Technology

59374 readers

7834 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

[email protected]

1011

Judge rules YouTube, Facebook and Reddit must face lawsuits claiming they helped radicalize a mass shooter | CNN Business (www.cnn.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

292 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (28 children)

What an excellent presedent to set cant possibly see how this is going to become authoritarian. Ohh u didnt report someone ur also guilty cant see any problems with this.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 8 months ago (23 children)

Ohh u didnt report someone ur also guilty cant see any problems with this.

That's... not what this is about, though?

“However, plaintiffs contend the defendants’ platforms are more than just message boards,” the court document says. “They allege they are sophisticated products designed to be addictive to young users and they specifically directed Gendron to further platforms or postings that indoctrinated him with ‘white replacement theory’,” the decision read.

This isn't about mandated reporting, it's about funneling impressionable people towards extremist content.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

U can make any common practice and pillar of capitalism sound bad by using the words impressionable and extremist.

If we remove that it become: funnelling a market towards the further consumption of your product. I.e. marketing

And yes of cause the platforms are designed to be addictive and are effective at indoctranation but why is that only a problem for certain ideologies shouldnt we be stopping all ideologies from practicing indoctranation of impressionable people should we not be guiding people to as many viewpoints as possible to teach them to think not to swallow someone elses ideas and spew them back out.

I blame Henry Ford for this whole clusterfuck he lobbied the education system to manufacture an obedient consumer market and working class that doesnt think for itself but simply swallows what its told. The education system is the problem anything else is treating the symptoms not the disease.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If we remove that it become: funnelling a market towards the further consumption of your product. I.e. marketing

And if a company's marketing campaign is found to be indirectly responsible for a kid shooting up a grocery store, I'm sure we'll be seeing a repeat of this with that company being the one with a court case being brought against them, what even is this argument?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Isnt the entire gun market indirectly responsible, what about the food the shooters ate? Cant we use the same logic to prssecute anyone of any religion cos most of the religiouse texts support the killing of some group of people.

Its convenient to ask what the argument is when u ignore 60% of it

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Did you even read the article we're discussing, or are you just reading the comments and getting mad?

No decision has been made. This is simply a judge denying the companies' motion to have this thrown out before going to trial.
This is very much different than "the gun market" being indirectly responsible. This is the equivalent of "the gun market" constantly sending a person pamphlets, calling them, emailing them, whatever else, with propaganda until they ultimately decided to act on it. If that was happening, I think we'd be having the same conversation about that, and whether they should be held accountable.
Whether they're actually responsible or not (or whether any group is) can be determined in court following all the usual methods. A company getting to say "That's ridiculous, we're above scrutiny" is dangerous, and that's effectively what they were trying to do (which was denied by this judge.)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (20 replies)

load more comments (24 replies)