YouTube and Reddit are sued for allegedly enabling the racist mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 dead::The complementary lawsuits claim that the massacre in 2022 was made possible by tech giants, a local gun shop, and the gunman’s parents.
It use to be video games and movies taking the blame. Now it’s websites. When are we going to decide that people are just bat shit crazy and guns need some form of regulation?
Because every gun owner thinks they are “the good guys”
Because every gun owner thinks they are “the good guys”
Just wait till I use my gun to save a bunch of lives. Then you’ll see that I’m a hero. /s
And most of them fantasize about killing liberals and BLM protesters.
Why always equate gun owners with right wing wackos? It’s getting a tad tiring…
Because they think dead schoolkids are a necessary sacrifice for their gun collecting hobby?
Because most are.
Now I know the new trendy thing is for gun lobbyists and right-wing operatives online to stoke the division by pitching guns to the left. I know the intent is to profit from a wider market while simultaneously muddying the waters of who is the most violent ideological group.
… And some ground is being made with this vector, but it’s still nowhere close to comparable.
Usually from their perspective they are. Most people don’t try to be bad.
Yep. This guy thought he was fighting a righteous battle against the evil of white replacement. Brainwashed, but not insane by any clinical definition any more than any soldier is.
This is a key insight. There have been plenty of despots and dictators that ruled countries for decades while committing uncountable atrocities who had full command of their faculties.
This is also true of MAGA types so it’s not much of an excuse.
It’s not excuse, it’s a statement.
I can see the nuance in an argument that an online community, unmoderated, could be using an algorithm to group these violent people together and amplifying their views. The same can’t really be said for most other platforms. Writing threats of violence should still be taken seriously over the internet, especially if it was later acted upon. I don’t disagree with you that there’s a lot of bat shit crazy out there though.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Or fucking Cicso for daring to switch those evil packages.
Guns are the primary cause. They should go first. The others are secondary causes. They should go next.
deleted by creator
They’re not going anywhere, because our rights are solidly established and the Supreme Court is not going to abide with any infringements.
Unfortunately there’s a long history of ignoring supreme court rulings.
There’s also a long + contemporary history of citizens ignoring bans too. Check out the levels of compliance in New York after they banned some guns. Many of their counties’ sheriffs have even stated they won’t enforce those bans.
I guarantee the guns will still be here long after everyone who can read this is gone.
It is harder to get a nail salon license in many states than to accumulate an arsenal.
I don’t know man, sounds a bit too much like sense to me.
but muh rights to go pew pew!
/s just in case not clear…
Just go to school if you want pew pew
deleted by creator
I hate that reoccuring “joke”.
deleted by creator
They did- they commented about it.
It’s not popular nowadays to mention that people need to have self accountability, there’s always apparently a website, service, game or social media platform to “blame” for the actions of the individual
Exactly and sites that profit off of hosting extremist content that radicalises terrorists need to be held accountable for their actions.
Extremist content- or calls to action?
Why is that an either or?
I don’t agree in legislating extremist speech unless it is a call to action
Why did you want them to build an echo chamber out of your space?
I don’t inherently oppose private platforms controlling who is allowed to comment- I oppose the government deciding certain beliefs are too radical to be allowed on any platform.
How is self accountability incompatible with systemic issues?
Guns have more legislation written about them than nearly any other product. They are heavily regulated. They are not effectively regulated however.
This ineffectiveness is directly due to NRA lobbying, and their zero-tolerance attitude towards any new gun legislation. Any gun-friendly lawmaker who even gets close to writing gun control legislation will end up getting harassed (and likely primaried in the next election). So when gun control legislation passes, it’s inevitably written by people who don’t understand guns at all. No wonder it’s all shit!
Maybe now that the NRA is having financial difficulties legislators will have make leeway to enact things that might have a chance of working.
That’s the biggest ball of nonsense speak I’ve read all day.
So we have regulations, the regulations don’t work, and that’s the fault of the NRA…because they oppose more regulations?
Look, I’m no fan of the NRA either but that’s just word vomit.
Also, the political angle you describe is also nonsense. Just look at Sen. Feinstein, one of the biggest gun grabbers in American politics, who’s been in her seat for thirty years.
