Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 115 posts

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#41

Post by reitanqild »

hueving wrote: post #30
toomuchtodo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hosting the content only in the US isn't a solution. When a corporation faces a state actor, there is rarely a way for the corporation to come out on top. Didn't Brazil recently require WhatsApp to cease service in the country for a short bit of time?

>Didn't Brazil recently require WhatsApp to cease service in the country for a short bit of time? No, a judge had whatsapp blocked in Brazil and it resulted in a backlash from citizens.

And AFAIK another increase in Telegram users, so Whatsapp bled as well.

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#42

Post by TeMPOraL »

guelo wrote: post #14
eeZi wrote: post #8

We don't have section 230 in Europe yet the sky isn't falling.

Yea, all the giant European social media companies are doing fine. Oh wait, they don't exist. I wonder why.

Badoo is doing fine, thank you. Also, if you wonder why, consider that the US kind of has a (decreasing, but still present) advantage on the Internet business market...

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#43

Post by Sanddancer »

bkor wrote: post #38
Sanddancer wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how default judgements have always been. The person ignored their chance to plead their side of the case, and thus they don't get a say in what the damages are ordered, and the only figures the court has are what the plaintiff asked for. If you don't want to have the exhorbitant amounts usually asked for in an initial suit, show up to court.

> If you don't want to have the exhorbitant amounts usually asked for in an initial suit, show up to court. That's not reasonable. If the person for whatever reason doesn't show up, but it is a company vs a person lawsuit, then granting everything doesn't make any sense. There could be various reasons why the person didn't show up.

Court dates are scheduled months in advance usually. If there's an emergency, then one usually files a motion for a continuance.

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#44

Post by TeMPOraL »

hueving wrote: post #30
toomuchtodo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hosting the content only in the US isn't a solution. When a corporation faces a state actor, there is rarely a way for the corporation to come out on top. Didn't Brazil recently require WhatsApp to cease service in the country for a short bit of time?

>Didn't Brazil recently require WhatsApp to cease service in the country for a short bit of time? No, a judge had whatsapp blocked in Brazil and it resulted in a backlash from citizens.

And then you have e.g. Uber using that backlash effect as the core part of their business strategy, turning people against their governments to ensure a market for themselves.

And then you have tobacco companies suing countries for anti-smoking laws, because fuck it, why not.

And then you have corporations playing states and countries off each other by getting them to compete over jobs with tax breaks.

So no, nation states do not really have the upper hand over corporations. It's the other way around these days.

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#45

Post by barking »

enraged_camel wrote: post #35
icantdrive55 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a plastic surgeon, in in my county, that pissed off a lot of patients. She must have over 50 negative reviews. Well she sued most of them. I think the lawyer sued 45 of them. The judge ruled against all the lawsuits. All thrown out of court. Now, the physician resorts to describing what was physically wrong with the patient online in a rebuttal. For instance, "Susan--you seemed happy when we removed those ugl…

I'm sorry you have had such bad experiences with doctors. Doctors dislike review sites in general. The reason is that, in the age of the Internet, patients think they know everything. A lot of them go to the doctor and demand a prescription for a certain drug because they read on the Internet that it would cure their condition. When the doctor refuses (for obvious reasons) the patient gives them a 1-star review. That…

Of course there are bad doctors but anonymous review sites are manna from heaven for assholes. Patients who complain the loudest, for example, about being kept waiting are commonly the ones who demand an appointment at the drop of a hat. The same patients will fail to attend appointments or cancel after the event. If they are fitted in because of an 'emergency' they are unhappy when people already waiting are seen before them. And, of course, they prefer to be sent a bill rather than pay on the day. Doctors' receptionists have a reputation for being a bit hard-faced but they don't start out that way. A small percentage of heart-sink patients do their best to ruin it for everyone else.

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#46

Post by kaeluka »

twblalock wrote: post #21
eeZi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US companies like Facebook are doing business in Europe and have users in Europe, so they're subject to EU law.

That could change. At some point, the cost of complying with EU regulation might be greater than the cost of shutting down the EU subsidiaries, and Facebook could do that, host all content in the US, and be subject to US law only. Would the EU block Facebook as a response? I doubt that will be a popular move.

#facexit

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#47

Post by ddebernardy »

twblalock wrote: post #21
eeZi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US companies like Facebook are doing business in Europe and have users in Europe, so they're subject to EU law.

That could change. At some point, the cost of complying with EU regulation might be greater than the cost of shutting down the EU subsidiaries, and Facebook could do that, host all content in the US, and be subject to US law only. Would the EU block Facebook as a response? I doubt that will be a popular move.

Won't happen, and law doesn't quite work that way. Here's a case where an EU-based court chased a US company in Europe and won:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICRA_v._Yahoo!

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#48

Post by calgoo »

Sanddancer wrote: post #43
bkor wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don't want to have the exhorbitant amounts usually asked for in an initial suit, show up to court. That's not reasonable. If the person for whatever reason doesn't show up, but it is a company vs a person lawsuit, then granting everything doesn't make any sense. There could be various reasons why the person didn't show up.

Court dates are scheduled months in advance usually. If there's an emergency, then one usually files a motion for a continuance.

Or Im living 6 months outside the country. From what I know, there is no need to let the government know where I am. Is it now my fault that the legal system cant find me?

Is this because civil court dont have a police force that investigates and arrests you?

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#49

Post by Xylakant »

twblalock wrote: post #21
eeZi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US companies like Facebook are doing business in Europe and have users in Europe, so they're subject to EU law.

That could change. At some point, the cost of complying with EU regulation might be greater than the cost of shutting down the EU subsidiaries, and Facebook could do that, host all content in the US, and be subject to US law only. Would the EU block Facebook as a response? I doubt that will be a popular move.

That's not how things work. Under german law, if you provide a service that is targeted at german customers you're bound by german (hence EU) rules for that transaction, no matter where your company is located [1]. Enforcement may still be a problem, but since Facebook obviously needs to display ads that are locally relevant they need to have business interactions with EU company and it would be possible to make that at least harder, if not impossible. The EU doesn't need to block Facebook to punish it. Facebook may withdraw from the EU market as a result, but that's voluntary from facebooks side.

[1] having a german localization is a strong indicator in that case.

Re: A little SF personal injury case threatens 'most important law' on the Internet

#50

Post by Xylakant »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #44
hueving wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Didn't Brazil recently require WhatsApp to cease service in the country for a short bit of time? No, a judge had whatsapp blocked in Brazil and it resulted in a backlash from citizens.

And then you have e.g. Uber using that backlash effect as the core part of their business strategy, turning people against their governments to ensure a market for themselves. And then you have tobacco companies suing countries for anti-smoking laws, because fuck it, why not. And then you have corporations playing states and countries off each other by getting them to compete over jobs with tax breaks. So no, nation…

> And then you have e.g. Uber using that backlash effect as the core part of their business strategy, turning people against their governments to ensure a market for themselves.

Which only works in certain parts of the world - it's not like Uber is legal in Germany or that they made a lot of friends in Sweden lately.

Post reply on HN