11–20 of 115 posts
Am I missing something here?
We don't have section 230 in Europe yet the sky isn't falling.
So, what if sites only have to remove the content if it's been ruled as defamatory? If it's some dumb little thing like an immature comment on a Youtube video, no big deal. If it's something injurious like a bad review on something that matters, then yeah, should be taken down. Am I missing something here?
We don't have section 230 in Europe yet the sky isn't falling.
Earlier 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."
Earlier 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."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Oops sorry. I commented at the wrong level: this was meant to be a response to kjksf above in the thread, trying to support your point...
> Hassell sued Bird for libel and won a judgment for more than $550,000 in damages and costs, as well as an injunction ordering Bird to remove the ostensibly defamatory material from Yelp
This is fucking nuts. How can someone be sued for $550K for writing a bad yelp review.
Can someone please explain why the law allows for ridiculous damages like this.
If this is allowed, I would wipe my online identity and live in Tor permanently.