Getting the party nod or not getting it based on being anti-gun is basically a non-issue. If you’re an anti-gun Democrat, that won’t likely set you apart from other primary challengers, and certainly not enough to singlehandedly unseat an incumbent (not to mention the questions raised by your party leaving you vulnerable to primary challengers). If you’re an anti-gun Republican, you’ve got bigger issues to worry about than the NRA.
No, the NRA doesn’t make it so that gun friendly legislators don’t draft gun legislation, leaving it to be written by those who know nothing about the subject…rather it’s just common sense. A pro gun legislator knows that we’ve been trying that shit for years and it just… doesn’t…work. You’re expecting them to push for something that is not only against their political self interest but also their personal self interest, then blaming the NRA when it doesn’t happen.
The thing about bat shit crazy people is that they dont need guns to be violent, they will find another way.
Guns just make the whole killing thing a lot more efficient.
democratizing violence is not a bad thing if you think about it.
As disturbing as that comment is, the inverse sheds light on one of the biggest issues with attempts to regulate guns to reduce gun violence:
Legal attempts to restrict violence through restrictions of legal freedoms will not and have not democratized safety from violence, mostly because the vast majority of violent crime is perpetrated by people who are already in the habit and practice of disregarding laws.
I can’t realistically stab ten people in a crowd before I’m disarmed by the mob. And I certainly can’t do it from a hotel window.
The most deadly terror attacks were not done with guns.
Ok, bombs then
Bombs and vehicles, but bombs are easy to make
Hella things with more force than guns though, and most of those aren’t outlawed yet. Ppl will make bombs and use vehicular methods if guns arent available. Outlawing guns will not solve the issue I think the most effective method is inclusion and treating people well, maybe there won’t be as many unhinged individuals who act out violently…? Of course more regulation would help too (without infringing 2nd amendment)
The point they are making is that guns, besides being a force amplifier, are also easily accessible. The more steps involved, the less likely you are engaged in said acts. It’s why Americans will drive 1 mile to get a six pack, even though walking to the shop yields the same result. The easiest path is the most likely.
More regulation without infringement is what we want. I don’t care if you have a gun. I care that they’re super easy to get, I also care that you can easily get a big gun that can kill a lot of people just as easily as a handgun.
Where are all these mass bombings and vehicular murders in other Countries then? You average multiple mass shootings per week in the US, while the events in other countries typically happen less than once a year.
That list proves my point - it’s mostly shootings. You have to go back to 2017 to find a vehicle/bombing attack in a western nation.
Why limit to “western” nations? Also there are only 3 attacks since 2017 listed in any “western” nation there in the first place
Why are video games immune to neuroplasticity? Or any form of entertainment really.
Neuroplasticity is not really relevant here - it’s just the ability of the brain to form new connections. You’d need a casual effect of video games/entertainment toward radicalization inherently and science does not support that position.
Even meta studies are not showing any causal link between gaming/entertainment and aggression
Anecdotally I play a genocidal maniac in every game I can. I love playing total war and killing every single thing I come across, razing pillaging their villages and enslaving the survivors. I’ve done it since I was a young child playing RTS games like age of empires. Adding up all my video game kills would probably be literally in the billions. Can you guess how many people I’ve killed in real life?
Why is every commenter defending it so aggressive then?
I imagine it feels that way when tons of people disagree with you. But that’s also part of posting in public discourse, if people don’t like what you’re saying they will surely let you know.
deleted by creator
I agree generally- but I also personally know people who were in some ways inspired to violence by media.
deleted by creator
No, I mean fictional media, specifically movies and tv shows.
What do you mean, “immune to neuroplasticity”?
Basically when you do something over and over your brain rewires to do it more efficiently but nobody seems to think hours of video games or perceived negativity/positivity has any effect when it comes to certain entertainment.
I mean… if you play video games for hours and hours, your brain will likely learn to play videogames better? Sure. I hardly see a correlation to mass murder here.
If you believe that action repetition is to blame for rewiring people’s brains to be more efficient at mass murder, why not blame the military, or hell, why not just start picketing outside your local airsoft or paintball places?
edit: he’ll into hell. I blame autocorrect.
