Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Dmitry (code monkey) who wrote (12253)	7/5/2018 11:31:42 AM
From: SI Dave	Respond to of 12465

Context and labels. They are publisher and/or distributor. However, they cannot be treated as a publisher or distributor for purposes of assigning liability arising from third-party content, and that immunity encompasses their editorial decisions to publish, not publish, edit or remove third-party content from publication. Six4Three attorneys have alleged that Facebook enticed developers to create apps for its platform by implying creators would have long-term access to the site’s huge amounts of valuable personal data and then later cut off access, effectively defrauding them. That sounds more like a promissory estoppel claim (broken promise) a la Barnes v. Yahoo. Section 230 doesn't provide an immunity from that type of claim. Facebook may be resistant to embrace its role as a publisher due to stricter laws and regulations outside of the US that could cause the company trouble, Goldman said. The context of jurisdiction. Section 230 doesn't exist in other jurisdiction where Facebook has a presence. So they have to dodge that label in some jurisdictions outside of the USA, whereas in the USA they can embrace it.

To: SI Dmitry (code monkey) who wrote (12253)	11/28/2019 7:54:33 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

Facebook appears to me to have a couple of massive liabilities no one is addressing... in part, perhaps only, as it seems no one is really recognizing them... The issue of wanting to be a "publisher" and "not a publisher"... at the same time... points out the "nature" of the problems they've structured into the business... suggests an origin... but it doesn't define a limit. Assuming that at Facebook it is mostly an issue of seeking the disparate benefits inherent in one status or the other... while failing to recognize distinctions between them, and ignoring the nature of the boundary issues... ? I think that's an error. Facebook in particular, IMO, has internal conflicts well beyond simply seeking to exploit all of the advantages offered by the rules... even when they're mutually exclusive.