Social Media Giants Sued For Helping ISIS (torontosun.com) 135
Long-time Slashdot reader nnet quotes the Toronto Sun: Social media giants Twitter, Google and Facebook are being sued by the families of victims of the San Bernardino terror attacks. The lawsuit claims those companies aided ISIS by letting them build their online profile and bolster recruitment. Fourteen people were killed in the December 2015 attacks by twisted husband-wife Islamist extremists Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. "Without defendants Twitter, Facebook and Google (YouTube), the explosive growth of IS over the last few years into the most feared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible," the suit, filed Wednesday in Los Angeles, alleges.
Won't go anywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I feel for the families of those who were killed, there isn't much you can do. This lawsuit just feels like a desperate attempt at answers where they don't exist.
No court would expect the operators of social networks to pour billions of dollars into moderating their platforms. They can remove content when its found and reported, but it is completely unreasonable to expect the operators of social media platforms to keep their platforms free of terrorist material while at the same time keeping it open enough to be usable.
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately, that's the cost of actively policing your content. Once you start doing it, as Facebook and Twitter have, you lose "common carrier" status and can be held liable for what you've missed.
Re: Won't go anywhere (Score:2)
Actually that's part of the protections of the CDA. Providers can moderate content without losing the safe harbor. That's in there to avoid the perverse disincentive you describe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Won't go anywhere (Score:5, Informative)
You're not a lawyer, so stop trying to practice law. The reason that we're so protective of that is that even well-meaning people get so many things so wrong.
For example, the EFF, which is significantly staffed by lawyers, reports [eff.org]:
Do you know why? Because the law literally says [cornell.edu]:
So no, policing the content on your site does not make you liable, protections are not based on "common carrier" status, and you certainly cannot be liable for content that you've "missed" or even decided not to block.
BTW: I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer, in part because you're an idiot.
Re:Won't go anywhere (Score:5, Informative)
Pretty sure that you're wrong. [ericgoldman.org] Because it's been tried before, multiple times [lexislegalnews.com].
Also, you can't file civil suits based upon "supporting terrorist organizations" or "aiding the enemy." Only the U.S. government and the states can bring criminal charges, and note that they're not doing so...
Re:Won't go anywhere (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, you can't file civil suits based upon "supporting terrorist organizations" or "aiding the enemy." Only the U.S. government and the states can bring criminal charges, and note that they're not doing so...
Since we have an actual lawyer here, how does it work in the US when the core of the civil tort is an alleged criminal act? Like say someone burned my house down, the police think they don't have evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a criminal conviction but I think I might have a "preponderance of evidence" to win in civil court. It certainly sounds like I'd sue for arson...
And the other question, if say a person was shot dead during a bank robbery, how many could the victim's family sue? The robbers themselves, of course. Anyone in a conspiracy. People aiding and abetting, people supplying like suppliers of illegal guns? The bank for defective alarms, cameras and metal detectors? The security guard for neglect or recklessly starting a shootout? Faulty bulletproof glass etc. that wasn't? Because this sounds like a major case of the butterfly effect, even if social media didn't do all they should it sounds quite removed from the actual terrorist killing.
Re:Won't go anywhere (Score:5, Informative)
No, you're sue for "torts" such as destruction of property and intentional infliction of emotional distress [tdn.com]. More to the point, you'd have to sue the gas station that sold the arsonist the gasoline for something such as negligence, which means that you'd have to prove that the gas station owed you a duty of care, that they beached that duty, that the breach caused your injury, and that there was actual damage. The mere fact that you partially blame the gas station for the arson isn't enough. Same thing in wrongful death situations.
You can go after everyone for everything that you perceive to have gone wrong (people and lawyers often do), but you're not going to succeed just because you blame them. You have to fit it into a recognized tort, which usually means that you have to show that someone owed you a duty of care, breached it, and that there was a sufficient causal connection to a concrete injury to you (or a close relative).
Ah ha! The topical analogy rears its head. Let's sue Remington for manufacturing the gun. But the gun was legally manufactured and sold to Joe. Maybe Joe was a straw purchaser. Maybe Joe was a secret bank robber. Maybe Joe only later decided to rob banks. Who cares -- if Remington hadn't made those guns, this wouldn't have happened. So Congress enacts things like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act [wikipedia.org]. You can't sue Remington for manufacturing and lawfully selling a gun that later ends up being used in a crime. Just like the Communications Decency Act says that you can't sue a service provider for providing a lawful service that happens to be used by a terrorist.
Congress decided that allowing communities to post and exchange information was valuable, that requiring background investigations for Internet accounts was ridiculous, and that moderating material should be encouraged but couldn't feasibly be mandated. They passed section 230 of the CDA. And until that law is changed, the law says that nobody on the internet (except for the actual poster of information) is civilly liable to anyone else for things posted by others on the internet. End of story.
Re:Won't go anywhere (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks, easy read and very informative. One follow-up:
They passed section 230 of the CDA. And until that law is changed, the law says that nobody on the internet (except for the actual poster of information) is civilly liable to anyone else for things posted by others on the internet. End of story.