Badabing. It’s okay. You heard a word somewhere and misunderstood how to use it. It happens.
Because clicking a mouse to go pew pew at fictional characters is drastically different than pointing and shooting a gun at a human being.
Even the most realistic military shooters, you don’t just get a red tint over your eyes if you get shot, you can’t wait it out or use a medkit to immediately be fully recovered, and people don’t respawn the next match after they are killed. They don’t show how gruesome and nerve-wracking real violence it is. They can’t show the lasting consequences of that. People who play video games might not even know how heavy a real gun is.
And then there are things like Fortnite and Overwatch, which are just silly cartoons. No comparison.
Are there any actual scientific studies that back up that summation? Because video games have been under intense scrutiny for decades and every time it’s brought up the consensus seems to be that there’s no direct link
Video games are not the causal reason for mass shootings. Do other countries have gun violence like America does? No. But they play video games just at much as we do.
It’s not video games that are the problem, it’s the easy access to lightly regulated guns.
People still stuck on the defensive route of this.
Because it’s literally the facts…
So you think neuroplasticity is fake?
deleted by creator
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.
It’s bizarre looking at this from the outside and seeing Americans trying to blame everything but the availablity of guns for shootings happening.
Many Americans will sacrifice a lot for their guns. Including school children and the ability to live in a safe society.
Coming from a country that had a couple of school shootings and then decided it wasn’t worth the risk, and everyone handed in their guns with little complaint, I find it hard to comprehend.
It’s hard to comprehend from the inside. This country is full of traumatizing shit that’s really hard to face.
Well, even Americans without guns are much more violent than people in other first-world countries. Our non-gun homicide rate is higher than the total homicide rate in (for example) France or Germany.
There’s an interesting discussion of the statistics here.
So my interpretation is that gun control is likely to reduce the murder rate, but the change will not be nearly as dramatic as many gun-control supporters seem to expect. Guns aren’t most of the problem.
Means≠motivation. Having the capacity to do something doesn’t drive one to do so.
I’m not deeply researched on this case but from what I know I’d imagine that poor solication combined with being accepted into a group who’d espouse those kind of views contributed to their actions. Not to say that any of those websites did anything particularly to drive their actions.
It is a quasi-religious thing. They would rather risk their kids dying than even accept the most basic regulations.
bUt iT’s mUh rIgHt tO kEeP aNd cArRy gUnS
Pity the mass shooting victims didn’t have the right to live their lives without being gunned down by a psycopath.
They do have that right actually, which is why we punish those who take those rights away. Just because it’s illegal doesn’t mean people can’t break the laws
Really? The pro-gun community doesn’t seem to think so. Without fail, they demand the right for people to legally own firearms despite a long history of red flags, in direct opposition to people’s right to life and liberty.
70% of mass shooters are legal gun owners, with most of the remaining being people who took a family members legally owned (and legally poorly secured) firearm.
Pro-gun groups spend millions ensuring this doesn’t change. Where is their punishment? They have record profits and convenient access to a hobby at the clear expense of people’s right to life.
And I know the bleated response; an immediate othering with “but those are law-abiding gun owners, you can’t punish them”.
But it’s bullshit. Most mass shooters fit the definition of “law abiding gun owner” right up to the minute they start firing into crowds. If a group is responsible for nearly three quarters of domestic terrorists and is unwilling or unable to lower that figure, society has a duty to put a stop to it.
It’s also disingenuous to claim responsibility for an act starts and ends with the murderer. We’re not blind, we can see the people who continue to enable gun violence.
Where do illegal firearms come from? Legal gun owners who leave handguns in their gloveboxes. Who blocks expanded checks and red flag laws that would have prevented mass shooters from buying semi-automatic weapons on a whim? Republican politicians who take millions from the gun-lobby. Who supports Republicans and the gun-lobby for exactly that reason? The pro-gun community.
And surprise surprise, it’s the same groups that routinely strips other people of their rights without a glimmer of guilt or self awareness.
Yes really, I’m part of that pro gun community, I own some myself. In the US, we have certain rights that are in our constitution, like the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, a trial by jury, and along with all those is the right to bear arms. It was so important to early America it’s the second amendment, right behind free speech.
