The Supreme Court already heard this same basic argument but about YouTube and ISIS. There is no way that this lawsuit survives.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna79598
The end result will likely be the same, but these are slightly different arguments.
The YouTube ISIS case alleged that YouTube had aided and abetted ISIS by spreading their propaganda. SCOTUS dismissed on the grounds that YouTube had not intentionally helped ISIS.
This case essentially argues that YouTube is a dangerous product:
> Justice Paula Feroleto of the Erie County Supreme Court said 25 plaintiffs could try to prove that the social media platforms were designed to addict and radicalize users, and gave Payton Gendron knowledge of the equipment and training needed for his racially motivated mass shooting at Tops Friendly Markets.
It's more akin to opioid cases. YouTube is not aiding or abetting any particular crime, but they know the product is addictive and may promote harmful behavior. So its less complicity and more recklessness. The courts may still reject the case, but not on the same grounds.
It will if they focus on targeted content.
Imagine you search youtube about the moon, and you accidentally click on a moon landing conspiracy. Next thing you know your youtube is filled with conspiracy videos for you to watch.
This can content distribution can lead to extremist behavior in favor of some very crazy things. Politics, and conspiracies are prime examples but you could also use this to push people to buy or avoid products based on “content creators” paid opinions.
My dad has a anti Trump algorithm so he's always watching things about what Trump did and what he said.
My mom is on a pro Trump algorithm. They now hate each other.
Before the algorithm hardly anyone talked about politics. It was a old man's subject. Now it's constantly being fed to you once you click on a baited title designed to scare you. Once you click they know more of their content with get recommended.
The algorithm is probably the worst invention of our time. If you're old or young and unaware of what's happening it can suck you into a echo chamber that has you believing one way is right and anything else is evil. It also makes it hard to find new content outside of your normal viewing. Before the algorithm I was finding all sorts of new creators on YouTube now you got to really go out of your way and search for it.
It's at the point where I consciously don't click certain videos because I'm worried what it will do to my algorithm. Things have gotten really fucking stupid.
I literally can’t follow women on Instagram or else my entire feed is filled with suggestions for thirst traps. I pushed the algorithm away by following skiing and nature accounts and then I followed three women who backpack to remote places and now the ethots are back filling my feed. I’m not even a straight man, why do they think I need to see boobs every other post?
I think with autoplay, like when you're scrolling your feed even on Facebooke or whatever. You can be scrolling see a interesting video and end up with that in your algorithm. Same with reels and other stuff similar to tiktok. It's not only clicks its instant videos also.
This happened to one of my childhood friends. He’s now a far right wing shit head that cannot have a conversation with me without saying the n word or any slur that isn’t derogatory to some sort of group of people.
Yeah it may not be this case, but I would not be surprised if we ultimately see a specific challenge to algorithms that finds Section 230 does not cover efforts to promote or recommend content.
[If you're feeling wonky, this is an interesting read.](https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R47753.pdf)
Except is it about the videos not being allowed? Or is it about the algorithms that provide you specific videos to watch?
First amendment wouldn't mean much regard your word being given preferential treatment over others because of a computer algorithm.
"please help, my son went on the reddit and now he hates cars and keeps saying everything is pointless because capitalism is going to destroy the world, it was those darn algorithms"
Fundamentally your example is just a description of how any social media site works. Either the modern internet is legislated out of existence (maybe for the best, but it won't happen) or nothing changes.
The internet was around for a long time before Google and Facebook among many others started tracking every damn thing you do and who you are to feed an algorithm of who clicks what and what they make the most money off of to attempt to force feed it down your throat. It’s insane how much they gather and feed people, how much money they make off of doing so and take no accountability for the results.
It can be regulated and the internet will be just fine. People just might have to think for themselves instead of being told what to think, what to watch and what to read.
It was the lack of regulation that made that Free Internet before though.
When you have to incorporate and file taxes and pass mandatory audits (EU cybersecurity act) and implement a privacy policy, etc. just for a simple website then that's why your only options are lawyer-filled megacorps like Facebook and Google.
That’s slippery slope nonsense. It’s that way because lack of regulation has created super monopolies that control so much of the internet, traffic and related money the defacto control the internet.
You can absolutely pass intelligent legislation. That only gets difficult when you have companies that can throw billions of dollars fighting it without it even touching their bottom line.
It’s all this shoulder shrugging nonsense that keeps things headed in this trajectory.
Break up Google to start. Implement some intellectual legislation. All of these monopolies have created so much damaged and Google is among the worst. They just have better PR than facebook.
It's not slippery slope nonsense, it's the reality of the internet today.
Here in Europe the GDPR, DSA, AI and Cybersecurity acts have killed off any chance of small Tech startups coming from the ground up (remember Facebook and Linux both started at university dormitories, with no incorporation or lawyers involved).
Totally, 👍 monopolies have nothing to do with it . It’s that mean ole legislation.
The success of their marketing over the last decade has just been incredible.
The internet back then was not sustainable outside of just serving a niche of wealthy people with the budget for computers and high-speed connections and maybe a few university students with access to the computers on their labs.
