a viable claim for wrongful death
Something tells me you’re not a lawyer.
JustZ@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Fantastic. I’ve been waiting to see these cases.
Start with a normal person, get them all jacked up on far right propaganda, then they go kill someone. If the website knows people are being radicalized into violent ideologies and does nothing to stop it, that’s a viable claim for wrongful death. It’s about foreseeability and causation, not about who did the shooting. Really a lot of people coming in on this thread who obviously have no legal experience.
SCB@lemmy.world 1 year ago
JustZ@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Something tells me you’re wrong and not a lawyer.
SCB@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Does remindmebot exist on Lemmy? I’d be very interested in a friendly wager.
Loser has to post a pic in a silly shirt!
JustZ@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I don’t know but I’m 3 for 3 on these.
Bet that Supreme Court would uphold ATF interpretation on bump stock ban. That appeals courts would find a violation of 1A where Trump and other political figures blocked constituents on social media. And I bet that Remington was going to be found liable in the Sandy Hook lawsuit on a theory not wholly dissimilar from the one we’re talking about here. I’m pretty good at novel theories of liability.
gowan@reddthat.com 1 year ago
The catch is whether the site knows that specific individual is being radicalized. If admins aren’t punishing the account regularly I wonder how difficult it will be to prove reddit/YT specifically pushed this guy.
sturmblast@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I just don’t understand how hosting a platform to allow people to talk would make you liable since you’re not the one responsible for the speech itself.
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
I agree to a point, but think that depending on how things are structured on the platform side they can have some responsibility.
Think of facebook. They have algorithms which make sure you see what they think you want to see. It doesn’t matter if that content is hateful and dangerous, they will push more of that onto a damaged person and stoke the fires simply because they think it will make them more advertisement revenue.
They should be screening that content and making it less likely for anyone to see it, let alone damaged people. And I guarantee you they know which of their users are damaged people just from comment and search histories.
I’m not sure if reddit works this way, due to the upvotes and downvote systems, it may be moreso the users which decide the content you see, but reddit has communities which they can keep a closer eye on to prevent hateful and dangerous content from being shared.
CaptainAniki@lemmy.flight-crew.org 1 year ago
Because you are responsible for hiring psychologists to tailor a platform to boost negative engagement, and now there will be a court case to determine culpability.
whatisallthis@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Reddit is going to have to make the argument that it just boosts “what people like” and it just so happens people like negative engagement.
And I mean it’s been known for decades that people like bad news more than good news when it comes to attention and engagement.
JustZ@lemmy.world 1 year ago
They set the culture.
Did reddit know people were being radicalized toward violence on their site and did they sufficiently act to protect foreseeable victims of such radicalization?
YeetPics@mander.xyz 1 year ago
Tell that to the admins of lemmy.world defederating from communities because they may be held liable for what shows up on their website.
CaptainAniki@lemmy.flight-crew.org 1 year ago
You mean the cowards who are already operating in a safe-habor provision of the DMCA?
Anonymousllama@lemmy.world 1 year ago
We should get the thought police in on this also, stop it before it has a chance to spread. For real though, people need to take accountability for their own actions and stop trying to deflect it onto others.