Just having a gun, or any item that is also a weapon really, doesn’t oppose the right to live. Both exist, it’s illegal to kill someone with your fists, a knife, a bat, or a gun, it doesn’t matter what tool is used.
Most mass shooters fit the definition of “law abiding gun owner” right up to the minute they start firing into crowds.
So they aren’t law abiding? Glad we can agree on that. Yes it’s legal to carry a gun around as long as you don’t go shooting random people with it, what’s the point? I carry a pocket knife everywhere I go, that’s also legal also as long as I don’t go stabbing people.
Who blocks expanded checks and red flag laws that would have prevented mass shooters from buying semi-automatic weapons on a whim
So about red flag laws. Should red flags prevent the ability to practice a right? I’m not mentioning any specific right because constitutionally they all have the same protections. If it’s illegal to use two flags to prevent free speech, it’s illegal to use it for any other right, that’s how rights work.
The people wanting to single out one right are destroying the integrity of the most important document in US history. There are correct ways to do it, but they aren’t being done, instead they are trying to do things unconstitutionally. Removing a right is hard, and requires agreement, and there isn’t enough support to do it so the left resorts to unconstitutional methods and the right fights to stop it.
And surprise surprise, it’s the same groups that routinely strips other people of their rights without a glimmer of guilt or self awareness.
I’m also against the recent movements to remove stuff like the right to abortion, but I was honestly shocked to see how weak the argument that made abortion a “right” was. Did you know how the original Roe V Wade decision was made?
It starts with the 14th amendment, known as the amendment that gave citizenship to anyone born in the USA, and providing them equal protection under the law. There is one line in the 14th amendment that reads “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”. The supreme court decided that one little phrase gives us the implied right of privacy. From that right to privacy, they determined that means we also have the right to abortion, but only some abortion, no late term abortion.
So not surprising it was a very controversial decision that many saw as the right result in the wrong way. I’m honestly surprised it lasted 50 years.
You can’t sue “the availability of guns”, but you can sue YouTube, Reddit, the manufacturer, and whoever else is involved and at least try to get some money out of them.
Man, if the only thing that’s preventing a country’s populace from murdering each other is restricted access to weapons, then that country is a failed society.
Man, if your country has you living in such fear that you feel the need to be armed at all times, then that country is a failed society.
Yeah, let’s not regulate guns at all, that’s a swell idea. Really worked out well so far.
Let’s make them illegal, like drugs, because that works great.
The demand for guns in the US is high; if you don’t think this would become a lucrative black market you’re foolish.
The solution is more involved than just “regulate X”. Something is deeply fucked that isn’t going to be simply solved with a law, and could make things worse despite great intentions, just like prohibition did.
If the demand isn’t addressed, the problem will still exist. Same as prostitution and drugs.
It’s almost like an in-between option for both drugs and guns needs to be considered.
I’d still contend the issue is demand, and that is the root issue. Other solutions are treating the symptom, not the cause.
The demand isn’t so much the problem in an in between option, fair regulation and access requirements along with tracking (in the case of guns moreso) would help tremendously.
Definitely though the underlying cause of the desire/need is a separate discussion. Recreational drugs/guns aren’t a complete negative imo, some people just like to experience a different mindset/state or shoot guns, but those that are mentally ill should be able to get help instead.
I don’t disagree necessarily, I just see it this way.
There’s a drug problem: why are people turning to drugs for escapism? It indicates an underlying issue with society and/or our relationship with drugs.
Along the same lines, why are we so hostile towards one another? Reducing the number of guns would reduce the number of people shot, but it wouldn’t address the hostility.
It’s just more complicated than “regulate X” no matter how good or common sense those regulations are.
My concern is that people only pursue the regulations, don’t address the social issue (much harder), and we end up with what prohibition created - a more robust black market.
Let’s make them illegal, like drugs, because that works great.
So what’s the black market for hand grenades and land mines like?
Practically non-existent because it turns out controlling weapon manufacturing is much easier than controlling drug manufacturing and you can properly scrutinise people’s access to them without a death cult getting outraged.