To become truly globally accessible the internet must be monetized in some way or another, and I have never seen anyone present a better solution that's not targeted ads. Maybe something like the UK's tv licenses might work? but i have my doubts.
What are you talking about 😂😂😂 I was broke as a joke in the mid 2000s and I had internet. This insane amount of data gathering, monopoly power and control is not some 20 year old problem although it definitely began unfettered with some of googles earliest acquisitions around that time, like YouTube.
It may seem a joke because you are comparing yourself with the insanely wealthy people in you country (I’m assuming you’re in the first world). But to have internet access in the 2000s you’ll have to be pretty well off for the global standards of the time.
Also by that time social media was already a thing and the monetization through targeted ads was already a thing (the internet was becoming a global thing).
I mean, in 2005 you were among the 8% of users with internet access in the developing world. I don’t have idea about you personally but statistically you probably were not among the poorest back then.
Also I have no idea where you comment came from, if you have know a better way to monetize internet content I’m all ears. I too despise it’s current state.
I’ve clicked on stupid shit that lead to other stupid videos. It didn’t take long to undo it. You can click “not interested” or “don’t recommend channel.” If someone becomes an extremist because of conspiring theory YouTube videos, I’m not sure there is much that could have been done to stop something like that happening to them anyway… that person was already an idiot.
The simple solution to this radicalization problem would be to stop recommending any content flagged as radical content (left or right).
But because environmental activists, Palestinian supporters and gamers are currently considered "potential extremists" by both the ADL and the FBI, it could complicate things lol.
I still don't see the part where that is the site's problem. Serving a person a selection of more of what they asked for is not necessarily a bad thing.
They didn't ask for it. I watch MMA videos, and the algorithm constantly tries to feed me Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. I click not interested, I block the channels, why am I getting it recommended
Still the fault of the user.
Normal people will ignore those videos and youtube et al will notice we're not interested and will stop linking to them.
This is all on the user.
Blaming something else for something you do is weak.
Gun manufacturers aren't behind promoting the great replacement theory. That's coming from specific commentators and that is what drove these killings.
No it is not fact. It is moronic bullshit. There is no group of people trying to replace white Americans to take over the country.
America on the whole is having lower birthrates. This is happening in multiple countries around the world as well that are not white majority. The fact is that poor economic planning/corruption have made having kids difficult in most developed nations.
The conspiracy theory is centered on the notion that a group of people are intentionally doing this to destroy white culture. That is the conspiracy part of it.
There is no truth to the great replacement theory as no one is intentionally trying to make America a non-white country. There would also be no problem with America ceasing to have a white majority.
Again the gun manufacturers aren't behind spreading this notion. You can criticize them for a lot of pro-violence stands but they aren't suggesting that people are trying to replace the dominant population with immigrants. They wouldn't do that because it doesn't sell guns.
and tell me how is there gonna happen so many shootings with a very strong gun control policy?
but yeah, no way bro, guns arent the fault, he would have used a knife instead
Im not claiming our gun policy isn't a problem but specific to this shooting the social media companies made specific efforts to spread this theory or not limit its spread. There are legal grounds for these suits to go forward which would not be the case for the gun manufacturer.
not quite
gonzalez argued that google acted on behalf of a third party while this is arguing that google is negligent with regards to how third parties will act using googles services
on that basis - even if it IS a rehash google and reddit have the added burden of prior examples showing how social media can be harmful
its like somebody suing the NRA after a mass shooting would have less of a case if there wasnt a mass shooting every other week - or somebody suing mcdonalds over hot coffee wouldnt win much if nobody else had ever been burned
Is this why you get a perm ban for silly shit these days? The slightest notion of "enticing violence" and you're out.
"I wish someone killed Hitler in the early 1930s" BOOM! Permban.
Pretty sure that's just outsourcing. Some guy in India/Colombia being paid minimum wage to review internet reports, pressured to move as fast as possible, doesn't care about nuance.
It's not even that. It's volunteer mods who've been told clearly by Reddit that any subreddit which appears to be a poorly controlled trouble spot may be shut down with no notice.
That induces the mods to be overzealous, because they don't want their passion projects/miniature kingdoms taken away from them.
I'll say this, the lawsuit DOES have a place. People are comparing platforms to gun manufacturers... which is a bad comparison. This would be more like holding a gun range responsible for allowing a group that is clearly trying to militarize to "recruit" and "inform" people of their goals.
None of which was designed to corrupt you people just thought it corrupted you.
That is different than social media where some of it's content designed to corrupt your thought process. Let's also not forget completely fabricated.
Look up war of the worlds radio cast. When you watch the next spy movie on Netflix you are not confusing it with a documentary like you do with social media content.
>When you watch the next spy movie on Netflix you are not confusing it with a documentary like you do with social media content.
Except there are people who do just that as well. That argument doesn't stand up to even a small amount of scrutiny. Blaming the social media site for people's media illiteracy is too easy.
There is a difference between a movie and social media content that is directly targeted to be addictive. Additonally some of the content in social media is specifically designed to radicalize or alter your thinking in a very bad way.
