The Social Dilemma

[Alan Klein]

It doesn't affect me. I don't use social media. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to use Facebook. If you don't like what's going on, go somewhere else, or don't use it. Just like if you don't like CNN, go to Fox, or read the paper, the paper you like, or don't keep up with the news.  A lot of people do that. Next thing you are going to want is a law that says the New York Times can't edit the comments on its webpage because you don't think it is fair. Or forcing the Washington Post cover the Hunter Biden laptop story. Or making my local paper cover more local issues instead of all that generic syndicated crap. I really get tired of all the whining.

Apparently I wasn't clear or you didn't read my post completely. I suggest you re-read it.

[Alan Klein]

This seems to have gone off the rails.
i think you missed the point.
Social media IS telling you what to believe and what to read, watch and listen too. You just don't know it.
Every other media has to follow acceptable standards. I expect that possibly applies even in the US.
As the whole "Freedom" thing, most countries in the world are free. That doesn't mean there are no rules about what is acceptable.

The US has higher standards of free speech than many countries, maybe most.  People here can say and do obnoxious things like have Nazi or KKK rallies with impunity.  They are protected constitutionally.  Of course there are libel laws and you can be sued for defamation for untrue accusations.  But those mainly apply to non-public people.  Politicians and famous people in the news have less protection. The thing with social media is they are just a conduit for others' speech.  So as long as they are not the ones directly saying it, they aren't affected.  Congress has given that protection.  However, if they start censoring certain speech they don;t like, they they should lose that protection and be treated like any other news source which can then be sued if they defame someone.

[faberryman]

The US has higher standards of free speech than many countries, maybe most.  People here can say and do obnoxious things like have Nazi or KKK rallies with impunity.  They are protected constitutionally.  Of course there are libel laws and you can be sued for defamation for untrue accusations.  But those mainly apply to non-public people.  Politicians and famous people in the news have less protection. The thing with social media is they are just a conduit for others' speech.  So as long as they are not the ones directly saying it, they aren't affected.  Congress has given that protection.  However, if they start censoring certain speech they don;t like, they they should lose that protection and be treated like any other news source which can then be sued if they defame someone.

I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds like if in the next post I call you a crook, you want to have the right to sue Josh.  If it turns out to be true that you are a crook, then Josh will be out the time and expense of defending a lawsuit. If it turns out to be false that you are a crook, then you want Josh to be liable to you for damages. Because if I am Josh, I would probably shut down LuLa in half a heartbeat, and we will never know whether Nikon or Canon is best.  Is that your position?

If liability protection is removed, I am wondering if there are enough unemployed people, and people willing to change jobs, in America to actually police the social media platforms, and enough lawyers in America to handle the lawsuits, frivolous and valid. But what an industry you would create.
 

[Robert Roaldi]

The US has higher standards of free speech than many countries, maybe most.  People here can say and do obnoxious things like have Nazi or KKK rallies with impunity.  They are protected constitutionally.  Of course there are libel laws and you can be sued for defamation for untrue accusations.  But those mainly apply to non-public people.  Politicians and famous people in the news have less protection. The thing with social media is they are just a conduit for others' speech.  So as long as they are not the ones directly saying it, they aren't affected.  Congress has given that protection.  However, if they start censoring certain speech they don;t like, they they should lose that protection and be treated like any other news source which can then be sued if they defame someone.

I think you should listen to that podcast from NPR's Fresh Air that I gave earlier. It is not a propaganda piece espousing a point of view, it is a description of what's happening now and what problems are created. What harm can it do?

[Alan Klein]

I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds like if in the next post I call you a crook, you want to have the right to sue Josh.  If it turns out to be true that you are a crook, then Josh will be out the time and expense of defending a lawsuit. If it turns out to be false that you are a crook, then you want Josh to be liable to you for damages. Because if I am Josh, I would probably shut down LuLa in half a heartbeat, and we will never know whether Nikon or Canon is best.  Is that your position?