There will always be murders. Humans are irrational creatures. Banning firearms makes murder attempts less likely to succeed, and mass murders significantly harder to plan, execute, and achieve actual mortality with.
Yes much better to arm that populace and have it be a double failure. Your failed society comparison would be an improvement for the US.
I mean, I’m sure there are lots of other socioeconomic reasons, but it feels like you can solve this big one a lot quicker and easier than trying to solve all the abstract issues that covers.
That’s kinda a given, but way harder to fix than introducing weapons control.
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.
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.
Is that really all they do though? That’s what theyve convinced us that they do, but everyone on these platforms knows how crucial it is to tweak your content to please the algorithm. They also do everything they can to become monopolies, without which it wouldn’t even be possible to start on DIY videos and end on white supremacy or whatever.
I wrote a longer version of this argument here, if you’re curious.
This is a good read, I highly suggest people click the link. Although it is short enough that I think you could have just posted it into your comment.
Yes, but then I couldn’t harvest all your sweet data.
Kidding! It’s a static site on my personal server that doesn’t load anything but the content itself. It’s mostly just a PITA to reformat it all mobile.
Which article is it? The link takes me to the website main page.
Huh really? Do you have JS turned off or anything? Here’s the full link: https://theluddite.org/#!post/section-230
Hmm not sure. I use a client called Memmy for browsing Lemmy. Copy and pasting the link in my browser worked. Thanks!
I bet memmy cuts off the URL at the “#!” for some reason. I’ll submit a bug report to their repo.
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.
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.
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.
They probably will take that argument but that doesn’t instantly dissolve them of legal culpability.
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?
Tell that to the admins of lemmy.world defederating from communities because they may be held liable for what shows up on their website.
You mean the cowards who are already operating in a safe-habor provision of the DMCA?
Sure? I mean I think so. 🤔
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.
a viable claim for wrongful death
Something tells me you’re not a lawyer.
Something tells me you’re wrong and not a lawyer.
Does remindmebot exist on Lemmy? I’d be very interested in a friendly wager.
Loser has to post a pic in a silly shirt!
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.
What silly shirt will you wear?
Mine will say “I’m a T-Rex stuck in a woman’s body”
I am not, in fact, a woman. It’s a hoot.
Mine will say “Novel theories of civil liability are not my bag, baby!”
In fact they are.
It’s a date! No remindmebot but I’ll bookmark it.
Really a lot of people coming in on this thread who obviously have no legal experience.
Like you
deleted by creator
Fuck reddit but thats bs.
YouTube, named with parent companies Alphabet Inc. and Google, is accused of contributing to the gunman’s radicalization and helping him acquire information to plan the attack. Similarly, the lawsuits claim Reddit promoted extreme content and offered a specialized forum relating to tactical gear.
Yeah this is going nowhere.
The algorithm feeds on fear and breeds anger. This much is true.
Say what you want about youtube and reddit but if you want them to censor more and more you are creating a sword that can be used against you too. I also don’t like the idea of shooting the messenger no matter how much we may dislike the messages. When I hear lawsuits like this I always think it is greedy lawyers pushing people to sue because they see deep pockets.
Right, so then they should be operated as a public telecom and be regulated as Title II. This would allow them to be free from such lawsuits.
However, they want to remain as private for profit companies so they should be held responsible for not acting responsibly.
I agree
Last I heard they’re already covered under Safe Harbor laws and are protected.
US federal law CDA section 230
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
Section ‘C’.
It doesn’t make sense to treat websites as utilities. Net neutrality can’t be applied to websites, it would make most basic spam filtering infeasible and blow up operational costs
You’re right. I was wrong. There is a big difference between websites and ISPs, and in my eagerness to respond I skipped that basic understanding.
I feel like their should be basic policing of the most horrific things, e.g. child porn. But you’re right, it’s impossible to filter everything out in a timely manner by websites.
and with hold sites like youtube accountable I am living a gun that can shoot me. Its a double edge sword that can be used to hurt me no matter what we do
The article doesn’t really expand on the Reddit point: apart from the weapon trading forum, it’s about the shooter being a participant in PoliticalCompassMemes which is a right wing subreddit. After the shooting the Reddit admins made a weak threat towards the mods of PCM, prompting the mods to sticky a “stop being so racist or we’ll get deleted” post with loads of examples of the type of racist dog whistles the users needed to stop using in the post itself.