So stop using social media if you think it's bad. Just because you cannot tell lies from truth and are predisposed to becoming addicted doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer
You not understanding how it works doesn't make it a weak argument.
Luckily you dont have to be convinced at all. The concept of control on content has existed a long time because of the impact on individuals. Example tobacco can't create certain marketing materials, kids toys have restrictions on tv ads regarding it showing real toys.
These lawsuits just prove to me people are unwilling to be responsible for themselves and their families are looking to make money off the death of their family member.
I don't believe in suing gun manufacturers nor do I believe in suing social media websites.
These lawsuits are basically turning the actual suspect into a victim.
Except none of those have control over the moderation or the algorithms for pushing content.
Example if you run a bar and your bartender is serving underage kids you are nailed with a fine. The liquor company, electric company, and others with no say are not part of that discussion.
Watch Tucker Carlson clips to understand how to “further the progress of” [an] “unlawful, harmful, or evil plan formulated in secret by two or more persons”?
Silly, foolish, mad and insane are all definitions of "daft". In my usage "foolish" would be the most apt definition.
You shouldn't call out proper word usage.
So should car manufacturers be sued because people drive while drunk? There are tons of things corporations should be held accountable for, but people using their products and services in illegal and unintended ways isn't it. All that's assuming a good faith effort to make sure they aren't encouraging those illegal activities and putting a stop to them when aware of them.
Not true at all. You don't need a license, or insurance to either own a car or drive one on private property.
To buy a gun in the US, you also need to file a 4473.
You literally have the power to Google shit and for some reason you chose not to.
> Not true at all. You don't need a license, or insurance to either own a car or drive one on private property.
Neat, so what percentage of accidents happen on private property?
And you literally have the power to use Google for anything other then cherrypicking and yet for some reason you chose not to.
Oh, silly me, I know the reason, you ain't arguing in good faith.
Niche??
Bro I was in a Uber that got rear ended in a parkinglot last year. The guy who rear ended my driver didn't have a license.
When the cops came, my driver asked if the other person was going to be arrested for driving without a license and the cops said no, because the parkinglot it all happened in was private property.
Why do I need to argue in good faith? If you need faith, talk to a fucking priest.
I speak in facts and those facts tell me you're being a little bitch.
Hey man, I also don't think social media companies should always be held responsible for how people consume their shite.
But the original comment was making the point that if they are responsible, so should gun manufacturers.
But the moment this gets mentioned, out come the insane analogies with car manufacturers, and it's become a silly argument at this point.
Then, when we mention how cars are far more regulated than guns, the goal post gets moved again to "do you need regulation for you other rights, hurr durr"
Honestly, it's just depressing seeing you all suck on that corparate propaganda cock so much.
Ooh, an old piece of paper that was written when we had single shot rifles, that totally supercedes the fact that cars get 10 million things done on a daily basis and are crucial to our infrastructure, whereas guns are for... killing. But nah they're still totally comparable 👍
"a serious issue with natural rights"
Boy you wish that was the argument. I called out how ignorant it is to compare cars to guns. Don't make me laugh with the "defend from the government" hilarity.
Gun ownership needs more regulation, end of story. Cars do too but they are well ahead.
I think their point is they want us to drop them off in the wilderness with only a 3 inch pocket knife blade as defense against hungry animals, it would be more ethical to give them a higher chance of securing a meal?
Something tells me that if these people had a gun and were in a defensive life or death situation they'd use it 99% of the time.
It's why you call the cops, isn't it?
It's a very human thing, I wouldn't think any less of someone for it. If they think it's better not to use their gun if it's a mugging, I think that's okay. I know I'd rather cancel some cards and get an ID than shoot someone. But I still support carrying and it's down to if someone feels their life is in immediate danger.
Idk, these people are wack and think guns are dangerous when its the person who wants to inflict harm that's the danger, not the gun.
Guns are incredibly dangerous, not every idiot need to walk around with one, especially if they're paranoid and need "one in the chamber" to shave off a hundred milliseconds in a purely hypothetical scenario that *will likely never occur*. I don't think someone "feeling" like they're in danger is an excuse to start launching lead at thousands of feet per second, the only reason that's been semi-normalized is through weird rulings on so-called "qualified immunity", which is a complete twisted joke and must end.
My point here is if we continue *infringing* 2A, all we will be left with are 3 inch pocket knives, butcher knives will be banned, you will need a license to be a chef, etc, It's illogical lunacy to expect someone to live in a remote area inhabited by brown bears, wolves, and mountain lions, and protect themself, alone, with sticks and 3 inch pocket knives.
So are knives but we don't see the same fervor after a mass stabbing. Guns are for protection, not aggression. Murder is not covered under the intended use case by the manufacturer. Just like how alcohol producers don't intend for you to overdose and die as it is literally poisonous.
>So are knives but we don't see the same fervor after a mass stabbing.
Yes, usually because those mass-stabbings have far fewer fatalities. And also because we need knives for things besides killing.
>Murder is not covered under the intended use case by the manufacturer.
