• rollerbang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I mean… Why would there have to be special rules/laws in place to make them liable?

    It’s their product, it’s capable of doing stuff in their name. They’re liable by default.

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Because it’s new tech, and any time there’s new tech it takes the judicial system around 20 years to figure out that old laws still apply even in the context of new tech.

      Remember how long it took for copyright to become somewhat relevant on the internet?

      Or how long it took for murder threats to become illegal on the internet?

      When I was growing up it was totally 100% to be expected that once you step online, especially in games, someone will graphicly threaten to murder and rape you and your entire family in an arbitrary order.

      Stuff like that would have gotten you in legal trouble instantly if you said that in real life, but online it was totally fine for a very long time.

      • rollerbang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        58 minutes ago

        Laws are different everywhere. Just because it was tolerated (maybe), doesn’t mean it was illegal. Also in real life kids always said stupid shit. The thing here is that their product does illegal things. There’s no good reason this would by default be exempt.

  • noorbeast@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    Seems a common sense idea with wide and necessary applicability, it is worth reviewing and understanding historical things such as the smoking and social media lobby to grasp the extent to which the task run deep, particularly with respect to political funding and manipulation.

    • blueworld@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Incredibly so as the US is politically corrupt, but not in the way people normally think about corruption. Lawrence Lessig wrote a decent book on the frame of this calling it Gift in Kind corruption, rather than Quid Pro Quo.

      And then if you magnified this beyond the US context vastly harder to create an international framework where this is enforceable and upheld without loopholes causing breakdowns.

  • blueworld@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    In theory a good idea, but in the global context it won’t arrest this without international cooperation… And good luck with that in this age. Maybe in the 90s, but now…pffft.