will_brown

The Gov can and maybe even will go after the individual advertisers.

>That's not how one fights for equality or justice, so there must be some other goal.

It happens all the time, for example, low level drug dealers or even arms dealers are given immunity just for cooperation and just the chance to go after the suppliers. It’s easy to say well, there is some other goal, but generally the goal is to combat the illegal activity.

Another example, which I have been using for years is Uber. Many Uber drivers have been arrested and/or civilly fined for illegally operating rides for hire without a permit. Yet despite all the arrests no law enforcement ever went after the company but only the drivers. I think this is one of the biggest injustices of our time, you have a multi billion dollar tech company hiring “contractors” to knowing break the law (in those jurisdictions) and then only punishing the individuals who are basically being exploited (i say this because Uber knew the acitivity was illegal in those jurisdictions, but they kept hiring drivers and scheduling rides in violation of the law, whereas the drivers didn’t necessarily know they were being hired to provide illegal rides). In some cases Uber even paid bonuses to drivers to leave jurisdictions where operations were legal to give rides in jurisdictions where it was illegal.

Is that really equality and justice to you? If law enforcement went after uber instead of the driver is that really indiciative by itself of another goal rather than stopping the illegal activity?

The Federal Government does go after illegal arms dealers, so I’m not sure your point.

Otherwise arms dealers have a federal law that protects them in gun/ammo sales from the acts of their buyers.

That said notwithstanding federal protections arms dealers can be liable for the acts of their buyers if the seller knew or should have known the buyer was making the purchase to commit a crime.

Here FB knew or should have known they were being paid to publish an unlawful ad (at least factually FB knew the filters were applied, reviewed these ads and approved them for publication in violation of the law).

I’m not sure why you think preventing FB from knowingly publishing illegal ads is on par with anything else you are suggesting (ie “going after gun sellers”). Gun sales and ads are both legal...until they are not.

Why do you think it’s right to go after the ad creator only and allow FB to continue to profit on and facilitate the illegal acts themselves?

> Why limit it to ad companies now? Two posts ago you mentioned any service that is "by its very nature both discriminatory..." without such limitation.

I think you are misattributing someone’s else’s quote to me, in my comment you replied to I specifically state these filters can be used in some instance lawfully, but Again FB is a multi billion dollar ad company and is aware of the unlawful potential of these tools.

Discrimination certainly isn’t limited to ad companies, but again I dont think those other companies you reference in the gig economy offer options to only accept riders/guests of a certain age, sex, race or religion. Those types of filters are limited to online ads as far as I am aware. But please shed some light is those gig platforms allow drivers/hosts to filter who they do business with and discriminate against protected classes.

> All of it? One hundred percent? Even though they are now taking measures to weed out these illegal ads? Again why is HUD only going after Facebook and not any other company or the advertisers themselves?

Certainly both the advertiser and FB could be liable for discrimination. But yes I think FB dragged themselves in by #1 giving these options to users (knowing these filters are also protected classes of people and in certain industries will violate the law); and #2 Reviewing/approving these illegal ads before publication.

I certainly never claimed the individual advertisers could not be liable, “onus shifting” here essentially means FB was aware not only the filters used for these ads but they approved the ads themselves.

Answering further, it’s obvious tax payer dollars are more efficiently spent going after FB and ending the unlawful practices on the platform entirely than an indefinite game of cat and mouse with individual advertisers.

I Agree certain ads can legitimately target on the basis of age, sex, race and religions.

However, as a multi billion dollar ad company FB knows these options are illegal in other instances. I’m not even sure those other companies you mention are ad companies or give advertisers the option to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race and religion like Facebook.

Last I used FB ads, the process included a submission of my ad to FB for review. Therefore, FB knows if an ad targets based on age, sex, race, and religion and I do think the onus shifts to them to throughly review these types of potentially illegal ads before publishing the same.

Certainly FB prohibits advertisers from publishing other types of illegal ads to avoid potential liability (try publishing a cigarette or alcohol ad targeting children) so it’s hard for them to bury their head in the sand on these matters and say they don’t bear any liability for the acts of their users.

>Sure, the government should be going after individual advertisers too

They probably will.

But in this instance it’s much more appropriate the end FBs illegal business practices, rather than continuing to go after ad creators in perpetuity. Turn off the water and fix the leak instead of catching the drops, similar theory to local police flipping low level drug dealers to go after the suppliers.

>Imagine if that specific gun dealer could look into the brain of a buyer. Would you hold him accountable for not checking the Parkland shooter's brain?

