Families of San Bernardino Shooting Sue Facebook, Google, Twitter (opens in new tab)

Wow, horrifying. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt for such a tradgedy and the emotional stress and grief it causes; but this is illogical, dangerous and counterproductive. Terrorism seeks to change our way of life and sueing a company for providing a platform for[0] free speech (which those companies actually already curtail) will not only cause problems to this already slippery slope, but simply displace terrorists to less visible places.

I hope this is not greed, because these companies are about as well funded as they are unconnected/innocent in this incident.

[0] added "provide a platform for" free speech for clarity.

Also, I am aware these platforms moderate, Facebook just committed to hiring 1400ish people to mod the site.

> [The lawsuit] asserts that by allowing Islamic State militants to spread propaganda freely on social media, the three companies provided "material support" to the group and enabled attacks such as the one in San Bernardino.

> A number of lawsuits have been filed in recent years seeking to hold social media companies responsible for terror attacks, but none has advanced beyond the preliminary phases.

Here's another recent example of this [0]. At first glance of the definition for material support [1], these lawsuits might seem (legally) reasonable. Luckily though, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act [2] makes these lawsuits fairly baseless. I can't imagine the consequences if social media providers were liable for all content posted on them... (Disclaimer: IANAL in the least)

[0]: http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-lawsuits...

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339A

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

I'm wondering why not sue the ISPs and the utilities that provide electricity or the power generating nuclear reactors / coal power plants? Without any of these, it'd be impossible for ISIS to spread.

There are all sorts of parallels between open Internet/encryption and the gun rights debate. It will be interesting to see how it all sorts out in the end. For example, in the future could we see a joint campaign by the NRA and the EFF?

That's like suing the coffee shops for the revolution

Wait not suing Apple?

To clarify Apple refused to unlock the phone, thus I expected them to be a target of the lawsuit as well. Not saying they should have been sued or that this lawsuit has any merit.

Section 230, Communications Decency Act, no ISP is liable for what third parties do on their site. There's an intense amount of case law backing it up. This lawsuit will likely be dismissed before they even get to a court. It's amazing to me that people even still try.

There's social media liability insurance you can get just incase someone tries to drag you into a frivolous lawsuit. The cases all get thrown out, but not before potentially $20-50k in legal bills. The insurance is really just there to cover the legal bills until the plaintiff pays it back after dismissal (which can take a while).

If you run a hosting service or a small social network and don't have enough money to hire a staff lawyer, definitely check out getting some liability insurance to protect yourself from crap like this. It runs about $100/mo for a $5k deductible up to $1 million in coverage, but those numbers probably vary a lot.

That's an interesting one. It seems like it wouldn't work at first but then thinking about more maybe there is something there.

These companies want to position themselves as the new media, the gatekeepers of "truth" so to speak. That's why they are pushing "Fake News" and moderating it, classifying it etc. It is basically a strategy to fill the void left by the older mass media companies, which are seen as failing an unable to manufacture consent effectively. So in a way they are signaling "Come to us now, we'll advertise your stuff and mark you competitors ideas as fake". It's a good move really. From a business standpoint, can't blame them there.

I am trying to conduct a mental experiment and imagine what would happen if say CNN gave al-Baghdadi a few minutes here and there to express his views. Or letting the local KKK chapter air their ideas once in a while. Many would agree CNN then might be complicit in inciting violence for example and would share a bit of responsibility. So if these other companies what to play "gatekeepers of truth" game they should also be responsible too?

Yet another frivolous lawsuit in the land of the USA.

There were quite a few comments about the dishonest culture of the Indian bodyshops on the Infosys thread yesterday. And today I wake up to an Uber criminal probe and Facebook, Google and Twitter getting sued.

So as a student all I want to know, is how do I tell I am not working for the "let's do whatever it takes" assholes.