestions are far from perfect.
Should, a company be liable for a bit of software they created? Everyone talks about the results. Nobody talks about the software. If Microsoft patched office and it suddenly auto-inserted porn or suicidal info into a 10yr old’s school report, there’d be a legal issue. And they would likely be held responsible.
Everyone is approaching this wrong.
Should parents be held responsible for their children
Should software creators be held responsible for their creations
Re:
Yes, they are the guardian and the ward for their children and it’s their duty to exercise reasonable care for them.
Should a toolmaker be held responsible for how children use tools without adult supervision?
Government is now suing tik tok
So how can the government sue tik tok using almost the same argument?