[akersten]

Can someone who supports "let's hold internet platforms responsible for what their users do on their platform" explain how that's any different than "let's hold gun manufacturers responsible for what users do with their guns?"

I fail to see a difference between the two, and think both are untenable fantasies.

[vnchr]

Internet platforms maintain control over their system whereas gun manufacturers give away control to gun buyers.

The gun manufacturer ceases to maintain control and cannot be assigned responsibility after the sale of the good.

[belltaco]

So I guess the same logic applies to the phone companies for calls and texts, since they maintain control over it?

[gfxgirl]

I don't know what the right answer is but as far as analogies go the phone companies don't decide which calls you get and which of your incoming calls/texts to make a priority.

Twitter and certainly Facebook do run algorithms that decide which of the 300 things the 1000 people you friended or follow should be displayed and in what order so they get decide what to emphasize as important by deciding what you see first and even what you see at all.

In order to be the same as the phone company they'd have to give you the entire feed of every person you follow in chronological order, no filtering.

I suppose one solution for them. They could default to no filtering and let users turn on filters. Then it would be the user's choosing the filters, not them. I'm not sure what scrutiny the filters themselves would need.

A simple filter like "show nothing with the word 'poop' in it" would seem safe. A complex filter like "let this ML algo decide for me" I have no idea.

[throwaway894345]

The problem is that right now these big Internet companies aren't "dumb pipes" like phone companies--they are moderating content already, so either they shouldn't moderate at all or they should accept responsibility for how they moderate. If they're making money by persecuting certain groups or enabling child porn or whatever, they should be held accountable. If they're just dumb pipes, then that's fine, but they mustn't moderate content.

[arcticbull]

I don't think it's so cut and dried. For instance, if you sell a defective gun, and that gun kills the shooter instead of the target, you can certainly be assigned responsibility. Liability doesn't end when something is in someone else's hands. Selling something you know is dangerous, than you know can harm, brings with it is own liability -- contaminated lettuce for instance.

There are a number of implied warranties made when a transaction occurs. [1]

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/implied-warranty.asp

[catalogia]

American gun manufacturers, like pretty much any other manufacturer, can indeed be sued if their product is defective. For example: Remington has caught a lot of heat for defective triggers in their Model 700 series rifles.

When people say American gun manufacturers can't be sued, they're talking about the PLCAA, which shields gun manufacturers from lawsuits concerning guns they made being used in crimes. The PLCAA does not prevent them from being sued for defective products.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_700#Controvers...

[cthalupa]

>American gun manufacturers, like pretty much any other manufacturer, can indeed be sued if their product is defective.

The parent is explicitly calling out that gun manufacturers can be sued for defects in the product, and as such the idea that manufacturer liability ends after they have sold the product is patently false.

[akersten]

So if a gun manufacturer did keep control over their gun, like with an electronic targeting system making decisions on behalf of the user[0], by the control argument, wouldn't they then have a responsibility to make sure it's used appropriately?

[0]: https://www.tracking-point.com/ (Yeah it's an aftermarket product, but for argument's sake, let's say it was 1st party)

[vorpalhex]

You really misunderstand the tracking-point platform. It's a holdover system to calculate windage and drop on a moving target locally on the system, not some kind of visual analysis engine that does target determination.

It provides "Hey, you need this much windage" not a shoot/no-shoot decision. It's also entirely on-system so the customer owns it, it's not running somewhere in the cloud.

[arkades]

You don't see the difference between "let's hold companies responsible for what people do as part of utilizing their services, while utilizing their services" and "let's hold companies responsible for what people do with an item they have purchased once entirely out of the supervision of that company, without any possible oversight or control"?

I can't hold a skateboard co. responsible for what people do with skateboards they've purchased. I can most certainly hold a skate park responsible for what happens in the skate park.

[belltaco]

By that logic you would hold the phone company responsible for calls and texts happening over their network.

[efdee]

A phone company doesn't have algorithms that decide which calls go through and which don't, or which calls are marked as important and which are not.

[chooseaname]

They don't? What about VOIP?

[GoblinSlayer]

Phone calls are private communication. Isn't there's a law that prevents screening private communications?

[0134340]

Someone correct me if wrong but I think phone co's can get away with it as they're deemed an information carrier instead of a host. Besides, calls and texts are rather benign, it's visual media that tends to attract the most calls for censorship, not to also mention that real-time censorship of text and voice would be infeasible but much more viable for an information/media host.

[arkades]

And phone companies don't play an editorial role in determining what calls you get to hear, and who hears yours. Newspapers are responsible, even when they're publishing someone else's submission to them.

[eeZah7Ux]

That's a strawman.