If it's so all-encompassing why do you need to follow USC 17/512 (c) [cornell.edu] and the DMCA take down procedures, aren't those about civil liability for ISPs?
Re:Won't go anywhere (Score:5, Informative)
My much longer answer was swallowed by the idiotic decision to have backspace function as both backspace and back-page in most browsers. Moronic.
The CDA and DMCA were being negotiated at roughly the same time and interlock in this respect. Also, the CDA says that a provider cannot be treated as the "publisher" or "speaker," but copyright law doesn't care - you're liable for reproducing and/or distributing, whether you published/spoke the post yourself or not.
The CDA therefore included a quasi-exception for intellectual property (47 USC 230(e)(2)), "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.") and the DMCA shortly afterward extended the CDA immunity concept by saying that there's no civil liability for copyright infringement so long as you follow the notice/takedown/counternotice/restore procedure, do not have "red flag" knowledge of specific infringements, and terminate service to repeat infringers. Note that if you've complied with the technicalities of the DMCA (register an agent with the copyright office!) and restored material after receiving a counternotice, you're not civilly liable just as you would have been under an exceptionless CDA.
Re: (Score:3)
This has been the most interesting thread I've read on Slashdot for years. Thanks for your informative posts. This is getting bookmarked and referred to in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, but OJ Simpson probably does.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Boy do we ever need -1 Incoherent.
Re: (Score:2)
My money's on one too many coffees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Won't go anywhere (Score:5, Informative)
Reread the last line.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW: I'm a lawyer,
You should read all of a post that you're slagging off, helps to avoid looking stupid like this.
Re: (Score:1)
This lawsuit just feels like a desperate attempt at answers
This lawsuit just feels like a desperate attempt by some ambulance chasing lawyers to get rich off someone's loss.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Like being unreasonable or outright impossible has ever been a court to not come to a verdict that demands the impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, They might as well sue Apple for providing a phone that facilitated communications on said social media services, the car manufacturer who built a vehicle that allowed somebody with questionable intentions from starting the vehicle and those responsible for building the roads that allowed the attacker to get to their destination without obstruction.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they're doing it for answers, they're just seizing an opportunity to make money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There is that "Freedom of Speech" thing that is fundamental to a free society.
Re: (Score:2)
Given how toxic extremism is to advertisers, I really doubt Twitter thinks this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter, in a desperate attempt to keep their userbase growing, allowed every islamist and neo-nazi to open a dozen sock puppet accounts. They do have responsibility for this. Hey, investors, don't worry, we added another million users, we're still relevant, of course 20% of them were just bots controlled by ISIS and white nationalists, but don't mind that!
Your conjecture is... unconvincing.
And what next? (Score:2, Insightful)
They are going to sue manufacturer of the SUV which was used by terrorists to escape?
Re: (Score:3)
I take your point but a vehicle is very different from a communication platform.
The manufacturer of the SUV relinquishes control of the vehicle to the licensed purchaser. The communications platform stays in communication and continues an ongoing relationship with those who could misuse it.
An example of this is if a hostile government used a private company to rig or influence an election with hate speech or false news. The
Re: And what next? (Score:1)
Or sue the backbone operators for allowing the traffic to flow over the Internet. Maybe the DNS providers up to the root servers? Or the companies responsible for having the terrorists as customers to get in the Internet. Maybe the cellphone companies for allowing them to communicate. The chip makers for all the devices. Surely they can be sued as well. Our society is overly litigious and that is costing us more dearly than the physical acts of the terrorists. The reactive actions we make are letting the te
Yes (Score:2)
Let's just enact martial law nationwide. These dangerous things named "streets" are places were criminals can meet and gather.
Re: (Score:1)
Section 230 of the Community Decency Act (Score:3)
Doesn't the Communications Decency Act give social media companies immunity in cases like this?
Re: (Score:2)
http://reason.com/blog/2017/04... [reason.com]
Re: (Score:1)
So they'll finally shut down pizzerias for selling "cheese pizza" which, as we all know, is a code word for child porn?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: only if they act as common carriers (Score:2)
No way organizing others' content on their sites exposes them to liability.
Good. Squeeze 'Em for All They Got (Score:1, Flamebait)
golf clap (Score:4, Funny)
I see what you did there.
Pandora's box (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The crucial problem with all those cases is that so many people argue radically on the basis of false dichotomies rather than opting for reasonable, though perhaps boring middle grounds. Closing down Daesh twitter accounts and Daesh Facebook pages is just a reasonable thing to do, and no, it doesn't inevitably lead to some slippery slope that automatically turns the world into a fascist dictatorship. It's a matter of balancing Pros and Cons and implementing good mechanisms for the balancing of powers and ta
Re: (Score:2)
Good: The Way Forward. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well then why not sue the country responsible for setting up the conditions that enabled ISIS to be formed in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Well then why not sue the country responsible for setting up the conditions that enabled ISIS to be formed in the first place?
