As much as I find Reddit useful but this time around, I really hope the owners get sued by the innocent people.
---
So does this mean that HN is also apologizing? I think they should because there was enough carried over witch-hunt here as well.
---
So does this mean that HN is also apologizing? I think they should because there was enough carried over witch-hunt here as well.
You see, the BBC is reporting that Reddit apologized. Do you really think that there is such a thing called Reddit which has a capacity to apologize? Either the owners of Reddit can apologize or nobody. If the owners of Reddit apologized than do we believe that the group of public (which is mostly responsible for the witch-hunt) also apologized? How could they apologize as a collective group when they are not coherent as a visible entity?
The owners of such internet platforms should reflect on when their platform could be abused by the mass and they should interfere before it becomes a monster which cannot be tamed.
I actually agree, but I'm not sure that I would put that assertion to the force of law. There is then the conundrum of what happens in the face of selective enforcement (and there will be selective enforcement). Can someone then sue Reddit for not suppressing an investigation that doxxed them quickly enough, or at all, given that Reddit has suppressed other investigations?
If you do manage to always comply with a law saying this much it will only be by suppressing otherwise valid speech, which is also problematic. Also, can someone sue Reddit for being suppressed unnecessarily, or is it merely an inconvenience?
IANAL, TINLA, but I believe section 230 (c)(2) of the Communications Decency Act implies that reddit couldn't be sued for that: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230#c
>No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
The policy makers and the law probably have old-fashioned ideas on how this issue can be corrected, but can the online mass come up with their own solution, so the same type of issue is eliminated from repeating in the future?