[LegitShady]

That is precisely the issue. Phone companies don't maintain control of their network to filter what calls and texts are allowed, don't maintain political rules on their network, etc. They are neutral carriers.

Meanwhile google etc are pretending they are neutral carriers while actively filtering and choosing what is shown, now politically, showing they not only have the capability to control their platform but put it in practice.

If they cannot allow others free speech they should not get special protection that prevents their liability.

If a phone company started filtering political discussion I would absolutely think them responsible now for everything on their network. Your example is perfect to show how different both groups are in capability and practice.

[chooseaname]

Okay, so are electric companies responsible for people growing weed?

[akersten]

No, I really don't see the difference, because the service here is the product. The service is not a place of accommodation like a skate park.

"Company makes thing, people do bad with thing, hold Company responsible" is a scary line of thought, and that's exact same scenario for both Facebook and guns.

"Thing hurts person using it" is closer to your skate park analogy, and yeah, in that case, of course Company should be responsible for making a bad thing.

[AzzieElbab]

It is more of a pre-elections warning shot. I expect a lot of negativity from both sides in November. So politicians cant allow platforms interfere.

[belorn]

Gun manufacturers regulations and internet platform regulations are quite two different subjects with very little overlapping.

If a platform controls and exercise editorial control when something is said, what is said, and who may speak and who may listen, then it may be useful to hold that platform liable. It is about intent, control and power.

Gun manufacturers regulations however is full of rules that is about protecting society and international agreements. Selling guns to countries currently at war is problematic, so we hold those manufacturers responsible if they try to profit from running guns.

[0134340]

Really, even though the platform you're using voluntarily chooses what you're allowed to post, as with almost all online platforms?

Besides that, you're framing this wrong. If I host a platform as I host you in my house, I have a right and a duty to make sure you aren't committing illegal actions within my domain. This is a fairly universal law, written and unwritten, that who and what you host in your domain is your responsibility. Why should a few privileged platforms get a free pass?

[akersten]

I'm pretty sure the argument "if you invite someone into your house, you're responsible for their illegal actions" is plainly incorrect, but I'd be happy to see a citation of that statute.

[vajrabum]

There is a common exception in law for utilities. The power company is not responsible for whatever nefarious activity is enabled by supplying power. If you have an illegal marijuana grow operation the power company doesn't get prosecuted nor are they responsible in law for proactively identifying those growers. ISP and service providers don't want to be utilities because that requires that they provide a level playing field to their customers, but their business has all the characteristics of a utility and their customers would pretty much all prefer that over the current situation.

[0134340]

You may not legally be held liable though in many cases you can. It's a common trope within law and I'd guess derived from common sense that if you host illegal content then you are therefore bound to scrutiny for potentially enabling it. So by extension, if you care about being a free person, you are responsible for it. Anything illegal in my home and I'm bound to scrutiny and law. Why should big co's get a free pass? To me, I couldn't care less either way but consistency in law would be just lovely.

[throwaway_USD]

>"let's hold gun manufacturers responsible for what users do with their guns?" I fail to see a difference between the two, and think both are untenable fantasies.

Sometimes the arms dealers (sellers not manufacture) are liable for the actions of the gun owners.

There is no shortage of cases, I searched Walmart (because Walmart scale), but some examples:

1. Walmart Settles Lawsuit for Selling Gun Used in Murder by Neo-Nazi (https://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/11/walmart-settles-la...)

2. Wal-Mart sued over sale of bullets used in Pennsylvania murders (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pennsylvania-bullets/wal-...)

Sellers of guns and ammunition assumed they were protected from liability by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

[akersten]

> Sellers of guns and ammunition assumed they were protected from liability by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

On that angle, why are the folks arguing "a few big tech companies have had immunity for too long, they have too much influence," not also arguing "a few gun manufacturers have had immunity for too long and have too much influence?" To me, providing a tool to kill and facing no consequence is a lot more influence than Twitter enforcing their terms of service.

To be clear, I don't think weapons companies should be responsible for what people do with their products. I certainly don't think tech companies should be responsible for what people do with their products, either.

[hiram112]

Let me know when the CEO of Glock or Colt comes and takes back the gun I purchased from them due to a Tweet of mine that the mob disliked.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

Well, there are rumblings of various smart guns, where you gun ownership ( and presumably various socially acceptable exceptions like being a felon ) are checked upon attempting to use it. I am not a fan of MGS game, but the author may have seen a small portion of our future.

[throwaway_USD]

>On that angle, why are the folks arguing "a few big tech companies have had immunity for too long, they have too much influence," not also arguing "a few gun manufacturers have had immunity for too long and have too much influence?