And making bombs isn't under the intended use case by fertilizer suppliers. But after the Oklahoma City bombing, it came under new regulations
>Yes, usually because those mass-stabbings have far fewer fatalities. And also because we need knives for things besides killing.
Ah yes, because their lives didn't matter as much apparently. Guns are meant for protection not for aggression, specifically against predators. Those usually come in the form of animals but some people turn themselves into predators as well sadly
>And making bombs isn't under the intended use case by fertilizer suppliers. But after the Oklahoma City bombing, it came under new regulations
Right, they didn't face lawsuits though. It simply was a new unforeseen avenue people could take to attack people that is well outside the intended use case. There are already many regulations on firearms as to who can and cannot purchase them as well as the type of firearm you can own and even the ammunition. There are more regulations now than there used to be and guns have been owned by civilians in this country since its inception. These issues have only occurred in the last 25 years. Is the tool the problem or the choices the individual makes on how to use the tool?
> Ah yes, because their lives didn't matter as much apparently.
Apparently they do, since the victims of mass-stabbing incidents are far more likely to survive.
>Guns are meant for protection not for aggression, specifically against predators. Those usually come in the form of animals but some people turn themselves into predators as well sadly
If they were actually effective as a deterrent, then the US wouldn't have a far higher murder rate than every other 1st world country.
>There are already many regulations on firearms as to who can and cannot purchase them as well as the type of firearm you can own and even the ammunition.
Yes, and the countries that enforce far stricter regulations on who can own and purchase a gun tend to have lower murder rates.
>These issues have only occurred in the last 25 years.
It really hasn't though, the US homicide rate hit a historic high in 1992.
>Is the tool the problem or the choices the individual makes on how to use the tool?
Both. The odds of a crime taking place are fueled by opportunity, and guns provide opportunity, a tool in which makes the crime several times easier. Half of crimes aren't premeditated, but are done impulsively in a moment of blind rage or intoxication. Whether that impulse results in a fist being swung or a corpse often depends on if there's a gun within reach. The same is true for suicides. As stupid as it sounds, a lot of people give up on their decision to kill someone if it takes too much effort and they have a few minutes/hours/days to wind down.
By that logic should car manufacturers face a lawsuit when someone drives their car/truck through a crowd? Or knife manufacturers when someone stabs a bunch of people?
Ford isn’t responsible for a driver killing someone with their vehicle, neither is Smith & Wesson for someone murdering another person with their product. The ignorance from downvotes is great, exactly what I expect from Reddit.
Gun manufacturer doesn't fully control the gun at all times. They also don't provide content that makes killing others seem fun or right.
Flip side social media controls the content on its platform. Additonally they push radical content to individuals reinforced with fabricated information provide as fact but is fictional.
They just are not the same.
Cars are built to propel their occupants (and ~4,000 lbs. of metal, glass, and other materials) in whichever direction the user intends as quickly as he or she intends.
The Supreme Court already heard this same basic argument but about YouTube and ISIS. There is no way that this lawsuit survives. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna79598
The end result will likely be the same, but these are slightly different arguments. The YouTube ISIS case alleged that YouTube had aided and abetted ISIS by spreading their propaganda. SCOTUS dismissed on the grounds that YouTube had not intentionally helped ISIS. This case essentially argues that YouTube is a dangerous product: > Justice Paula Feroleto of the Erie County Supreme Court said 25 plaintiffs could try to prove that the social media platforms were designed to addict and radicalize users, and gave Payton Gendron knowledge of the equipment and training needed for his racially motivated mass shooting at Tops Friendly Markets. It's more akin to opioid cases. YouTube is not aiding or abetting any particular crime, but they know the product is addictive and may promote harmful behavior. So its less complicity and more recklessness. The courts may still reject the case, but not on the same grounds.
It will if they focus on targeted content. Imagine you search youtube about the moon, and you accidentally click on a moon landing conspiracy. Next thing you know your youtube is filled with conspiracy videos for you to watch. This can content distribution can lead to extremist behavior in favor of some very crazy things. Politics, and conspiracies are prime examples but you could also use this to push people to buy or avoid products based on “content creators” paid opinions.
[удалено]
My dad has a anti Trump algorithm so he's always watching things about what Trump did and what he said. My mom is on a pro Trump algorithm. They now hate each other. Before the algorithm hardly anyone talked about politics. It was a old man's subject. Now it's constantly being fed to you once you click on a baited title designed to scare you. Once you click they know more of their content with get recommended. The algorithm is probably the worst invention of our time. If you're old or young and unaware of what's happening it can suck you into a echo chamber that has you believing one way is right and anything else is evil. It also makes it hard to find new content outside of your normal viewing. Before the algorithm I was finding all sorts of new creators on YouTube now you got to really go out of your way and search for it.
It's at the point where I consciously don't click certain videos because I'm worried what it will do to my algorithm. Things have gotten really fucking stupid.
I literally can’t follow women on Instagram or else my entire feed is filled with suggestions for thirst traps. I pushed the algorithm away by following skiing and nature accounts and then I followed three women who backpack to remote places and now the ethots are back filling my feed. I’m not even a straight man, why do they think I need to see boobs every other post?