I don’t imagine they’ll have much success against Reddit in this lawsuit, but Reddit is aware of PCM and its role and it continues to thrive to this day.
I just took a casual look at that sub and noped the fuck out. Sad to see how active a toxic community like that is, though not really surprising.
PCM isn’t just a Right wing subreddit, it’s a Nazi recruitment sub under the guise of “political discussion”.
You are beyond wrong on that. Go off pauper though. 💅
He wasn’t a participant. I was a mod there before I immolated my Reddit account and day it happened I trudged through his full 196 page manifesto. It mentions PCM exactly 0 times. What does he mention in it? /pol/ and /k/ specifically. With /pol/ taking around 40% of the entire manifesto. He made a single comment on /r/pcm. That comment? “Based.” We have/had nearly 600k users, 150k active weekly. One person making one comment does not judge the community. He was active on other parts of Reddit as well. Much more than ours.
Who would be the right one to sue? Reddit is hosting it, but they are using admins to keep discussion civil and legal; the admins of PCM are most likely not employed by Reddit, but are they responsible for users egging each other on? At what point is a mod responsible for users using “free speech” to instigate a crime? They should have picked a few posts and users and held them accountable instead of going for the platform. People will keep radicalizing themselves in social media bubbles, in particular when those bubbles are not visible to the public. Muting discussion on a platform will just make them go elsewhere or create their own. The better approach would be to expose them to different views and critique of what they are saying.
There’s admins and there’s moderators (mods). Please clarify which you mean.
Admins are Reddit employees and are supposed to enforce site-wide rules outlined in their policy and terms of use.
Moderators are unpaid volunteers whose identity is typically unknown to Reddit who are in charge of running a sub. Moderators can make up additional rules and enforce them.
In the USA it’s not a crime to be racist, promote a religion teaching that God wants you to be racist, say most racist things in public, or even join the American Nazi Party. The line is set at threatening, inciting, or provoking violence, and judges don’t accept online arguments that saying racist garbage is inherently threatening.
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.
Here’s an install video of what I assume was the product in question based on the named LLC. https://youtu.be/EjJdMfuH9q4
Shy of completely destroying the the lock and catch system by drilling the mechanism I don’t see an effective way of removing it.
I don’t think it’d meet the court’s standards for easily removable given it’d require power tools and would permanently alter the device in an unfamiliar reversible way.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/EjJdMfuH9q4
https://piped.video/EjJdMfuH9q4
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
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.
Well, maybe. I want to be up-front that I haven’t read the actual lawsuit, but it seems from the article that the claim is that youtube and reddit both have an algorithm that helped radicalize him:
YouTube, named with parent companies Alphabet Inc. and Google, is accused of contributing to the gunman’s radicalization and helping him acquire information to plan the attack. Similarly, the lawsuits claim Reddit promoted extreme content and offered a specialized forum relating to tactical gear.
I’d say that case is worth pursuing. It’s long been known that social media companies tune their algorithms to increase engagement, and that pissed off people are more likely to engage. This results in algorithms that output content that makes people angry, by design, and that’s a choice these companies make, not “delivering search results”.
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.
Don’t apply UK’s lack of freedom of speech in American courts.
🙄
It is a felony under federal law to intentionally “solicit, command, induce, or otherwise endeavor to persuade” another person to engage in a crime of violence against a person or property. 18 U.S.C. § 373. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/12/Fact-Sheet-on-Threats-Related-to-the-Election.pdf
Specific text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373
Oh pretending you were always talking about US when BOTH of your previous links are from the UK? Come on bro…
And you’re citing a law and not considering how it’s applied for the last couple centuries or even years. In very broad terms, you can’t just claim they said something inflamatory and that person did something. For the most part they need to be rather specific for that law to apply.
“Someone should do something about that mosque” isn’t the same as saying “Someone should blow up that specific mosque”. And almost every time this comes up the radicalization knows how to avoid going over the line. But if I posted a message that said “someone should blow up that mosque” It would be myself that would get in trouble, not lemmy, or Youtube or where ever I posted it.
