this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
826 points (96.0% liked)
Technology
59092 readers
4762 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They're just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks hoping to get some money. Suing google for delivering search results? It shows how ridiculous blaming tools is. The only person liable here is the shooter.
On the very specific point of liability, while the shooter is the specific person that pulled the trigger, is there no liability for those that radicalised the person into turning into a shooter? If I was selling foodstuffs that poisoned people I'd be held to account by various regulatory bodies, yet pushing out material to poison people's minds goes for the most part unpunished. If a preacher at a local religious centre was advocating terrorism, they'd face charges.
The UK government has a whole ream of context about this: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97976/prevent-strategy-review.pdf
Google's "common carrier" type of defence takes you only so far, as it's not a purely neutral party in terms, as it "recommends", not merely "delivers results", as @joe points out. That recommendation should come with some editorial responsibility.
This is more akin to if you sold a fatty food in a supermarket and someone died from being overweight.
Radicalizing someone to do this isn't a crime. Freedom of speech isn't absolute but unless someone gives them actual orders it would still be protected.
Don't apply UK's lack of freedom of speech in American courts.
No. It's actually more akin to someone designing a supermarket that made it near impossible for a fat person to find healthy food and heavily discounted fatty foods and someone died from being overweight.
And that still would be legal.
Mcdonalds has existed for decades with that model. The only lawsuits against them are usually settled, and about shit where they knowingly lied like about Transfats. You can't blame Mcdonalds for your unhealthy eating, you can't blame one supermarket because it doesn't sell what you think is healthy. So sure, your version is perfectly fine too... and yet is still legal.
Ever been to a candy store? A chocolate shop? Even Cheescake Factory is really unhealthy in general and still is a major chain? At some point personal responsibility is what it comes down to.