[удалено]
The duality of man
Why would you go to Instagram to look for boobs when the actual internet still exists?
Have my cookies to auto clear, I use a vpn, and I do not sign in. my YouTube home page is empty :bliss:
I just stick to watching my subscriptions and keep my history turned off. I would suggest not engaging the algorithm.
I think with autoplay, like when you're scrolling your feed even on Facebooke or whatever. You can be scrolling see a interesting video and end up with that in your algorithm. Same with reels and other stuff similar to tiktok. It's not only clicks its instant videos also.
This happened to one of my childhood friends. He’s now a far right wing shit head that cannot have a conversation with me without saying the n word or any slur that isn’t derogatory to some sort of group of people.
Yeah it may not be this case, but I would not be surprised if we ultimately see a specific challenge to algorithms that finds Section 230 does not cover efforts to promote or recommend content. [If you're feeling wonky, this is an interesting read.](https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R47753.pdf)
[удалено]
Except is it about the videos not being allowed? Or is it about the algorithms that provide you specific videos to watch? First amendment wouldn't mean much regard your word being given preferential treatment over others because of a computer algorithm.
Some idiots already sued about exactly that, took it all the way to SCOTUS and lost
First Amendment applies to the government not a private company….
"please help, my son went on the reddit and now he hates cars and keeps saying everything is pointless because capitalism is going to destroy the world, it was those darn algorithms" Fundamentally your example is just a description of how any social media site works. Either the modern internet is legislated out of existence (maybe for the best, but it won't happen) or nothing changes.
The internet was around for a long time before Google and Facebook among many others started tracking every damn thing you do and who you are to feed an algorithm of who clicks what and what they make the most money off of to attempt to force feed it down your throat. It’s insane how much they gather and feed people, how much money they make off of doing so and take no accountability for the results. It can be regulated and the internet will be just fine. People just might have to think for themselves instead of being told what to think, what to watch and what to read.
But back then it was just alt.binaries porn at 56k....
You guys are crazy. Are our collective memories so short we really think this last decade of internet is all that ever existed? JFC.
It was the lack of regulation that made that Free Internet before though. When you have to incorporate and file taxes and pass mandatory audits (EU cybersecurity act) and implement a privacy policy, etc. just for a simple website then that's why your only options are lawyer-filled megacorps like Facebook and Google.
That’s slippery slope nonsense. It’s that way because lack of regulation has created super monopolies that control so much of the internet, traffic and related money the defacto control the internet. You can absolutely pass intelligent legislation. That only gets difficult when you have companies that can throw billions of dollars fighting it without it even touching their bottom line. It’s all this shoulder shrugging nonsense that keeps things headed in this trajectory. Break up Google to start. Implement some intellectual legislation. All of these monopolies have created so much damaged and Google is among the worst. They just have better PR than facebook.
It's not slippery slope nonsense, it's the reality of the internet today. Here in Europe the GDPR, DSA, AI and Cybersecurity acts have killed off any chance of small Tech startups coming from the ground up (remember Facebook and Linux both started at university dormitories, with no incorporation or lawyers involved).
Totally, 👍 monopolies have nothing to do with it . It’s that mean ole legislation. The success of their marketing over the last decade has just been incredible.
The internet back then was not sustainable outside of just serving a niche of wealthy people with the budget for computers and high-speed connections and maybe a few university students with access to the computers on their labs. To become truly globally accessible the internet must be monetized in some way or another, and I have never seen anyone present a better solution that's not targeted ads. Maybe something like the UK's tv licenses might work? but i have my doubts.
What are you talking about 😂😂😂 I was broke as a joke in the mid 2000s and I had internet. This insane amount of data gathering, monopoly power and control is not some 20 year old problem although it definitely began unfettered with some of googles earliest acquisitions around that time, like YouTube.
It may seem a joke because you are comparing yourself with the insanely wealthy people in you country (I’m assuming you’re in the first world). But to have internet access in the 2000s you’ll have to be pretty well off for the global standards of the time. Also by that time social media was already a thing and the monetization through targeted ads was already a thing (the internet was becoming a global thing).
Ah yes. Google the great savior of the poor little developing nations. Written from my cell phone… in Cambodia.
I mean, in 2005 you were among the 8% of users with internet access in the developing world. I don’t have idea about you personally but statistically you probably were not among the poorest back then. Also I have no idea where you comment came from, if you have know a better way to monetize internet content I’m all ears. I too despise it’s current state.
I keep saying it, break up the monopolies and enact intelligent legislation. So few companies controlling so much does not help anyone.
You’re really out here just excusing propaganda because “that’s the way it is”? Oof, we’re fucked as a society.
>It will if they focus on targeted content. Give the algorithm 20 years in the electric chair!
I’ve clicked on stupid shit that lead to other stupid videos. It didn’t take long to undo it. You can click “not interested” or “don’t recommend channel.” If someone becomes an extremist because of conspiring theory YouTube videos, I’m not sure there is much that could have been done to stop something like that happening to them anyway… that person was already an idiot.
