They're just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks hoping to get some money. Suing google for delivering search results? It shows how ridiculous blaming tools is. The only person liable here is the shooter.
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
Technology
59569 readers
3431 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The only person liable here is the shooter.
On the very specific point of liability, while the shooter is the specific person that pulled the trigger, is there no liability for those that radicalised the person into turning into a shooter? If I was selling foodstuffs that poisoned people I'd be held to account by various regulatory bodies, yet pushing out material to poison people's minds goes for the most part unpunished. If a preacher at a local religious centre was advocating terrorism, they'd face charges.
The UK government has a whole ream of context about this: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97976/prevent-strategy-review.pdf
Google's "common carrier" type of defence takes you only so far, as it's not a purely neutral party in terms, as it "recommends", not merely "delivers results", as @joe points out. That recommendation should come with some editorial responsibility.
This is more akin to if you sold a fatty food in a supermarket and someone died from being overweight.
Radicalizing someone to do this isn't a crime. Freedom of speech isn't absolute but unless someone gives them actual orders it would still be protected.
Don't apply UK's lack of freedom of speech in American courts.
This is more akin to if you sold a fatty food in a supermarket and someone died from being overweight.
No. It's actually more akin to someone designing a supermarket that made it near impossible for a fat person to find healthy food and heavily discounted fatty foods and someone died from being overweight.
Idk about this suit but let's not forget how Facebook did actually in fact get a fascist elected president.
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/facebook-won-trump-election-not-just-fake-news/
He was treated like a joke candidate by the Democrats at the time. Facebook didn't get him elected, Hillary ran a weak campaign and didn't take the threat seriously. He used FB for fundraising and she could've done the same thing if she wanted to.
The lawsuit claims Mean LLC manufactured an easily removable gun lock, offering a way to circumvent New York laws prohibiting assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.
This seems like the only part of the suits that might have traction. All the other bits seem easy to dismiss. That's not a statement on whether others share responsibility, only on what seems legally actionable in the US.