It’s an interesting thought experiment, but that’s not the legal burden of sellers to crawl into the mind of the purchaser. Further, it’s not about selling an item that is used in a crime, it’s selling an item you know or should know will be used in a crime. I don’t know enough about the parkland shooter purchases but it’s at least possible: 1. The shooter didn’t have intent to commit a crime when he purchased the gun/ammo and only developed the intent later after the purchase (no liability for the seller under this theory), or 2. The seller didn’t know the shooters intent and there are no facts suggesting the seller should have known.

The Law and application of the same has more common sense than saying a seller should have known...if only they read the mind of the buyer.

The second case in the first link there was a trial and verdict finding liability for the seller (note there was evidence the gun shop employees had suspicions the buyer was illegally buying the gun/ammo for someone else, they sold it anyway, and the gun/ammo was bought for someone else who used the same to kill 2 police).

Again one must Keep in mind <10% of cases go to trial and verdict, so the result speaks for itself, but you are right. In general there aren’t a ton of cases against merchants alleging they sold an item they knew would be used in a crime - it should be a surprise most criminals don’t announce their intent when making purchases - and gun/ammo cases are about as prolific as any for these claims (hence why I keep using that hypothetical).

A prime example is The 2nd article Walmart where they settled that case, so we will never know, but if Walmart settles it’s safe to say there were facts suggesting Walmart liability meaning in that case they knew or should have known they were selling ammo that would be used in a crime.

I’d place my money on SF settling this case in the same fashion, not to say they would be found liable at trial, it just seems with the available facts there is potential liability and these facts won’t play well to a jury.

>shop owner who sells, for example, duct tape, a ski mask, and zip ties to a kidnapper could have even civil liability?

I feel this has been exhaustively explained and reexplained throughout the thread, so the answer is: maybe...if the shop owner knew or should have known those items would be used in the commission of a crime, then yes there is potential liability. In your example even if the kidnapper didn’t disclose his intent the particular grouping of items may in fact suggest the shop owner knew or should have known, and of course other facts are relevant. For example, it’s a small town and the shop owner knows the purchaser as a felon with a history of violent crimes using duct tape and a ski mask.

That said maybe the facts suggest the shop owner didn’t know and had no reason to even predict the items would be used in a crime (maybe these are items typically purchased together from the shop).

As dragonwriter stated these cases are typically negligence cases, especially in firearms/ammo cases where there is federal law to protect arms dealers (thank NRA).

Here is a link to an article about a ammo case against Walmart (sold bullets to a drunk guy who gave the bullets to a kid after walking outside and 15 minutes after purchase shot and killed someone), my guess is Walmart won’t be found negligent. The article notes a second case where a gun shop sold a gun to someone who workers had suspicions was buying the gun for someone else (the gun was bought for someone else who used it to kill 2 police), they were found liable. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2016/01/08/wal...

Here is a second article against Walmart again where Walmart entered into a confidential settlement before trial. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-...

Sorry don’t have the time now to pull up the case styles.

>Not saying it’s wrong, just wondering what the crime is (aiding and abetting?

I didn’t say it was a crime I said it creates liability, this is a civil case about civil liability after all.

For example there are tons of civil cases against businesses that sell ammunition, there are endless such cases against Walmart alone, where the ammunition ends up being used in the commission of a crime.

More often than not Walmart prevails in the ammo cases because there is usually no evidence showing Walmart knew or should have known the buyers intent to use the bullets in a crime (it’s probably true that many times the buyers had not such intent when the bought the ammo). Still there are cases where plaintiffs can prove the seller did in fact know, should have known or even could have predicted the intent of the buyer to use the ammo in a crime.

All that said it’s also true, though far less likely the liability could raise to a criminal level.

>GP isn’t asking whether it's legal to sue software companies for the acts of users. He’s asking if it's right and/or sensible.

Ok...but it’s a much narrower issue because it’s not about a software vendor being sued for the acts of their customers. It’s being sued for selling your goods/services where you knew or should have known the buyer was going to use your good/service to commit a crime.

So in the extreme case, if a mass shooter told their plans to an arms dealer and the arms dealer sold the gun anyway...then yes, I don’t think many people will argue with the intent of the law.

Here the facts can be blurred a little more, where SF will say we just built a data base we didn’t know how it would be used, and if we did know how it would be used then we didn’t know that use was a crime, and if we did know it was a crime we felt defense xyz would apply.

No one is saying anything about due diligence. “Know or should have known” is a legal term of art and I think everyone is implying it creates an impossible burden for tech companies to comply with. And these aren’t regulations being “put in place” as you suggest, it’s long established Law.