The problem is “Solicit, command, induce, or otherwise endeavor to persuade” That’s usually far more specific than you seem to think. It’s part of the way organized crime was able to survive so long, until RICO cases were made, and those cases basically bypass this by saying there’s a (Criminal) “enterprise”.
The other problem you have is complaining about the “Algorithm” but not understanding that itself would likely be a defense in that it’s designed to promote retention, not radicalization, but that would even assume it’ll get to court, which in this case it’ll almost certainly not. The fact they’re not going after a specific person probably means they’re targeting a vague “radicalization” which hey, you have a good point in your first link. The radicalization would be illegal under UK law. But if he did in the US, he likely would not be in jail.
But then again we don’t jail people for teaching dogs to do the nazi salute, so yeah, strange. We have different laws here that I still don’t think you understand.
I know perfectly well the laws of your country, and that the links I originally posted apply to the UK. My comments were about principles, rather than the specifics of US law, which again could apply to the US.
Google is quite wilfully recommending certain things that increase engagement, they’re metric-ed up the eye balls. Facebook has internal documents that clearly state they know they’re actively promoting harmful content.
But then again we don’t jail people for teaching dogs to do the nazi salute, so yeah, strange.
He was not jailed, he was fined and it was for saying things “antisemitic and racist in nature”. The link has some of the things he said that are clearly not so innocuous as you seem to portray given the rise of the right wing. The whole “it’s a joke” defence is also pretty well documented as a modern phenomena of the right wing.
You are misinformed and if you have any sympathies for that guy, you have the wrong priorities at best, or at worst are resorting to the usual alt right talking points.
As a matter of principle, you’re right on one account, which is that I do not place the ultimate value on freedom of speech. The fact that American companies have a strangle hold over the public sphere and the dynamics of speech is problematic.
My comments were about principles,
So absolutely has no value in this discussion, thanks for clarifying.
The link has some of the things he said that are clearly not so innocuous as you seem to portray given the rise of the right wing.
I didn’t click this link, because I don’t really care. My father was Jewish, and he could say all Jewish people should be killed and I still would say he doesn’t deserve to be put in jail. Sorry, your outrage doesn’t override the first amendment. It’s not “It’s a joke” defense… it’s “There’s freedom of speech”. Hard stop. Are their limitations to it? Sure, but I’m pretty sure he’s not hitting those bars.
You are misinformed
No you’re talking about “Principles” which means you’re in the wrong topic and the wrong discussion. And you’re not misinformed, but willfully ignoring the reality of the situation. Maybe you’re angry you’re not right and you’re trying to defend your position, but here’s the thing, your position doesn’t matter, the law matters… And no one is keeping score, so it’s ok, you’re wrong here, just stop making up shit.
at worst are resorting to the usual alt right talking points.
I always love this point. “If you don’t agree with me, you’re the enemy.” I guess the ACLU is the Alt-Right, as is any lawyer who defends someone charged with saying something that hurt someone’s feelings.
As for “priorities”. If you think freedom of speech isn’t important, let’s think about that. It’s great right now, Nazi’s can’t say shit, you can say anything you want to them. But what’s that, a future where someone you don’t like is in power, and suddenly you can’t say anything and some party (potentially Nazis) can… Oh shit, well maybe Freedom of Speech IS actually important.
As a matter of principle,
I’ll repeat this again, “principles” don’t matter, laws do.
which is that I do not place the ultimate value on freedom of speech
That’s fine, but we’re all talking about an American case, let’s focus on American laws, and not “What dublet feel is right”.
This is the last time I’m responding to you because you’ve made it clear you’re talking about the world according you. I live in a real place, with actual laws, where this case is taking place. It’s called the United States of America. It doesn’t matter where you live, it doesn’t matter what laws apply to you. We’re talking about a specific place and specific laws. When you want to talk about those laws… well find someone else because you’ve already wasted enough of my time, but until you focus on how the world actually works, really no one should waste their time discussing your version of the law… because it has no basis in reality.
My father was Jewish, and he could say all Jewish people should be killed and I still would say he doesn’t deserve to be put in jail
Roseanne Barr is jewish and recently denied the holocaust but also said that it should have happened.
