They didn’t ask to go viral • Hacker News Board

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#231

Post by dude187 » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 2:19 AM UTC

bandyaboot wrote: post #230

dude187 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the government does not create the negative outcome. It is simply an act of removing broad protections granted to a social media company from hosting illegal content. When it's clear that the assumption they have little control over the overall content are not true, because the act to censor to politically slant said content. The risk comes completely from their members and the ones who may sue them

Why has the focus been purely on instances of perceived political bias if this isn’t just a pretext for punishing the wrong type of perceived political bias? Shouldn’t any demonstration of content control cause the same loss of protection (and cause the same fervent calls for loss of protection)? This would include removing illegal content. Removing illegal content, under your theory, should cause a platform to lose…

Well that's a bit of a chicken and egg. You only get "protection" from accidentally hosting illegal content if you never host any illegal content in the first place?

The idea is that if you have time to shape the slant of your community, you have no excuse for letting illegal content faster

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#232

Post by mixmastamyk » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 4:09 AM UTC

brabel wrote: post #220

donatj wrote: post #63

> In reality we already practice social media consent; it is not unusual to ask a friend if they’re alright with having a picture posted Is this common practice? The author keeps insisting it is. I don’t think it is, I think the author is just a member of a particularly inclined friend group. It would be a nice consideration but I can honestly say I have never asked nor been asked. I’ve certainly asked after the fact…

I've been asked to remove photos the other person thought was too unflattering (which I found pretty petty), but yeah, no one has ever asked me my permission to post pictures including me, and I've never asked that of others myself.

We should. Understand it’s ok that we’re learning for a period when all this was new, but the time has passed and now clear we should.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#233

Post by dml2135 » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 4:06 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #136

dml2135 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, there is no requirement to gather release forms from someone you happen to film in public. It is simply something done to reduce exposure to possible civil liability on commercial shoots. Avoiding lawsuits is the point of those forms, not winning them.

> there is no requirement to gather release forms from someone you happen to film in public Right, the filming is fine -- it's the commercial distribution that's the problem. And I'm assuming those civil suits have existing and succeeded in the past? So my question is still whether social media ought to be considered commercial distribution, since it's generally ad-supported. I mean, broadcast TV is entirely ad-suppo…

What I'm saying is I don't think it's a simple as "if you are distributing your film product commercially, you must get permission".

What is established as illegal is if you are filming something like an ad, you need permission to use a likeness, because otherwise one could reasonably take the use of that likeness as implying an endorsement of the product being advertised.

But on the other side of the spectrum, if you are filming a documentary or a news broadcast, you don't need permission to use someone's likeness, as they were there in public at that time and you are allowed to film in public.

Other commercial projects, like Hollywood films, fall somewhere in between. "Ad-supported" is most definitely not the same as "is an actual ad", but sometimes it's not quite so clear-cut (product placements etc).

My point is many of these instances could probably be successfully litigated in court, however it is cheaper to just avoid the litigation altogether by getting permission from people beforehand, even if it is not necessarily illegal to proceed without that permission.

Re: They didn’t ask to go viral

#234

Post by dml2135 » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 4:07 PM UTC

kwhitefoot wrote: post #100

dml2135 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, there is no requirement to gather release forms from someone you happen to film in public. It is simply something done to reduce exposure to possible civil liability on commercial shoots. Avoiding lawsuits is the point of those forms, not winning them.

> there is no requirement to gather release forms from someone you happen to film in public. It probably depends on where you are. France and Germany for instance have stricter rules on the subject of photographing people in public places.

Yes, sorry -- I'm only talking about a US legal context here.