If liability protection is removed, I am wondering if there are enough unemployed people, or people willing to change jobs, in America to actually police the social media platforms, and enough lawyers in America to handle the lawsuits, frivolous and valid. But what an industry you would create.
 

No that wasn't my opinion.  Here's an explanation that might clear up the matter.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-media-online-defamation.html

[Alan Klein]

I think you should listen to that podcast from NPR's Fresh Air that I gave earlier. It is not a propaganda piece espousing a point of view, it is a description of what's happening now and what problems are created. What harm can it do?

Can you sum it up as required by LuLa?  What is its main points?

[faberryman]

No that wasn't my opinion.  Here's an explanation that might clear up the matter.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-media-online-defamation.html

That really doesn't answer the question of whether you think you should be able to sue Josh if I call you a crook in the next post and its not true.

[Robert Roaldi]

Can you sum it up as required by LuLa?  What is its main points?

I stated exactly what the podcast was about. Not sure where you get the idea that I'm supposed to summarize it.

But the interviewee in question discusses exactly why social media occupy the space they do, they are not deemed to be publishers, along with many other specific details of what's going on in the interweb. People should familiarize themselves with those basic facts. This is a new situation.

I find some of the things I read here confusing. You seem to think that free speech should prevail on social media and that they have no right to censor. That is not at all clear to me. If private employers can prevent their employees from saying certain things then so can social media. They are not a public place, is my understanding, people just think they are. And per their governing regulation, people cannot sue social media because of what a contributor might write, as explained in detail in the podcast including why they were set up that way. (Though I guess there's always the possibility of a test case.)

[faberryman]

Can you sum it up as required by LuLa?  What is its main points?

No that wasn't my opinion.  Here's an explanation that might clear up the matter.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-media-online-defamation.html

These posts were less than 90 seconds apart.

[Robert Roaldi]

That really doesn't answer the question of whether you think you should be able to sue Josh if I call you a crook in the next post and its not true.

Precisely one of things that are part of the wider conversation about social media. Are they de facto publishers? Are they public spaces? What does it even mean to have a public space owned and operated by a private owner? If they are public spaces, then shouldn't their algorithms be made public?

[faberryman]

I find some of the things I read here confusing.

That's because some people don't know what they are talking about, or are inconsistent, or use poor reasoning in their arguments.

[Alan Klein]

That really doesn't answer the question of whether you think you should be able to sue Josh if I call you a crook in the next post and its not true.

No, I think LuLa is protected by that law, but I could be wrong.  I'm not a lawyer.  But just calling someone a crook seems like an opinion.  It's like saying someone who uses Photoshop is a liar or a phoney. We're all phonies then. 

Now, if you posted that I stole money from my clients and I was a wedding photographer in business, that could be grounds for libel. You would have damaged my reputation.  On the other hand, if you said I was a lousy wedding photographer, that's an opinion and is now protected by federal law.  Otherwise, restaurants (that are still in business) could sue customers who posted bad things about their experiences and food, which is what use to happen.  EVerything I say is open to debate since I am not a lawyer.  Check with yours if you want to know for sure.  So don't sue me for giving bad advice. 

[Alan Klein]

Now if you libeled me so I lost income and business, I could sue you but not LuLa.  They're protected by the law.  The issue with Twitter is that they started to censor posts based on political position, then they are no longer acting as an open place for opinions.  They are acting like any other media such as a newspaper which are not protected.    The law was not intended to protect the latter.  Of course, I could be wrong about this a well.  So check with your attorney. 

[John Camp]

I'm not a lawyer either, but as a reporter I was intensely aware of libel problems and also the difference between a publisher and a public utility like a phone company. Maybe a lawyer here could answer a question for me -- since the social media (Facebook, for example, or Twitter) have now begun some monitoring and censoring of posts, doesn't that mean that they've more or less conceded that they're publishers? I think a very large number of social media problems would almost instantly go away if those companies were found to be publishers and liable for damages for things that were published on their forums. If their answer was that with billions of members, it's not practical or even possible to monitor everything, our answer would simply be, "Not our problem."   