I can’t answer “if we should”...only as I explained above that under the law what you describe isn’t enough on its own to create liability for the service provide, the legal threshold is whether the seller knew the buyer would use the good/service in commission of a crime.

So for example the power company who sold power to run backpage, could they be liable? Probably not.

But a tech company who allegedly custom built a database to facilitate backpages human trafficking/prostitution activities...maybe

>Do we really want a massive SaaS company to criminally investigate its clients at its own initiative?

I think my arms dealer provides a much clearer example of facts removed from tech where people in HN are understandably defensive.

The law doesn’t require a seller of goods/services to investigate a buyers intent, but the law does create liability if the seller knew or should have known the buyer intended to use the good/service in the commission of a crime.

So in the case of an arms dealer if the buyer uses the gun in a crime, the arms dealer is only liable if they knew or should have known, but the law isn’t requiring the seller investigate (but if facts tend to show the buyer was discussing using the gun for crime xyz to the seller, then yes the seller could be liable).

I think this is good, others may disagree and say sellers should be able to sell goods/services where they know the buyer intends to use the same in commission of a crime...but the investigation is beyond the legal scope of what is required by law and I don’t think anyone is suggested that become the law.

I don’t think I said salesforce did the PR campaign before their business dealings.

It’s also not a legal requirement of the claims (it’s just facts that play well to a jury). The threshold legal issue is did salesforce know or should SF have known their goods/products were being used by backpage to facilitate human trafficking/prostitution.

>Specifically, I'm not going to form an opinion on an article with no facts

It’s very odd you say the article has “no facts”, yet it provides dates for these business dealings, invoices and salesforce anti human trafficking/prostitution efforts...what do you consider a fact? Do you believe salesforce had no idea what backpage was doing and how salesforce products facilitated the same?

While waiting years for the court to decide, you should kno statistically there is less than 10% chance there is a trial that goes to verdict and >90% chance salesforce settles with a requirement of confidentiality and no admission/finding of wrong doing/liability.

>It assumes/alleges salesforce knew that Backpage was in human trafficking and they knew backpage was their customer at the same time, neither of which they prove or even attempt to prove.

They haven’t “even attempted to prove their claims?” Have you read the plaintiffs Complaint? What do you think they brought the lawsuit for if not to prove their claims?

Well that’s part of the discovery process of litigation, find out who knew what and when they knew it.

I think it’s hard to bury your head in the sand if you are salesforce and say you had no idea of backpage’s business activities and/or how your products/services would help those specific business activities...especially where the companies public facing side engages in an anti-human trafficking/prostitution PR campaign.

The article we are commenting on...

>“Salesforce knew the scourge of sex trafficking because it sought publicity for trying to stop it," according to the complaint.

Allegedly salesforce had a PR campaign against human trafficking and prostitution and knew backpage was in the business of facilitating the same when it elected to do business with backpage and that their software would specifically be used to facilitate this part of the business.

>Should we also allow Microsoft to be sued for all the criminals that use windows?

If a company provides products/services to someone with the knowledge those products/services will be used for a crime...then yes.

For example it’s legal for an arms dealer to sell a gun, but illegal to sell a gun if the seller knows the gun is being purchased with the intent of being used in a crime.

Here what you have is Salesforce who allegedly sold its products/services to backpage knowing their software would specifically be used to facilitate prostitution and human trafficking. Whereas you - for whatever reasons - seem to be concluding salesforce had no way of knowing their products/services would be used by backpage in the commission of a crime (ie your Windows analogy). However, the facts suggest SalesForce was well aware of backpages business practices and activities (and was publicly fighting against the same criminal activity, while simultaneously supplying software that facilitated the same). It’s a tough case but human slaves and a corporation privately profiting from these activities while publicly “fighting” against the same won’t play well to a jury.

Not sure if it occurs around individual stars or galaxies, but halo lensing does occur around black holes.

Maybe the insurers should have to report their data.

# of claims filed

% of claims initially denied

% of claims denied eventually settled

Breakdown of claims by jurisdiction/claims adjuster

Total $ collected in premiums and total $ paid out in claims

Most importantly the insurer should have to make the insured data profile available to the insured

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander

> A book is just ideas that have been written down.

So are safety labels which attempt to minimize product liability.

So say I sell a chainsaw with safety labels that say to hold the chain and not the handle when starting the thing...could I be liable if someone is injured holding the chain? I mean the chainsaw was a perfectly safe product, as far as chainsaws go, it was only the following of my written down ideas that got someone injured.