Sure we’re not gonna put her in jail but she’s a guaranteed laughing stock and everyone knows it.
She straight up wrecked her career with that kind of thinking.
You don’t have to go to jail for everyone to hate you for what you are. Have fun not being in jail lol
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.
And that still would be legal.
Mcdonalds has existed for decades with that model. The only lawsuits against them are usually settled, and about shit where they knowingly lied like about Transfats. You can’t blame Mcdonalds for your unhealthy eating, you can’t blame one supermarket because it doesn’t sell what you think is healthy. So sure, your version is perfectly fine too… and yet is still legal.
Ever been to a candy store? A chocolate shop? Even Cheescake Factory is really unhealthy in general and still is a major chain? At some point personal responsibility is what it comes down to.
This is more akin to if you sold a fatty food in a supermarket and someone died from being overweight
Do you not remember those two girls who tried to sue McDonald’s for making them fat?
It prompted a movie and a book…
And how did that case end?
Hint: Not well You can try to sue anyone for anything. There’s just no guarentee it’ll work, and it didn’t there.
There are cases that do work, such as about transfats but that is about specifically misleading someone, not supplying something unhealthy. Also that was settled, not fully through the courts.
so?
the case in OP is still going on so we don’t know how it will end yet. I was just pointing out something that already happened cause the metaphor used matched that case. Like, it was funny to mention something like that when it already happened and we know how it played out.
We don’t know how the case in OP is gonna play out. You can’t predict the future.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
YouTube, Reddit and a body armor manufacturer were among the businesses that helped enable the gunman who killed 10 Black people in a racist attack at a Buffalo, New York, supermarket, according to a pair of lawsuits announced Wednesday.
The complementary lawsuits filed by Everytown Law in state court in Buffalo claim that the massacre at Tops supermarket in May 2022 was made possible by a host of companies and individuals, from tech giants to a local gun shop to the gunman’s parents.
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.
YouTube, named with parent companies Alphabet Inc. and Google, is accused of contributing to the gunman’s radicalization and helping him acquire information to plan the attack.
“We aim to change the corporate and individual calculus so that every company and every parent recognizes they have a role to play in preventing future gun violence,” said Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law.
Last month, victims’ relatives filed a lawsuit claiming tech and social media giants such as Facebook, Amazon and Google bear responsibility for radicalizing Gendron.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
- RMA Armament is named for providing the body armor Gendron wore during the shooting.
No he bought it.
- Vintage Firearms of Endicott, New York, is singled out for selling the shooter the weapon used in the attack.
Not their issue he passed the background check.
- 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.
Any knob w/ a dremel can make a gun full auto, let alone defeating a mag lock. And he broke NY law doing this.
- YouTube, named with parent companies Alphabet Inc. and Google, is accused of contributing to the gunman’s radicalization and helping him acquire information to plan the attack.
This is just absurd.
My guess is they are hoping for settlements vs going to trial where they lose.
Only responding to the last point, but if they can prove that Google somehow curated his content to push him towards fringe, terroristic websites, they could be found liable as a civil suit.
Any basic “you may like this” algorithm can produce those results.
deleted by creator
That is legitimately a problem.
For some reason, YouTube’s algorithm heavily favors extremist content if you show even a casual interest in related material.
It’s probably as simple as “shocking content gets more clicks”, but still, it’s not good for our society to have entertainment platforms recommending extremist views.
In the old days, you’d have to seek out this kind of fringe content on your own. And you’d get pushback from your community if you started talking nonsense.
Nowadays, my aunt is getting blasted with reptilian democrat stuff after showing an interest in typical conservative lady content years ago. And there is not much of a community left to help her out. The algorithms just amplify all the worst shit.
Oh you watch WWII videos because you like hearing about how liberal democracy stomped fascism with superior tactics, weapons and intelligence?
Here’s some videos by actual fascists! Women are the patriarchy!
Oh you like videos about Cold War Russia and espionage?
How about this video about why Ukraine is run by Jewish paedophile Nazis?
Next they will announce that they are suing Disney because he watched the History Channel, and that had violence on it which contributed to his actions.
deleted by creator
This is really, really stupid.
