To: SI Dave who wrote (12277 ) 12/3/2019 9:40:05 PM From: sense 1 RecommendationRecommended By
Respond to Two ways I should respond to that...which is unequivocal in its grant of immunity for online publishers from liability which may arise from third-party content. That's true, as written... still only in relation to the degree in which it is self consistent within the law. Think I flogged that in prior post sufficiently. 2. Unless the publisher actively participates in the development of the content, they are immune. Yes. That leaves open ended questions about "what does actively participate" mean.. etc that need closing. You think you know that answer... but... do you ? And, how well adjudicated is that answer ? Because that answer is a moving target. What the law says... what it appears to say in plain text... is often different in fact in the context of the law... much less in the social context in which the law itself, and its interpretations, are subject to correction and revision. I'll agree that IF you are a transparent conduit of others content... that's what the law intends to protect... and I don't know anyone... or see anyone... who wants to subvert that... There is risk, still... in others seeking to hide behind that protection enabled... while practicing a fraud in not being that transparent conduit... while imposing filters... frosting the transparency... or occluding it ? Not surprising... but not yet resolved in the trial of the law... although also not hard to predict much in likely outcomes there. The bad actors abuses always put others at risk... in that way... The protection won could be lost... if the abuses are allowed to succeed. The tendency... because that is what people do... is to see the law as you want it to be... empowering you and limiting others in conflict with you... Everyone tends to enter disputes wearing those blinders. The second way to address that... would be to note what it means in relation to the type of answers one might seek from "the lawyers"... Smart business people already know the law... operate the business within the broad outlines... and they hire lawyers to obviate risks in the nuances... while using them in figuring out narrowly focused taskings in "how to" do what you want to do... without running afoul of the law. Aggressive actors... will seek lawyers that will try to find a way, legit or not, to use the law to justify and empower the client in "go ahead, do it"... even if on an assumed risk basis... "Give me the answer I want"... with a veneer of legality... sufficient at least to explain it to investors and the SEC... not the most demanding audiences in being sticklers for the details... and when the inevitable failure occurs... and "oh, well... we lost in court"... "who could have predicted that" ? If you want to avoid those risks others take... and survive in the longer term... You might instead task the lawyers to deliver a broad view... including a range of options... along a range of risk profiles, even showing the timelines and likely trendlines along which change likely occurs... which would allow you to manage your risks over time... as the landscape changes... with your awareness of the big picture in every aspect... enabling sufficient mobility... that you never end up being someone's test case... backpage... clearly an outlier... whose experience it would be useful to avoid duplicating... Facebook ? A lot of the issues being discussed apply to Google and others, too, in a big picture way... but, Facebook is one of those fiefdoms in which the stupidity of the one guy.... dictates taking such an aggressive approach to ignoring the law, at the outset, while paying it lip service... crafting ridiculous legal workarounds... and otherwise justifying screwing their own users for profit.... that there's a massive bit of inevitability baked into the cake at Facebook... well positioned to be someone's test case... and only a slim reed of a trigger holding that back... while the weight of the issue gains mass and momentum... Facebook has risks of that nature... that were baked in at the beginning... that can't be baked back out now... Facebook is a legal train wreck waiting to happen... Some of that is made increasingly apparent... as in the two legal filings...each claiming the opposite... Both can't be true... its one or the other... So, what does it mean for Facebook... 1. When someone forces the resolution of that conflict... which in itself is a risk... what cost in that alone ? 2. If the one is proven or accepted as true... obviating the other... what are the costs ? 3. If the other is proven or accepted as true... obviating the one... what are the costs ?