Well that would actually be a good idea. The only problem with it is that there is no *single* country responsible here. The entire world (including but not limited to the 'western' and 'islamic' country's) just stood by and let this happen. When the civil war broke out in Syria ~6-ish years ago, it should have been stopped right there and then. Instead, *everyone* had this 'not my problem' attitude, decided to turn away, and let it foster. In fact, the 'western' country's didn't even start caring about the
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously advocating that the US and other Western countries should pick winners and losers in civil war, and send troops in to enforce that? That's the sort of thing that got us into a lot of this mess in the first place.
Sue Religion? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:1)
You couldn't be more wrong. The real root is some humans being assholes. That's not related and not correlating with religion. Some religions are perfectly peaceful and you don't need to be religious to be an asshole. Even ISIS is barely religious, it's just an excuse they use.
Re: (Score:1)
So how do you propose to achieve getting rid of religion?
All it takes is education. The statistics show it over and over again. That's why the republicans are always trying to punch education in the nuts. About the only way they can get voters is to scream about the morality they themselves lack. And the only way to make people care about some antiquated notions of morality invented to control people is to make them religious.
Re: (Score:2)
I know some well-educated people who are religiously very devout. One of them blows up at people who annoy him too much while remaining theologically correct.
What education is likely to do is reduce the role of religion in governance, which I consider a Good Thing about education. Organized religion and politics should not mix.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bill lets people who have the same invisible, non-existent friend as the president and most of the rest of the elected government (who are supposed to keep church and state separate) to discriminate against people who have a different invisible, non-existent friend. However it is still wrong for those other people with the different invisible, non-existent friend to discriminate against people who have the same invisible, non-existent friend as the president.
Please note that some people do have the sam
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of blaming Social Media, why not get rid of the root problem, religion?
If we didn't kill each other over gods, we'd kill each other over economic systems or text editors. People require a good excuse to be bad people, but it doesn't really matter what the excuse is.
The second Iraq war was fought on the pretext of "freedom" and "democracy". How about we get rid of those? That'd fix the problem, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Frighteningly, there are those far from the Light who use neither vim nor emacs. Obviously we need a crusade or two.
Seriously, if you look back in history, revolutionary movements often tended to adopt a local heresy as justification for their actions and to provide a bigger "us-them" boundary. The battles between Spain and the Ottomans for control of the Mediterranean in the 1500s were easily justified as Christian vs. Muslim, but they were mostly just Great Power struggles.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that's very accurate. My point is that pretext heresies don't have to be religious.
Not a logical argument. (Score:3)
I'm not fan of social networking but I realize that they are just tools for communication. By their logic, everyone that has forwarded communication technologies (e.g. telephones and internet) has also enabled them. Social networking isn't a weapon, it cannot hurt people. Perhaps they should go after the people who do sell things that are used exclusively to hurt people.
Lawsuit going away quickly (Score:2)
Sue the water company (Score:3)
Also Oxygen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Emit more carbon for great good!
Inexplicable (Score:2)
I've never understood the common reaction of those grieving from a tragedy to demand *financial compensation*. Their family members died, not them! Why do they think they are entitled to money at all? The only explanation is that they are greedy bastards who only care about themselves and see an opportunity to take advantage of the tragic situation. It's sickening.
It would be one thing if they were taking a stand to fight against an unjust system, but they're not doing that at all. They should all be a
Re: (Score:2)
Their family members died, not them!
Well, there are two ways to look at it.
First, if I'm contributing money to my family and I'm unable to do so because I'm killed, it's reasonable to expect the person who killed me to be responsible for that. Second, the lifeblood of corporations is money--you can't put a company in jail. So how else do you control corporations that are ultimately only interested in money?
Don't get me wrong--it sounds like lawyers decided that they might hit a payday so they're giving it a shot.
Re: (Score:2)
Many state's laws require the executor of an estate (person closing a deceased person's life and distributing the property and all in either intestate deaths or those with a will) to pursue any wrongful death claims there might be or end up liable themselves for any missed claims. In a lot of situations, it is not up to the people being greedy but following the law.
That being said, I'm not sure this is one of those cases. It may be but I have not invested any time in researching it. But this is California,
Re: (Score:2)
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/s... [go.com]
All you would have to do is google for it. Sigh.. you youngsters..
Who's helping ISIS? (Score:1)
Chances are it's your various governments, American, European, Russia etc. As usual it's just business.
Here this is just plain old scapegoating to control the medium and individual communications. Standard stuff. You go with what works.
We will be fighting this war until... (Score:2)
Saudi Arabia falls and the Sunni Wahabi Jihadist movement is crushed.
Saudi Arabia is the "Nazi Germany" of the War on Terrorism. ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and all these terrorist groups are actually Saudi front Armies. The people suing FaceBook, Google, etc. are actually suing free speech.
Stopping what's going on would require basically every country in the world to stop fighting over fossil fuels, invest in renewable resources that do not come from the middle east, and developing weapons that make the Jihadists inca
Just sue all ISP's while you're at it! (Score:1)
litigious fecal matter (Score:1)
Better sue the car company, just to be safe. (Score:1)
Farook's wife was never "radicalized" on facebook (Score:2)