Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by varsketiz » Wed, May 05, 2021, 2:46 PM UTC

magikaram wrote: post #47

varsketiz wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure the real world answer is "no". What are you basing it on? Why are organisations that promote dangerous activities (e.g. paragliding, cycling challenges) asking me to sign liability waivers? I think this is evidence against your claim in the real world.

I believe the comparison to "viral challenges" is in relation to the "Tide Pod Challenge" as it was started by people of the general public - not an organization.

I'm saying organisations are making me sign liability waivers when they knowingly promote something dangerous. I wouldn't be surprised if someone sued an individual who promoted dangerous stuff and did not absolve self from liability, be it via virtual challenge or other means.

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

#52

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, May 05, 2021, 2:56 PM UTC

spillguard wrote: post #7

Maybe I misinterpreted the cause and effect here, but is there a meaningful difference between a Snapchat video with a "speed filter" and a cellphone video of somebody driving fast that includes footage of their car's speedometer? Is any speed gauge likely to make people drive fast, and therefore open to litigation? Edit: Here's footage of the Speed Filter in action: https://youtu.be/Bk45g_5l6m0?t=68 https://youtu.be…

> Maybe I misinterpreted the cause and effect here, but is there a meaningful difference between a Snapchat video with a "speed filter" and a cellphone video of somebody driving fast that includes footage of their car's speedometer? Is any speed gauge likely to make people drive fast, and therefore open to litigation?

The factual contribution is a question for trial; the question here was whether Snapchat was legally immune from suit through CDA section 230, even though the material alleged to be the source of liability was first-party content.

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

#53

Post by spillguard » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:16 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #52

spillguard wrote: post #7

Maybe I misinterpreted the cause and effect here, but is there a meaningful difference between a Snapchat video with a "speed filter" and a cellphone video of somebody driving fast that includes footage of their car's speedometer? Is any speed gauge likely to make people drive fast, and therefore open to litigation? Edit: Here's footage of the Speed Filter in action: https://youtu.be/Bk45g_5l6m0?t=68 https://youtu.be…

> Maybe I misinterpreted the cause and effect here, but is there a meaningful difference between a Snapchat video with a "speed filter" and a cellphone video of somebody driving fast that includes footage of their car's speedometer? Is any speed gauge likely to make people drive fast, and therefore open to litigation? The factual contribution is a question for trial; the question here was whether Snapchat was legally…

I suppose that's really all there is to see here; it'll be interesting to see how this develops.

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

#54

Post by clifdweller » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:21 PM UTC

stinkytaco wrote: post #12

spillguard wrote: post #7

Maybe I misinterpreted the cause and effect here, but is there a meaningful difference between a Snapchat video with a "speed filter" and a cellphone video of somebody driving fast that includes footage of their car's speedometer? Is any speed gauge likely to make people drive fast, and therefore open to litigation? Edit: Here's footage of the Speed Filter in action: https://youtu.be/Bk45g_5l6m0?t=68 https://youtu.be…

I think if a social media organization encouraged a #highspeedometer hashtag they could also be liable. It's not the filter or the speedometer, it's that Snapchat set up a defacto social incentive for speeding.

I think that is the case that the product itself of providing a speed filter would not be an issue unless marketed in a way to encourage non safety. For the product to be considered unsafe they would have to do something drastic like not enable the filter until exceeding posted speed limits or something.

Even marketing would be tough to catch them on as how many grocery stores in college towns sell beer bongs right next to beer displays that are a few feet away from liquor. At what point would they be liable? Beer bong directly adjacent to bottles of JD/ shrink-wrapped with bottle/ buy 2 bottles of JD get a beer bong.

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

#55

Post by stevewodil » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:24 PM UTC

0xEFF wrote: post #13

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?

A filter that broadcasts your speedometer to your followers live is different though. Almost like watching a live race car driver.

No because snapchat doesn't have live features, so it's only captured at one point in time via a photo or video

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

#56

Post by etblg » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:55 PM UTC

stevewodil wrote: post #41

wussboy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are technology companies immune to all social responsibility? It sounds like you think they might be. But can we not think of a scenario where that would not be true? For example, if Snapchat makes a filter that detects blood and "counts kills" as you stab people, are they not responsible for any actions that result? It sounds like you might claim "no", because "I could kill someone on my own if I wanted".

Not to completely derail your point, but I think if Snapchat added a "confirmed kills" counter it would be a net social positive and would make catching murderers really easy

I think it's downright harmful and abhorrent that they haven't yet. Why doesn't snapchat want to help stop crime??

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

#57

Post by wussboy » Wed, May 05, 2021, 5:26 PM UTC

curiousgal wrote: post #46

wussboy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This lame excuse is as infuriating as it is erroneous. If I hand your child a gun and drive them to a school and help them squeeze the trigger as I use every psychological trick to coerce them in to killing their peers, is it my fault or yours? Sounds like you think it's yours. Perhaps modern social media isn't coercing kids in to crimes quite as overtly, but they are absolutely using their billion dollar budgets to…

Last time I checked parents can confiscate their children's smartphones or at least ask about their whereabouts and which friends they're hanging out with. Children are children, you can't expect the world to be a safe place, our job as parents is to protect them, not Let them run amok and then hold the world accountable. I am not saying it's the parents' fault this happened but they bear more responsibility than Sna…

My reply was too harsh, and I regretted it after. Sorry about that.

I agree that it is the parent's job to protect them. I just don't think it's fair that multi-billion dollar companies are allowed to do things that make my job harder. I'm one man with a very limited budget of time and money to devote to parenting. Facebook/Snapchat has an army of employees who go to work all day every day to get my kids addicted to their platform. That doesn't seem fair, and if they are able to get children to do things that are unwise, they should be held responsible for that. That's what I was trying to get at.

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

#58

Post by _rpd » Wed, May 05, 2021, 6:39 PM UTC

alexggordon wrote: post #39

This reminds me of a story from college, regarding a business law class (US laws mostly). This class was interesting for a variety of reasons, but also pretty humorous as the professor was a full time lawyer, and taught the class because he enjoyed educating people. Generally, I've enjoyed the classes most where the professor brought real world experience to the podium and this class fit that bill perfectly. As part…

> Will this case succeed? Most likely not. Will it get settled? Probably a fair chance.

If it is settled with a payout, then it has succeeded.

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

#59

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, May 05, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

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?

> Even if Snapchat had a banner on the speedometer that said "too fast too furious," is that not their First Amendment right to expression?

That’s...debatable, but not the issue raised in this case.

> Since when is encouraging reckless driving a crime?

This isn’t a criminal charge, so whether or not the act is a crime is mostly irrelevant.

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

#60

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, May 05, 2021, 6:49 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #25

GavinMcG wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ;)

> 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.

Whether or not such a disclaimer was sufficient evidence that they lacked the intent to encourage the crime (or whether the ass-covering was instead evidence that they knew they were encouraging crime and needed to deflect liability) would be a fact question if they were criminally charged with the crime of encouraging the crime of reckless driving.

OTOH, since they are being charged with a tort (civil wrong) and not that or any other crime, both the fact that such encouragement is a crime and fact questions relevant to Snap’s criminal liability for it are mostly irrelevant.