The role of Hayabusa.oRg
- Thread starter captain
- Start date
Since the site has rules to be a member, if a member breaks those rules; how is the site responsible and not the individual member?
TallTom
Registered
Hell if you could be held legally liable I could sue the site for what someone says to me.
No sir. It's not on the site to be held legally responsible.
I suppose, in theory, if someone discussed killing someone and the site allowed it, then it's a grey area. Social gathering places are the new breeding grounds for a lot of idiots.
No sir. It's not on the site to be held legally responsible.
I suppose, in theory, if someone discussed killing someone and the site allowed it, then it's a grey area. Social gathering places are the new breeding grounds for a lot of idiots.
Interesting question.
Cut and paste from:
It’s Time to Update Section 230
italics mine.
This argument, which Mark Zuckerberg himself echoed in testimony he gave to Congress in 2021, is tied to the common law standard of “duty of care,” which the American Affairs Journal has described as follows:
Ordinarily, businesses have a common law duty to take reasonable steps to not cause harm to their customers, as well as to take reasonable steps to prevent harm to their customers. That duty also creates an affirmative obligation in certain circumstances for a business to prevent one party using the business’s services from harming another party. Thus, platforms could potentially be held culpable under common law if they unreasonably created an unsafe environment, as well as if they unreasonably failed to prevent one user from harming another user or the public.
The courts have recently begun to adopt this line of thinking. In a June 25, 2021 decision, for example, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Facebook is not shielded by Section 230 for sex-trafficking recruitment that occurs on its platform. “We do not understand Section 230 to ‘create a lawless no-man’s-land on the Internet,’” the court wrote. “Holding internet platforms accountable for the words or actions of their users is one thing, and the federal precedent uniformly dictates that Section 230 does not allow it. Holding internet platforms accountable for their own misdeeds is quite another thing. This is particularly the case for human trafficking.”
The duty-of-care standard is a good one, and the courts are moving toward it by holding social media platforms responsible for how their sites are designed and implemented. Following any reasonable duty-of-care standard, Facebook should have known it needed to take stronger steps against user-generated content advocating the violent overthrow of the government. Likewise, Pornhub should have known that sexually explicit videos tagged as “14yo” had no place on its site.
cheers
ken
Cut and paste from:
It’s Time to Update Section 230
italics mine.
This argument, which Mark Zuckerberg himself echoed in testimony he gave to Congress in 2021, is tied to the common law standard of “duty of care,” which the American Affairs Journal has described as follows:
Ordinarily, businesses have a common law duty to take reasonable steps to not cause harm to their customers, as well as to take reasonable steps to prevent harm to their customers. That duty also creates an affirmative obligation in certain circumstances for a business to prevent one party using the business’s services from harming another party. Thus, platforms could potentially be held culpable under common law if they unreasonably created an unsafe environment, as well as if they unreasonably failed to prevent one user from harming another user or the public.
The courts have recently begun to adopt this line of thinking. In a June 25, 2021 decision, for example, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Facebook is not shielded by Section 230 for sex-trafficking recruitment that occurs on its platform. “We do not understand Section 230 to ‘create a lawless no-man’s-land on the Internet,’” the court wrote. “Holding internet platforms accountable for the words or actions of their users is one thing, and the federal precedent uniformly dictates that Section 230 does not allow it. Holding internet platforms accountable for their own misdeeds is quite another thing. This is particularly the case for human trafficking.”
The duty-of-care standard is a good one, and the courts are moving toward it by holding social media platforms responsible for how their sites are designed and implemented. Following any reasonable duty-of-care standard, Facebook should have known it needed to take stronger steps against user-generated content advocating the violent overthrow of the government. Likewise, Pornhub should have known that sexually explicit videos tagged as “14yo” had no place on its site.
cheers
ken
People just need to understand what is actually going on.. Here is a pretty good article with some history..
www.vox.com
A new Supreme Court case could literally break the internet
Gonzalez v. Google is a high-stakes case about what we actually see when we go online.
www.vox.com
Whether you’re legally liable or not doesn’t prevent somebody from suing you over their perceived transgressions.
JeffSyh
Registered
I'm not sure if I should post this but, it would be easy to work around any legality introduced by western powers on a small scale. Meta and twitter are corporation. This site isn't a company, corporation or any other consumer product thats a publicly traded company.
You could honestly host from dozens of countries that have no legal obligation to U.S laws and use a VPN. Look how torrent sites stay up and have never been defeated and they are chased and followed by the FBI constantly. Yet you can stream, download any movie, sports event, t.v show etc.
The loopholes for such a small site are easy and ain't no FBI coming after you unlesssssss we get some crazies here posting crazy ted kaczynski type stuff lol, but that should be easliy found and deleted.
I'd honestly worry more about the epa coming after people and companies on here (they've done it on facebook often)
You could honestly host from dozens of countries that have no legal obligation to U.S laws and use a VPN. Look how torrent sites stay up and have never been defeated and they are chased and followed by the FBI constantly. Yet you can stream, download any movie, sports event, t.v show etc.
The loopholes for such a small site are easy and ain't no FBI coming after you unlesssssss we get some crazies here posting crazy ted kaczynski type stuff lol, but that should be easliy found and deleted.
I'd honestly worry more about the epa coming after people and companies on here (they've done it on facebook often)
ottafish
Registered
I wouldn’t define it as hate speech. Sometimes offensive, but not outright hate.
But in relation to “who”, that should be up to our own believe that we are all people.
Just because people live their life differently or make choices on how they present themselves, does not give other people the right to criticise, offend, make jokes or degrade in a public, open forum.
Some conversations here lately have bordered on aggressive offensive and I believe should be moderated accordingly.
But that’s just my belief. And I don’t expect everyone to understand.
And I get your convictions sir so please don't think otherwise.. However for every person that tells me something needs to be moderated I have a counter person telling me that I am a bigot, racist, hate loving enabling redneck Nazi taking or oppressing their opinion...
Can you start to see the conflicts I have... The government is about to be the moderator for us all.. God please help us...
Well my government at least.. LOL
TallTom
Registered
Very true. As Cap has pointed out they throw down the racist, bigot card, at the guy who provides them the place to spew those insults. I would think that behavior would violate rules. And yet they still remain here to hurl the same insults to others.
TallTom
Registered
Totally agree. But this has been normalized in America over the past 30ish years.
Basket of Deplorables was supposed to win over some voters.
It is a company, a small one but still under law. We can barely cover server cost much less take on the govt or law suits in court.... 230 protect us from the members doing dumb things and people being offended all the time looking for a cause to take on.
Last edited:
Similar threads