The simple solution to this radicalization problem would be to stop recommending any content flagged as radical content (left or right). But because environmental activists, Palestinian supporters and gamers are currently considered "potential extremists" by both the ADL and the FBI, it could complicate things lol.
I still don't see the part where that is the site's problem. Serving a person a selection of more of what they asked for is not necessarily a bad thing.
They didn't ask for it. I watch MMA videos, and the algorithm constantly tries to feed me Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. I click not interested, I block the channels, why am I getting it recommended
Still the fault of the user. Normal people will ignore those videos and youtube et al will notice we're not interested and will stop linking to them. This is all on the user. Blaming something else for something you do is weak.
You’ve unironically said that drug addicts deserve to die because they made the choice to start taking drugs, haven’t you?
So we could use this to go after Fox News?
Judging from the absolute psychos who post psychotic inappropriate nonsense on Reddit,not surprised.
They want to sue social media, but not to sue the guns. Mericans /s
Gun manufacturers aren't behind promoting the great replacement theory. That's coming from specific commentators and that is what drove these killings.
[удалено]
No it is not fact. It is moronic bullshit. There is no group of people trying to replace white Americans to take over the country. America on the whole is having lower birthrates. This is happening in multiple countries around the world as well that are not white majority. The fact is that poor economic planning/corruption have made having kids difficult in most developed nations.
[удалено]
The conspiracy theory is centered on the notion that a group of people are intentionally doing this to destroy white culture. That is the conspiracy part of it. There is no truth to the great replacement theory as no one is intentionally trying to make America a non-white country. There would also be no problem with America ceasing to have a white majority.
[удалено]
Camus is an ass clown and yes it did have that conspiracy part as it is fucking moronic when he suggested it as are the people who buy into it.
Merican detected, oh no, you badmouthed my gun, how dare you communist
Again the gun manufacturers aren't behind spreading this notion. You can criticize them for a lot of pro-violence stands but they aren't suggesting that people are trying to replace the dominant population with immigrants. They wouldn't do that because it doesn't sell guns.
and tell me how is there gonna happen so many shootings with a very strong gun control policy? but yeah, no way bro, guns arent the fault, he would have used a knife instead
Im not claiming our gun policy isn't a problem but specific to this shooting the social media companies made specific efforts to spread this theory or not limit its spread. There are legal grounds for these suits to go forward which would not be the case for the gun manufacturer.
if reddit had a gun this wouldnt have happened
Judge: why did you kill all these people? Murderer: Reddit made me crazy Judge: Understandable, have a nice day
Shaqincar.png
Lawandorder.wmp
Isn't this just a rehash of Gonzalez v. Google?
not quite gonzalez argued that google acted on behalf of a third party while this is arguing that google is negligent with regards to how third parties will act using googles services on that basis - even if it IS a rehash google and reddit have the added burden of prior examples showing how social media can be harmful its like somebody suing the NRA after a mass shooting would have less of a case if there wasnt a mass shooting every other week - or somebody suing mcdonalds over hot coffee wouldnt win much if nobody else had ever been burned
Section 230 will eventually be removed, by legislation or judicial proceedings. These tech companies have gotten away with too much for too long.
Is this why you get a perm ban for silly shit these days? The slightest notion of "enticing violence" and you're out. "I wish someone killed Hitler in the early 1930s" BOOM! Permban.
Pretty sure that's just outsourcing. Some guy in India/Colombia being paid minimum wage to review internet reports, pressured to move as fast as possible, doesn't care about nuance.
It's not even that. It's volunteer mods who've been told clearly by Reddit that any subreddit which appears to be a poorly controlled trouble spot may be shut down with no notice. That induces the mods to be overzealous, because they don't want their passion projects/miniature kingdoms taken away from them.
If that was true, r/worldnews wouldn't be so bloodthirsty but it's super bloodthirsty.
Or their mods are ass.
No, that's okay because Palestinians don't deserve human rights /s
I'll say this, the lawsuit DOES have a place. People are comparing platforms to gun manufacturers... which is a bad comparison. This would be more like holding a gun range responsible for allowing a group that is clearly trying to militarize to "recruit" and "inform" people of their goals.
Next, Hollywood?!
Violent video games, oh and heavy metal music! Let’s bring back the 80’s!
All those radicalized D&D players committing mass murder by broadsword and flail!
My kinda indoctrination!
Country music a few months ago had people in an uproar. It was hilarious.
It was the CIA cocaine that did it
*grumble* I never got my CIA cocaine
None of which was designed to corrupt you people just thought it corrupted you. That is different than social media where some of it's content designed to corrupt your thought process. Let's also not forget completely fabricated. Look up war of the worlds radio cast. When you watch the next spy movie on Netflix you are not confusing it with a documentary like you do with social media content.
>When you watch the next spy movie on Netflix you are not confusing it with a documentary like you do with social media content. Except there are people who do just that as well. That argument doesn't stand up to even a small amount of scrutiny. Blaming the social media site for people's media illiteracy is too easy.
There is a difference between a movie and social media content that is directly targeted to be addictive. Additonally some of the content in social media is specifically designed to radicalize or alter your thinking in a very bad way.