[Alan Klein]

So let's say hypothetically that me calling you a crook is libel, do you think you should be able to sue Josh and collect damages. Isn't that what you are suggesting should happen when you remove the liability protection currently afforded social media outlets.

I don't believe so as long as they didn't urge you to do it and were not part of the posting other than acting as host.

[Alan Klein]

I'm not a lawyer either, but as a reporter I was intensely aware of libel problems and also the difference between a publisher and a public utility like a phone company. Maybe a lawyer here could answer a question for me -- since the social media (Facebook, for example, or Twitter) have now begun some monitoring and censoring of posts, doesn't that mean that they've more or less conceded that they're publishers? I think a very large number of social media problems would almost instantly go away if those companies were found to be publishers and liable for damages for things that were published on their forums. If their answer was that with billions of members, it's not practical or even possible to monitor everything, our answer would simply be, "Not our problem."   

I'm not a lawyer but let me take a stab at it.  I think it's a matter of degree.  For example, LulA screens posts for verbal assaults and bad language.  I don't think that makes them a publisher.  On the other hand, if they allowed posts only praising one party and not the other, then they would be a publisher. This is the complaint about Twitter.  They're taking political sides during an election.  Of course, they claim it's not political, that it's just a posting standard.  They want to censor lies.  WEll, that would be OK I suppose.  But then they have to do it across the board. Why should they be protected if they are acting as a publisher?   Of course, that doesn;t mean you could sue.  There has to be damages by their action or the statement posted.  This is more a  political and freedom of speech question.  It could wind up in Federal courts.  But they should defer back to Congress to clear it up since they wrote the law to begin with. 

[faberryman]

I don't believe so as long as they didn't urge you to do it and were not part of the posting other than acting as host.

So why are you advocating removing the liability protections currently afforded social media outlets?

[Alan Klein]

So why are you advocating removing the liability protections currently afforded social media outlets?

They can't have it both ways.  If they want protection under the law, they should not censor any side or exclude people from twittering.  Their sites should remain open to free speech.  It would be like your ICP carrier deciding what political positions you can post on LuLa or the phone company deciding who uses their phone system based on what you have to say.  It's none of Ma Bells' business. It's none of Twitter's business. Just complete the call.

[faberryman]

I don't believe so as long as they didn't urge you to do it and were not part of the posting other than acting as host.

They can't have it both ways.  If they want protection under the law, they should not censor any side or exclude people from twittering.  Their sites should remain open to free speech.  It would be like your ICP carrier deciding what political positions you can post on LuLa or the phone company deciding who uses their phone system based on what you have to say.  It's none of Ma Bells' business. It's none of Twitter's business. Just complete the call.

So if Twitter wants to continue doing what it is currently doing, then you want to remove the existing liability protection for social media outlets, which, as a consequence, will give you the right to sue Josh if I libel you on LuLa?

[faberryman]

I'm not a lawyer but let me take a stab at it.  I think it's a matter of degree.  For example, LulA screens posts for verbal assaults and bad language.  I don't think that makes them a publisher.  On the other hand, if they allowed posts only praising one party and not the other, then they would be a publisher. This is the complaint about Twitter.  They're taking political sides during an election.  Of course, they claim it's not political, that it's just a posting standard.  They want to censor lies.  WEll, that would be OK I suppose.  But then they have to do it across the board. Why should they be protected if they are acting as a publisher?   Of course, that doesn;t mean you could sue.  There has to be damages by their action or the statement posted.  This is more a  political and freedom of speech question.  It could wind up in Federal courts.  But they should defer back to Congress to clear it up since they wrote the law to begin with.

What a bunch of gibberish.