I know exactly what you are saying and there is some case Law on point (a case involving a wild mushroom picking book and the plaintiff relying on the book and getting sick as a result). It’s one thing for the author to take that risk but it’s a whole other animal to force amazon to take that risk when they didn’t want to carry the book to begin with.

I’m no fan of big tech companies, but I am a fan of constitutional right for parties to contract.

There is no catch all Amazon can do whatever they want provision, but certainly the have the contractual right to stop carrying the book at anytime without notice. Just as if you are selling your book through traditional brick and mortar they could always stop selling/carrying your book (maybe there could be exceptions if they did it on the basis of discrimination against a protected class).

Trust me I wouldn’t even put amazon to allow others to sell a counterfeit of your book/product, which the law would provide a remedy for...but they have no contractual obligation to carry your book/product.

>I don't hate the outcome, I just wish this was being done the "right way."

So your saying the right way is to force amazon to continue selling this book? That the sole remedy at Law is when people are injured then they can sue the author?

That’s not how products liability works. If I’m injured by a defective product, my legal remedy is against everyone in the stream of commerce...manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, retailers, etc... they would all be jointly and severally liable for my damages, meaning I can collect 100% of my award for damages from any of the parties found liable.

That’s not at all what I read, for example:

>Singer used the foundation to collect payments from parents and pay bribes, court records show.

>I haven't seen any indication that the colleges involved were aware this was happening in a way they overlooked.

No doubt the colleges involved are aware when someone is admitted whose credentials don’t measure up. That’s not something the colleges can bury there head in the sand about. We are talking about billion dollar institutions with entire admissions departments that pride themselves on a standard of student...you can’t just say in some instances rouge actors took bribes to allow students in school and no one knew anything about it.

Seems to me it’s a fishing expedition...once you are involved in litigation you can serve discovery on these schools.

During discovery the litigants will get their hands on all sorts of records and communications that no doubt will show what the institutions knew and when they knew it. That will likely result in emails involving deans and other highly regarded and connected individuals. Normally these kinds of people in power will lie about the existence of emails/communications/records (even in litigation) but here they would be hesitant to lie/deystroy evidence because They know there is an FBI investigation/criminal component, so they won’t take that gamble.

At that point to avoid the embarrassment the powers that be will settle so they don’t have to turn over these records and emails or sit for depositions. No doubt like in the corporate world some deans/assistant deans will get a golden parachute to take the blame and the institutions will release a PR statement that they are happy to have resolved this matter noting no finding of wrongdoing or liability in the settlement, but used the opportunity to improve the institutions processes so nothing like this occurs in the future.

>”piperine is the major active component of black pepper and, when combined in a complex with curcumin, has been shown to increase bioavailability by 2000%.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664031/

>nowadays the thinking is more that antitrust laws should be used when things cause higher prices.

That’s exactly what is happening...Spotify can offer price $x to their customers but Apple’s rules are forcing the price to be $x + 30% Apple Tax. Spotify has articulated numerous acts Apple has taken to ensure Spotify can’t circumvent the Apple Tax...Apple coming out with a competing App and being able to charge $x sans their own tax is just the icing on the anticompetitive cake.

This is one of the biggest issues with Google as well...where company was advertising on Google for $x, once google uses its position to determine they want to compete Google starts competing with their own customers for the same ads jacking up the ad pricing.

This basically ensures both Apple and Google can use their dominate market position and platforms to determine markets, market prices, and then unfairly compete with the market incumbents by offering the original $x price without the google/Apple Tax. There is no leaving the Apple/Google platforms at that point or you are basically waiving the white flag and telling your customers to go over to the Apple/Google product.

Well I didn’t make a single claim as to the medical/health benefits of turmeric/curcumin anyway, not sure why he asked period.

My point is about absorption, and curcumin is the perfect example of my point, by itself it isn’t bioavailable but studies provide “hard evidence” that black pepper makes curcumin 2000x more bioavailable.

What’s “hard evidence”?

There are no shortage of published studies about the health benefits in humans. You might start with “Curcumin: A review of its effects on Human Health”. “Research suggests that curcumin can help in the management of oxidative and inflammatory conditions, metabolic syndrome, arthritis, Anxiety, and hyperlipidemia.” The same study finds it may also help with exercise induced inflammation and muscle soreness, speeding up recovery in active people and a low dose can provide health benefits for people who have no diagnosed Heath conditions. Available at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

UCLA just published a study that curcumin improves memory and mood.