Simple formula for holding social media companies accountable for libel, slander, copyright violations and illegal posts

[Seymour Flops]

Some argue that social media companies and forums like political message boards cannot fairly be held accountable for what they publish on their website because they do not edit what their users post. Actually, not that many people sincerely argue that, since it is absurd. But there are people who make that argument as an exercise in sophistry and to support social media that pushes an agenda of which the approve.

Still, some sincerely believe that there should be some degree of lesser accountability since social media companies to not have pre-publication approval of users posts.

I agree, some slack should be cut for that. We certainly don't want them to have to scrutinize every post because who wants to be in that business?

So here is my suggestion. Say I feel that I was slandered on Facebook. Someone accused me of being a groomer which would damage my professional reputation as a teacher. I want to sue, but Facebook says they had nothing to do with it they are a helpless platform for the posts of others.

Some simple research would show how long on average Facebook would allow a post that said, "Trump was right about Ivermectin," or "Masks don't stop viruses," before taking action.

Say it was an average of five minutes. How long did it take them to remove the post or attach a disclaimer to the post about me being a groomer? Was it more than three times the time it takes to make a running commentary about my political discussions with family and friends? Did it stay up more than three times longer than a post that said, "Fauci Lied, People Died?"

In that case they clearly did not do the same due diligence as they do for posts that are in dissent from their woke agenda. They are in control enough of their content that such posts do not stay up long, so they are in control enough to have allowed the libel willingly. Same could apply to classified materials, illegal pornography, nuclear secrets, revenge porn, etc.

Anything is better than a media with that much control over communications being allowed to have no consequences whatsoever for its actions.

 

[Dekster]

Some argue that social media companies and forums like political message boards cannot fairly be held accountable for what they publish on their website because they do not edit what their users post. Actually, not that many people sincerely argue that, since it is absurd. But there are people who make that argument as an exercise in sophistry and to support social media that pushes an agenda of which the approve.

Still, some sincerely believe that there should be some degree of lesser accountability since social media companies to not have pre-publication approval of users posts.

I agree, some slack should be cut for that. We certainly don't want them to have to scrutinize every post because who wants to be in that business?

So here is my suggestion. Say I feel that I was slandered on Facebook. Someone accused me of being a groomer which would damage my professional reputation as a teacher. I want to sue, but Facebook says they had nothing to do with it they are a helpless platform for the posts of others.

Some simple research would show how long on average Facebook would allow a post that said, "Trump was right about Ivermectin," or "Masks don't stop viruses," before taking action.

Say it was an average of five minutes. How long did it take them to remove the post or attach a disclaimer to the post about me being a groomer? Was it more than three times the time it takes to make a running commentary about my political discussions with family and friends? Did it stay up more than three times longer than a post that said, "Fauci Lied, People Died?"

In that case they clearly did not do the same due diligence as they do for posts that are in dissent from their woke agenda. They are in control enough of their content that such posts do not stay up long, so they are in control enough to have allowed the libel willingly. Same could apply to classified materials, illegal pornography, nuclear secrets, revenge porn, etc.

Anything is better than a media with that much control over communications being allowed to have no consequences whatsoever for its actions.

IDK how they do it now but FB back in the day when I used it was pretty vigilant about verifying ID's and seeking out sock accounts. That would make it easier to track down and ID someone and sue that person for defamation.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Some argue that social media companies and forums like political message boards cannot fairly be held accountable for what they publish on their website because they do not edit what their users post. Actually, not that many people sincerely argue that, since it is absurd. But there are people who make that argument as an exercise in sophistry and to support social media that pushes an agenda of which the approve.

That you have to make up a strawman shows the weakness of your position.

The argument is not that they do not edit what their users post, it is that they do not approve it before it is posted, thus before anyone can see it. That is the fundamental difference.

Say it was an average of five minutes. How long did it take them to remove the post or attach a disclaimer to the post about me being a groomer? Was it more than three times the time it takes to make a running commentary about my political discussions with family and friends? Did it stay up more than three times longer than a post that said, "Fauci Lied, People Died?"

In that case they clearly did not do the same due diligence as they do for posts that are in dissent from their woke agenda. They are in control enough of their content that such posts do not stay up long, so they are in control enough to have allowed the libel willingly. Same could apply to classified materials, illegal pornography, nuclear secrets, revenge porn, etc.

These sites can program algorithms to look for things like "Fauci Lied, People Died" but they cannot do so for "Seymour Flops is a groomer" unless they block all post containing the word groomer, which would be harmful to those in the pet grooming business.

Anything is better than a media with that much control over communications being allowed to have no consequences whatsoever for its actions.

I disagree. what you will end up with is the end of forums like this one and the million others like it. I think that is far worse than Twitter controlling what users post on their free service.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That you have to make up a strawman shows the weakness of your position.

The argument is not that they do not edit what their users post, it is that they do not approve it before it is posted, thus before anyone can see it. That is the fundamental difference.

There is a slight, not fundamental, difference between removing a post Immediately and not allowing it at all.

Suppose on this forum you were told that you could post anything you like but if you post anything negative about Trump, it will be deleted in five minutes or less. You would not say "that's fine, hundreds of posters might see it in five minutes."

These sites can program algorithms to look for things like "Fauci Lied, People Died" but they cannot do so for "Seymour Flops is a groomer" unless they block all post containing the word groomer, which would be harmful to those in the pet grooming business.

They choose what algorithms to use. If they have an algorithm too catch people saying "Fauci lied," but don't have an algorithm catching people calling others "insurrectionist," then they have made an editorial Choice as the publisher.

My assumption is that the algorithm does not automatically delete something, but rather alerts a basement dwelling blue haired a fact checker to take a look at the post. But maybe it does automatically delete the words "fauci lied." As the publisher, of course they have the right to do that.