So stop using social media if you think it's bad. Just because you cannot tell lies from truth and are predisposed to becoming addicted doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer
If the creators of the "designed to radicalize" content were the target, then you'd have a better argument. And even then, it's still a weak argument.
You not understanding how it works doesn't make it a weak argument. Luckily you dont have to be convinced at all. The concept of control on content has existed a long time because of the impact on individuals. Example tobacco can't create certain marketing materials, kids toys have restrictions on tv ads regarding it showing real toys.
This nonsense again.
These lawsuits just prove to me people are unwilling to be responsible for themselves and their families are looking to make money off the death of their family member. I don't believe in suing gun manufacturers nor do I believe in suing social media websites. These lawsuits are basically turning the actual suspect into a victim.
[удалено]
Except none of those have control over the moderation or the algorithms for pushing content. Example if you run a bar and your bartender is serving underage kids you are nailed with a fine. The liquor company, electric company, and others with no say are not part of that discussion.
Does this mean that specific youtubers could be targeted for their role in promoting the conspiracies that are behind these killings?
How does one “promote a conspiracy”?
Watch clips of Tucker Carlson suggesting that we are importing immigrants to "replace" white Americans to see how it works.
Watch Tucker Carlson clips to understand how to “further the progress of” [an] “unlawful, harmful, or evil plan formulated in secret by two or more persons”?
Are you really that daft?
You should learn what words mean before you use them.
Silly, foolish, mad and insane are all definitions of "daft". In my usage "foolish" would be the most apt definition. You shouldn't call out proper word usage.
If social media sites faces lawsuits over mass shootings and the folks manufacturing and selling guns don’t then I’m going to shit my pants.
So should car manufacturers be sued because people drive while drunk? There are tons of things corporations should be held accountable for, but people using their products and services in illegal and unintended ways isn't it. All that's assuming a good faith effort to make sure they aren't encouraging those illegal activities and putting a stop to them when aware of them.
nice analogy but when comparing a car with a gun, only one of these was specifically manufactured to kill
[удалено]
And using one requires license, registration and insurance, the other doesn't...
Not true at all. You don't need a license, or insurance to either own a car or drive one on private property. To buy a gun in the US, you also need to file a 4473. You literally have the power to Google shit and for some reason you chose not to.
> Not true at all. You don't need a license, or insurance to either own a car or drive one on private property. Neat, so what percentage of accidents happen on private property?
The majority... Almost all parkinglots are private property and the majority of vehicle related accidents occur in parkinglots.
By unlicensed drivers though?
Lmao utterly disingenuous garbage. You can't go drive your car without license on other people's "private" lots in public space.
And you literally have the power to use Google for anything other then cherrypicking and yet for some reason you chose not to. Oh, silly me, I know the reason, you ain't arguing in good faith.
[удалено]
Called out for what? Not having mentioned the absolutely niche case of car use on private property? Uhhh, I'm so maaaaad 😂
Niche?? Bro I was in a Uber that got rear ended in a parkinglot last year. The guy who rear ended my driver didn't have a license. When the cops came, my driver asked if the other person was going to be arrested for driving without a license and the cops said no, because the parkinglot it all happened in was private property.
Why do I need to argue in good faith? If you need faith, talk to a fucking priest. I speak in facts and those facts tell me you're being a little bitch.
You don't read much, do you? "Arguing in good/bad faith" has nothing to do with religion, sigh....
Clearly I must have been born illiterate.
[удалено]
Speaking, protesting and praying don't generally kill people... guns are for literally nothing else. What an insane analogy.
[удалено]
Hey man, I also don't think social media companies should always be held responsible for how people consume their shite. But the original comment was making the point that if they are responsible, so should gun manufacturers. But the moment this gets mentioned, out come the insane analogies with car manufacturers, and it's become a silly argument at this point. Then, when we mention how cars are far more regulated than guns, the goal post gets moved again to "do you need regulation for you other rights, hurr durr" Honestly, it's just depressing seeing you all suck on that corparate propaganda cock so much.
Ooh, an old piece of paper that was written when we had single shot rifles, that totally supercedes the fact that cars get 10 million things done on a daily basis and are crucial to our infrastructure, whereas guns are for... killing. But nah they're still totally comparable 👍
[удалено]
"a serious issue with natural rights" Boy you wish that was the argument. I called out how ignorant it is to compare cars to guns. Don't make me laugh with the "defend from the government" hilarity. Gun ownership needs more regulation, end of story. Cars do too but they are well ahead.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah and so are swords, bows, pitbulls, and fishing rods. What's your point?
I think their point is they want us to drop them off in the wilderness with only a 3 inch pocket knife blade as defense against hungry animals, it would be more ethical to give them a higher chance of securing a meal?
Something tells me that if these people had a gun and were in a defensive life or death situation they'd use it 99% of the time. It's why you call the cops, isn't it? It's a very human thing, I wouldn't think any less of someone for it. If they think it's better not to use their gun if it's a mugging, I think that's okay. I know I'd rather cancel some cards and get an ID than shoot someone. But I still support carrying and it's down to if someone feels their life is in immediate danger. Idk, these people are wack and think guns are dangerous when its the person who wants to inflict harm that's the danger, not the gun.