Not only is that a whataboutism, but its out of touch with reality...there are millions of people who believe there should be liability and giant organizations lobbying for liability gun/ammo manufactures and they have been successful, because we are now seeing liability in the courts.

Its law, think how it took decades for big tobacco to be liable when they not only knew of the dangers of their products but they actively and intentionally withheld that information from the public.

>I certainly don't think tech companies should be responsible for what people do with their products, either.

Do you have a bias? Do you work in tech?

[internet_user]

Pretty certain that settlement admits no guilt.

[throwaway_USD]

If you bothered to read the articles I linked they include many other examples such as:

>last year, in a Wisconsin case, a jury found a Milwaukee gun store liable for selling a gun to a 21-year-old customer

[pnw_hazor]

The liability springs from enabling a straw purchase the plaintiff alleges should have been obvious and therefore the sale should have been denied.

I imagine there is evidence (video, witnesses, etc.) that tend to indicate that the dealer knew or should have known he was facilitating a straw purchase.

[throwaway_USD]

Yes, you need a underlying cause of action...that's how law works.

The point is liability, gun manufactures and dealers can be liable for the products used in killings by third parties...even after lawful sales.

Take the case of the Sandy Hook victims that sued Remington. Initially their case was dismissed, because the lower court rules the manufacture is shielded from any liability under Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), but on appeal the Court overturned the ruling and declared in fact the victims families could sue under State law on separate causes of actions/theories. In that case they were suing Remington for violating the States Fair Trade Practices Act (on the factual basis that Remington marketed military style weapons to civilians). So you could just as easily shrug that of and say "well, liability there sprang from...", of course liability has to spring from somewhere.

So in the case of tech, if you wanted to sue the platform, you need an underlying cause of action...whether that may be defamation, or trademark infringement, or copyright infringement. Liability for the tech platforms would have to spring from somewhere just like any other cause of action.

[pnw_hazor]

I guess I was differentiating plain old negligence from the lawsuits that specifically go after immunity carve-outs in the PLCAA.

Interestingly, most of the reporting I was just reading suggests that the Sandy Hook case has been allowed to move forward because makers and sellers lose their immunity if they "knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product." This sounded like an overly broad immunity carve-out to me, but if true it seems reasonable that the case is still alive.

But of course, the reporting is not complete, it leaves out the second prong of this carve-out "and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought"

I can't imagine the Sandy Hook plaintiffs proving or even providing evidence that supports the second prong. It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds. Hopefully it will not settle until all the appeals have been exhausted.

For Section 230, the immunity carve-outs are much clearer and limited. The tech industry must have better lobbyists than the gun industry.

Though if Biden is elected they may have problems:

In January 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden proposed revoking Section 230 completely. “The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms,” Biden said. “It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false.” Biden never responded to follow-up questions about this statement.

https://www.theverge.com/21273768/section-230-explained-inte...

[LegitShady]

lawsuits and settlement are not legal liability, they are just sometimes cheaper and better PR to settle.

[throwaway_USD]

Read the articles:

>in a Wisconsin case, a jury found a Milwaukee gun store liable for selling a gun to a 21-year-old customer...The gun was later used by an 18-year-old to shoot and critically wound two police officers, who were awarded damages by the jury.

Jury verdict (legal liability) against the seller of the gun which was used in a murder by someone other than the person they sold it to.

FYI: Walmart doesn't settle for cost or PR, they settle because of liability.

[LegitShady]

>Jury verdict (legal liability) against the seller of the gun

A jury verdict in a different case with different particulars doesn't immediately imply that walmart is guilty. The particulars of both cases matter. Being sued and settling does NOT imply legal liability, and someone else winning a different case is also not legal liability for walmart.

>Jury verdict (legal liability) against the seller of the gun which was used in a murder by someone other than the person they sold it to.

Case particulars matter.

>FYI: Walmart doesn't settle for cost or PR, they settle because of liability.

This is just not true. Walmart does things for PR all the time, including settle lawsuits they know will make them look bad.

[pnw_hazor]

The liability in these cases was related to alleged negligence related to facilitating straw purchases. And, in the PA case, possibly selling bullets to an underage buyer.

[throwaway_USD]

As mentioned before that's how law works. Before the erosion of the federal law protecting manufacturers and sellers of firearms, cases with the very same set of fact would have been dismissed, because there was a law shielding them from liability.

The parties have to be liable for something...and the same would be true with tech companies if their current federal protections were removed, they would have to be liable for some valid legal claims such as negligence, defamation, copyright infringement, trademark infringement.

The point is removing the federal shield the multi-billion dollar companies lobbied for to protect themselves from lawsuits, so when their is an otherwise lawful claim for which they are liable they can be sued.

Honestly, how did you think it works?