Suppose that is true, that the algorithm will automatically delete posts with certain words and phrases. If I'm running a website that will be held accountable if one user calls another user a "groomer," and I facilitate that being made public , I believe I would be willing to take the risk that some dog groomer might not be able to get free advertising for their business, before I would take the risk of being sued for libel.

Just out of curiosity, and not expecting you to answer, do you agree with that Seattle Public Access channels policy of running any video given to them by a person who shows ID without looking at the video first?

I disagree. what you will end up with is the end of forums like this one and the million others like it. I think that is far worse than Twitter controlling what users post on their free service.

My disagreement is not with twitter, facebook, at all controlling what users post on their free service. Of course that is their right and they do it constantly. My disagreement is with pretending that they don't control what is on their free service. I'm not sure what you are claiming about that now . Do they control what users post, or don't they?

I doubt that it would ever harm forums like this one, because of the anonymity. If someone did call me a groomer on here, and me being a teacher fear damage to my reputation, the last thing I would do is file a lawsuit to put in the public record that I was accused of grooming, however falsely.

If I did, the forums defense would be that I outed myself as a person accused of Grooming, and that they never revealed my identity.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There is a slight, not fundamental, difference between removing a post Immediately and not allowing it at all.

Suppose on this forum you were told that you could post anything you like but if you post anything negative about Trump, it will be deleted in five minutes or less. You would not say "that's fine, hundreds of posters might see it in five minutes."

It is 100% different. If every post on here was deleted 5 minutes after it was posted two or more people can still hold a discussion. If we have to wait for approval of each post then that is not possible in an meaningful way

They choose what algorithms to use. If they have an algorithm too catch people saying "Fauci lied," but don't have an algorithm catching people calling others "insurrectionist," then they have made an editorial Choice as the publisher.

My assumption is that the algorithm does not automatically delete something, but rather alerts a basement dwelling blue haired a fact checker to take a look at the post. But maybe it does automatically delete the words "fauci lied." As the publisher, of course they have the right to do that.

My understanding is that the algorithm hides the post as soon as it is detected and then at a later time a human might look to see if it were valid to do so.

Just out of curiosity, and not expecting you to answer, do you agree with that Seattle Public Access channels policy of running any video given to them by a person who shows ID without looking at the video first?

I do not agree with it at all. What if someone brought them some sort of porn snuff film? What if it was child porn or the video of someone being tortured? That is a terrible policy if it really exist.

My disagreement is not with twitter, facebook, at all controlling what users post on their free service. Of course that is their right and they do it constantly. My disagreement is with pretending that they don't control what is on their free service. I'm not sure what you are claiming about that now . Do they control what users post, or don't they?

They do have controls in place, 99% of what gets posted stays and there is no approval process for it. Unless it is tagged by the algorithm or reported by another human user it stays

 

[Seymour Flops]

It is 100% different. If every post on here was deleted 5 minutes after it was posted two or more people can still hold a discussion. If we have to wait for approval of each post then that is not possible in an meaningful way

I get that you are using an extreme example to show that a non-extreme example would also be feasable. Two responses:

1) Deleting every post in five minutes would fundamentally change the nature of a forum like this, and changing the nature of a forum like this has been your worst-case scenario example of the downside of accountability for social media.

I don't know where to begin on how it would change it. Posters like me who briefly post during breaks and wait to get off work to post and look for posts to respond at length to, would find virtually nothing to interest us. The board would turn into a chat room inhabited only by the basement dwelling momma's boys who have 24/7 to post. The pool from which "fact-checkers" are drawn.

2) Your example is not really an extreme example of my example. It is completely different. Deleting all posts in five minutes using an automated system is not an editorial choice based on content, it would just be a way of keeping the board clear of all by the newest posts. Deleting every criticism of Trump would be an editorial choice by a publisher, and by doing so, the publisher would not be able to sincerely claim that they don't control content.

My understanding is that the algorithm hides the post as soon as it is detected and then at a later time a human might look to see if it were valid to do so.

Automating the editing function in that way, does not change it into a non-editing function.

I do not agree with it at all. What if someone brought them some sort of porn snuff film? What if it was child porn or the video of someone being tortured? That is a terrible policy if it really exist.

For the viewers, it is. It would be a way, perhaps the only way, for the people running the channel to avoid liability for such content. I'm surprised that you answered in that way. You do realize that on a message board such as this, it would be easy for a bad actor to post the worst examples of illegal content? Big difference is that on this forum, no one had to show ID to be allowed to post.

I'm surprised we don't see such material more often, actually. On that other misnamed forum that I used to post on and you likely still do, a poster posted a link to a photo of a woman whose body had not sexually developed. In other words, she look like she hadn't gone through puberty. It was a grown woman, but still . . . Anyway, it stayed up for a while, and I believe it was by a relatively new poster.

What is the difference between publishing posts without looking at them and cablecasting videos without looking at them?

They do have controls in place, 99% of what gets posted stays and there is no approval process for it. Unless it is tagged by the algorithm or reported by another human user it stays

Thank you, Yes. They are in control. With control should come accountability.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I'm surprised we don't see such material more often, actually. On that other misnamed forum that I used to post on and you likely still do, a poster posted a link to a photo of a woman whose body had not sexually developed. In other words, she look like she hadn't gone through puberty. It was a grown woman, but still . . . Anyway, it stayed up for a while, and I believe it was by a relatively new poster.

I was banned from that forum due to me not playing nicely with the owner. But it no longer exist, at least not on the server it used to be. If it moved I was not invited. And of course it stayed up for a while, the owner was a freak.

Thank you, Yes. They are in control. With control should come accountability.

and it does, just not as much as you seem to think it should. To have as much as you think they should would mean the end of all these forums