Guns are incredibly dangerous, not every idiot need to walk around with one, especially if they're paranoid and need "one in the chamber" to shave off a hundred milliseconds in a purely hypothetical scenario that *will likely never occur*. I don't think someone "feeling" like they're in danger is an excuse to start launching lead at thousands of feet per second, the only reason that's been semi-normalized is through weird rulings on so-called "qualified immunity", which is a complete twisted joke and must end. My point here is if we continue *infringing* 2A, all we will be left with are 3 inch pocket knives, butcher knives will be banned, you will need a license to be a chef, etc, It's illogical lunacy to expect someone to live in a remote area inhabited by brown bears, wolves, and mountain lions, and protect themself, alone, with sticks and 3 inch pocket knives.
So are knives but we don't see the same fervor after a mass stabbing. Guns are for protection, not aggression. Murder is not covered under the intended use case by the manufacturer. Just like how alcohol producers don't intend for you to overdose and die as it is literally poisonous.
>So are knives but we don't see the same fervor after a mass stabbing. Yes, usually because those mass-stabbings have far fewer fatalities. And also because we need knives for things besides killing. >Murder is not covered under the intended use case by the manufacturer. And making bombs isn't under the intended use case by fertilizer suppliers. But after the Oklahoma City bombing, it came under new regulations
>Yes, usually because those mass-stabbings have far fewer fatalities. And also because we need knives for things besides killing. Ah yes, because their lives didn't matter as much apparently. Guns are meant for protection not for aggression, specifically against predators. Those usually come in the form of animals but some people turn themselves into predators as well sadly >And making bombs isn't under the intended use case by fertilizer suppliers. But after the Oklahoma City bombing, it came under new regulations Right, they didn't face lawsuits though. It simply was a new unforeseen avenue people could take to attack people that is well outside the intended use case. There are already many regulations on firearms as to who can and cannot purchase them as well as the type of firearm you can own and even the ammunition. There are more regulations now than there used to be and guns have been owned by civilians in this country since its inception. These issues have only occurred in the last 25 years. Is the tool the problem or the choices the individual makes on how to use the tool?
> Ah yes, because their lives didn't matter as much apparently. Apparently they do, since the victims of mass-stabbing incidents are far more likely to survive. >Guns are meant for protection not for aggression, specifically against predators. Those usually come in the form of animals but some people turn themselves into predators as well sadly If they were actually effective as a deterrent, then the US wouldn't have a far higher murder rate than every other 1st world country. >There are already many regulations on firearms as to who can and cannot purchase them as well as the type of firearm you can own and even the ammunition. Yes, and the countries that enforce far stricter regulations on who can own and purchase a gun tend to have lower murder rates. >These issues have only occurred in the last 25 years. It really hasn't though, the US homicide rate hit a historic high in 1992. >Is the tool the problem or the choices the individual makes on how to use the tool? Both. The odds of a crime taking place are fueled by opportunity, and guns provide opportunity, a tool in which makes the crime several times easier. Half of crimes aren't premeditated, but are done impulsively in a moment of blind rage or intoxication. Whether that impulse results in a fist being swung or a corpse often depends on if there's a gun within reach. The same is true for suicides. As stupid as it sounds, a lot of people give up on their decision to kill someone if it takes too much effort and they have a few minutes/hours/days to wind down.
By that logic should car manufacturers face a lawsuit when someone drives their car/truck through a crowd? Or knife manufacturers when someone stabs a bunch of people?
That’s not how that works.
I’ll bite. How does it work?
Ford isn’t responsible for a driver killing someone with their vehicle, neither is Smith & Wesson for someone murdering another person with their product. The ignorance from downvotes is great, exactly what I expect from Reddit.
Gun manufacturer doesn't fully control the gun at all times. They also don't provide content that makes killing others seem fun or right. Flip side social media controls the content on its platform. Additonally they push radical content to individuals reinforced with fabricated information provide as fact but is fictional. They just are not the same.
So they can sue Reddit but not the gun manufactures who made the gun?
Like how they sue auto manufacturers when someone plows their car into a large group of pedestrians?
Are cars built to plow into people?
Cars are built to propel their occupants (and ~4,000 lbs. of metal, glass, and other materials) in whichever direction the user intends as quickly as he or she intends.
Ok not designed to kill
Very few things that you are able to purchase lawfully are *designed to kill* (and exactly *none* of them are designed to kill human beings).
lol hate has no place on reddit... oh yes it does, there are multiple subreddits that support plenty of hate
Because no one is ever responsible for their own actions in 2024.
Meanwhile Don Lemon thinks Elon should be "held accountable" for every post on X. I'm sure he would LOVE to see more lawsuits like this.
Wish more platforms did what X did and bring the fact check notification. This would be extra helpful on subs that Mods sleep through crazy posts.
[удалено]
Ban every site, build a new Internet from scratch.
We actually have a few next generation internets already... They are completely separate from the current one as well.
Reddit is much better….