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

Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 60 posts

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#21

Post by GavinMcG »

akersten wrote: post #18

This is absurd. Even if Snapchat had a banner on the speedometer that said "too fast too furious," is that not their First Amendment right to expression? Since when is encouraging reckless driving a crime? (They didn't do that, for clarity.) By the way, my speedometer in my car goes up to 160Mph. That number looks pretty enticing. Is Dodge liable if I decide to try it out?

For the record, encouraging reckless driving is likely a crime wherever reckless driving itself is a crime. I am not a lawyer but encouragement is typically a basis for liability as an accomplice.

Here's Texas, for example:

Sec. 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER.

(a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if:

...

(2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense;

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#22

Post by stinkytaco »

stevewodil wrote: post #19
stinkytaco wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A speedometer does the opposite of encouraging unsafe behavior by alerting you to the unsafeness of that behavior. The filter in question encouraged unsafe behavior by incentivizing such behavior for social engagement, however absurd you think that incentivization is personally. This is a bit like saying a frat house hazing isn't wrong because no one actually makes the kids drink, the social incentive remains dangero…

A speedometer is completely neutral in the same way the filter is. It displays speed. It does not indicate to you that what you are doing is safe or unsafe. If it wasn't the filter then people would be sharing pictures of their speedometer while going fast thinking it's cool. What's the difference? This is not at all like frat hazing, no one is forcing you to take a snapchat to be a part of their organization.

It's not the filter or the speedometer, it's the social incentive. If Twitter created a #highspeedometer hash tag, that would also be encouraging dangerous behavior.

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#23

Post by OGWhales »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #5

> Carrie Goldberg, a victims' rights lawyer who specializes in online abuse, brought a similar product liability case against the dating app Grindr, but a federal appeals court, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected it on Section 230 grounds. > To see a different federal appeals court go the opposite way could create an opening for more cases to challenge tech companies over flawed platform design leading t…

People can make and use 3rd party filters, but snapchat makes their own as well. I am pretty positive the speedometer filter has existed before snapchat even allowed 3rd parties to make their own filters

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#24

Post by sebastialonso »

darick wrote: post #17
stevewodil wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A filter that displays your current speed has no inherent danger and does not encourage anything in and of itself. Idiots that decide to drive over 100mph in a car not designed for high speeds, on public roads, and with no proper training just to capture a cool number on a screen are the ones who should be put in jail. Should we jail the person that invented the speedometer as well?

I feel like the crucial difference is context. A speedometer built into a social media app based around sharing video clips/photos is vastly different from a speedometer built into a car.

Context matters as hell. But context can also add layers of discussion. Say I've created a filter showing how many meters underwater I am. Should I be held accountable for people who drown using it? How this is different from the speed filter? If the difference is "because people don't dive with cellphones" then you are putting the intention (and responsability) on users by default. Why not do that in the case for the speed filter as well?

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#25

Post by gruez »

GavinMcG wrote: post #21
akersten wrote: post #18

This is absurd. Even if Snapchat had a banner on the speedometer that said "too fast too furious," is that not their First Amendment right to expression? Since when is encouraging reckless driving a crime? (They didn't do that, for clarity.) By the way, my speedometer in my car goes up to 160Mph. That number looks pretty enticing. Is Dodge liable if I decide to try it out?

For the record, encouraging reckless driving is likely a crime wherever reckless driving itself is a crime. I am not a lawyer but encouragement is typically a basis for liability as an accomplice. Here's Texas, for example: Sec. 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER. (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if: ... (2) acting with intent to promote or as…

Well obviously they're not going to say "drive over the posted speed limit on public roads". "too fast too furious" with a "professional driver, closed course" disclaimer at the end should be enough. After all, there's nothing wrong with being fast and furious on a racing track ;)

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#26

Post by fuzzer37 »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #5

> Carrie Goldberg, a victims' rights lawyer who specializes in online abuse, brought a similar product liability case against the dating app Grindr, but a federal appeals court, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected it on Section 230 grounds. > To see a different federal appeals court go the opposite way could create an opening for more cases to challenge tech companies over flawed platform design leading t…

> I've never used Snapchat, but my understanding is filters are 1st party content: created by Snapchat themselves. That is why this case doesn't get 230 protection.

Not always true w.r.t filters. A majority of the filters that users are shown by default (Dog with floppy ears, pink cat, white cat, face distortion, etc) are first party content created by Snapchat themselves. But there is a "marketplace" where new filters can be created and downloaded that's included with the snapchat application.

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#27

Post by burkaman »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #5

> Carrie Goldberg, a victims' rights lawyer who specializes in online abuse, brought a similar product liability case against the dating app Grindr, but a federal appeals court, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected it on Section 230 grounds. > To see a different federal appeals court go the opposite way could create an opening for more cases to challenge tech companies over flawed platform design leading t…

The lower court also misunderstood it, that's what this decision is about.

> The panel reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing on the ground of immunity under the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), an amended complaint brought against Snap, Inc., a social media provider. [...] The district court held that the CDA barred the plaintiffs’ claim because it sought to treat Snap, Inc. “as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” [...] In short, Snap, Inc. was sued for the predictable consequences of designing Snapchat in such a way that it allegedly encouraged dangerous behavior. Accordingly, the panel concluded that Snap, Inc. did not enjoy immunity from this suit under § 230(c)(1) of the CDA. [...] The panel reversed the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings.

So I think the author article is correct that if other courts have been making similar mistakes, this appeals court decision could help.

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#28

Post by chapium »

offtop5 wrote: post #2

My gut reaction was to say 'No if social media makes you do something stupid, that's your fault' But a speed filter , which outright encourages breaking traffic laws is a whole different story. Who ever greenlit this trash needs to be put in jail.

This absolves the driver from the responsibility of using their vehicle safely. When you are in a car it is your responsibility to not drive it recklessly, end stop. I don't see how Snapchat is at fault, even if the app is boneheaded.

Re: Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules

#29

Post by [deleted] »

stinkytaco wrote: post #22
stevewodil wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A speedometer is completely neutral in the same way the filter is. It displays speed. It does not indicate to you that what you are doing is safe or unsafe. If it wasn't the filter then people would be sharing pictures of their speedometer while going fast thinking it's cool. What's the difference? This is not at all like frat hazing, no one is forcing you to take a snapchat to be a part of their organization.

It's not the filter or the speedometer, it's the social incentive. If Twitter created a #highspeedometer hash tag, that would also be encouraging dangerous behavior.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN