A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet
1–10 of 115 posts
Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet
#2Clickbait title.
Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet
#3B.S.
this is orders of magnitude less significant than big studios removing random youtube videos from the air, accusing them of copyright infringement, even ones that have no background music, just because it says bad things about something the studio worked on.
Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet
#4B.S. this is orders of magnitude less significant than big studios removing random youtube videos from the air, accusing them of copyright infringement, even ones that have no background music, just because it says bad things about something the studio worked on.
Actually, this is far more significant than YouTube videos being taken down. If Yelp loses, this case could make it possible for pretty much any site that accepts user comments, including YouTube, social networks like Facebook, review sites, advertising sites like Craiglist, and even personal blogs with comment sections, to be held accountable for what users post.
That could lead to a significant amount of prior restraint which would have the effect of restricting online speech in places where it is most useful. That would be much further-reaching than anything YouTube does.
Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet
#5B.S. this is orders of magnitude less significant than big studios removing random youtube videos from the air, accusing them of copyright infringement, even ones that have no background music, just because it says bad things about something the studio worked on.
Actually, this is far more significant than YouTube videos being taken down. If Yelp loses, this case could make it possible for pretty much any site that accepts user comments, including YouTube, social networks like Facebook, review sites, advertising sites like Craiglist, and even personal blogs with comment sections, to be held accountable for what users post. That could lead to a significant amount of prior rest…
Where did you get that from?
The article says that Yelp has been ordered by a judge to remove a few posts that have been found libelous. Yelp is refusing.
Nowhere does it say that Yelp was "held accountable" for anything.
It's also not a case of prior restraint since it happened after a trial and a verdict.
The sky is not falling.
Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, this is far more significant than YouTube videos being taken down. If Yelp loses, this case could make it possible for pretty much any site that accepts user comments, including YouTube, social networks like Facebook, review sites, advertising sites like Craiglist, and even personal blogs with comment sections, to be held accountable for what users post. That could lead to a significant amount of prior rest…
Where did you get that from? The article says that Yelp has been ordered by a judge to remove a few posts that have been found libelous. Yelp is refusing. Nowhere does it say that Yelp was "held accountable" for anything. It's also not a case of prior restraint since it happened after a trial and a verdict. The sky is not falling.
I didn't say this was prior restraint. I said it could lead to prior restraint. So does the article, and so does common sense -- if companies can be hauled into court whenever someone posts libel on their sites, they will take steps to prevent such libel from being posted in the first place, e.g. by proactively moderating and filtering negative reviews. The article explicitly addresses this possibility.
Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, this is far more significant than YouTube videos being taken down. If Yelp loses, this case could make it possible for pretty much any site that accepts user comments, including YouTube, social networks like Facebook, review sites, advertising sites like Craiglist, and even personal blogs with comment sections, to be held accountable for what users post. That could lead to a significant amount of prior rest…
Where did you get that from? The article says that Yelp has been ordered by a judge to remove a few posts that have been found libelous. Yelp is refusing. Nowhere does it say that Yelp was "held accountable" for anything. It's also not a case of prior restraint since it happened after a trial and a verdict. The sky is not falling.
[deleted]
Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet
#8We don't have section 230 in Europe yet the sky isn't falling.
Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where did you get that from? The article says that Yelp has been ordered by a judge to remove a few posts that have been found libelous. Yelp is refusing. Nowhere does it say that Yelp was "held accountable" for anything. It's also not a case of prior restraint since it happened after a trial and a verdict. The sky is not falling.
I didn't say this was prior restraint. I said it could lead to prior restraint. So does the article, and so does common sense -- if companies can be hauled into court whenever someone posts libel on their sites, they will take steps to prevent such libel from being posted in the first place, e.g. by proactively moderating and filtering negative reviews. The article explicitly addresses this possibility.
Perhaps you should read the article to the end before commenting:
"Glassdoor.com, which posts anonymous employee comments about companies to inform job-seekers about working conditions, says the ruling began to show up in letters demanding the removal of comments and disclosure of users’ identities almost immediately after it was handed down."
Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say this was prior restraint. I said it could lead to prior restraint. So does the article, and so does common sense -- if companies can be hauled into court whenever someone posts libel on their sites, they will take steps to prevent such libel from being posted in the first place, e.g. by proactively moderating and filtering negative reviews. The article explicitly addresses this possibility.
Perhaps you should read the article to the end before commenting: "Glassdoor.com, which posts anonymous employee comments about companies to inform job-seekers about working conditions, says the ruling began to show up in letters demanding the removal of comments and disclosure of users’ identities almost immediately after it was handed down."
This supports my point that sites can be held accountable for users' posts. It certainly does not undermine my point in any way. And I did read the entire article, and I understood it, thank you very much. You should apologize for suggesting that I did not.
EDIT: nevermind, the response was in the wrong part of the thread.