YouTube and Reddit are sued for allegedly enabling the racist mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 dead::The complementary lawsuits claim that the massacre in 2022 was made possible by tech giants, a local gun shop, and the gunman’s parents.

  • @mister_monster@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    English
    232 years ago

    They’re just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks hoping to get some money. Suing google for delivering search results? It shows how ridiculous blaming tools is. The only person liable here is the shooter.

    • @dublet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      152 years ago

      The only person liable here is the shooter.

      On the very specific point of liability, while the shooter is the specific person that pulled the trigger, is there no liability for those that radicalised the person into turning into a shooter? If I was selling foodstuffs that poisoned people I’d be held to account by various regulatory bodies, yet pushing out material to poison people’s minds goes for the most part unpunished. If a preacher at a local religious centre was advocating terrorism, they’d face charges.

      The UK government has a whole ream of context about this: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97976/prevent-strategy-review.pdf

      Google’s “common carrier” type of defence takes you only so far, as it’s not a purely neutral party in terms, as it “recommends”, not merely “delivers results”, as @joe points out. That recommendation should come with some editorial responsibility.

      • @Kinglink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        This is more akin to if you sold a fatty food in a supermarket and someone died from being overweight.

        Radicalizing someone to do this isn’t a crime. Freedom of speech isn’t absolute but unless someone gives them actual orders it would still be protected.

        Don’t apply UK’s lack of freedom of speech in American courts.

        • @trite_kitten@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          52 years ago

          This is more akin to if you sold a fatty food in a supermarket and someone died from being overweight.

          No. It’s actually more akin to someone designing a supermarket that made it near impossible for a fat person to find healthy food and heavily discounted fatty foods and someone died from being overweight.

          • @Kinglink@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -12 years ago

            And that still would be legal.

            Mcdonalds has existed for decades with that model. The only lawsuits against them are usually settled, and about shit where they knowingly lied like about Transfats. You can’t blame Mcdonalds for your unhealthy eating, you can’t blame one supermarket because it doesn’t sell what you think is healthy. So sure, your version is perfectly fine too… and yet is still legal.

            Ever been to a candy store? A chocolate shop? Even Cheescake Factory is really unhealthy in general and still is a major chain? At some point personal responsibility is what it comes down to.

        • @cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -22 years ago

          This is more akin to if you sold a fatty food in a supermarket and someone died from being overweight

          Do you not remember those two girls who tried to sue McDonald’s for making them fat?

          It prompted a movie and a book…

          • @Kinglink@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            And how did that case end?

            Hint: Not well You can try to sue anyone for anything. There’s just no guarentee it’ll work, and it didn’t there.

            There are cases that do work, such as about transfats but that is about specifically misleading someone, not supplying something unhealthy. Also that was settled, not fully through the courts.

            • @cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -12 years ago

              so?

              the case in OP is still going on so we don’t know how it will end yet. I was just pointing out something that already happened cause the metaphor used matched that case. Like, it was funny to mention something like that when it already happened and we know how it played out.

              We don’t know how the case in OP is gonna play out. You can’t predict the future.

        • @dublet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          52 years ago

          Don’t apply UK’s lack of freedom of speech in American courts.

          🙄

          It is a felony under federal law to intentionally “solicit, command, induce, or otherwise endeavor to persuade” another person to engage in a crime of violence against a person or property. 18 U.S.C. § 373. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/12/Fact-Sheet-on-Threats-Related-to-the-Election.pdf

          Specific text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373

          • @Kinglink@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            0
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Oh pretending you were always talking about US when BOTH of your previous links are from the UK? Come on bro…

            And you’re citing a law and not considering how it’s applied for the last couple centuries or even years. In very broad terms, you can’t just claim they said something inflamatory and that person did something. For the most part they need to be rather specific for that law to apply.

            “Someone should do something about that mosque” isn’t the same as saying “Someone should blow up that specific mosque”. And almost every time this comes up the radicalization knows how to avoid going over the line. But if I posted a message that said “someone should blow up that mosque” It would be myself that would get in trouble, not lemmy, or Youtube or where ever I posted it.

            The problem is “Solicit, command, induce, or otherwise endeavor to persuade” That’s usually far more specific than you seem to think. It’s part of the way organized crime was able to survive so long, until RICO cases were made, and those cases basically bypass this by saying there’s a (Criminal) “enterprise”.

            The other problem you have is complaining about the “Algorithm” but not understanding that itself would likely be a defense in that it’s designed to promote retention, not radicalization, but that would even assume it’ll get to court, which in this case it’ll almost certainly not. The fact they’re not going after a specific person probably means they’re targeting a vague “radicalization” which hey, you have a good point in your first link. The radicalization would be illegal under UK law. But if he did in the US, he likely would not be in jail.

            But then again we don’t jail people for teaching dogs to do the nazi salute, so yeah, strange. We have different laws here that I still don’t think you understand.

            • @dublet@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              32 years ago

              I know perfectly well the laws of your country, and that the links I originally posted apply to the UK. My comments were about principles, rather than the specifics of US law, which again could apply to the US.

              Google is quite wilfully recommending certain things that increase engagement, they’re metric-ed up the eye balls. Facebook has internal documents that clearly state they know they’re actively promoting harmful content.

              But then again we don’t jail people for teaching dogs to do the nazi salute, so yeah, strange.

              He was not jailed, he was fined and it was for saying things “antisemitic and racist in nature”. The link has some of the things he said that are clearly not so innocuous as you seem to portray given the rise of the right wing. The whole “it’s a joke” defence is also pretty well documented as a modern phenomena of the right wing.

              You are misinformed and if you have any sympathies for that guy, you have the wrong priorities at best, or at worst are resorting to the usual alt right talking points.

              As a matter of principle, you’re right on one account, which is that I do not place the ultimate value on freedom of speech. The fact that American companies have a strangle hold over the public sphere and the dynamics of speech is problematic.

              • @Kinglink@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                0
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                My comments were about principles,

                So absolutely has no value in this discussion, thanks for clarifying.

                The link has some of the things he said that are clearly not so innocuous as you seem to portray given the rise of the right wing.

                I didn’t click this link, because I don’t really care. My father was Jewish, and he could say all Jewish people should be killed and I still would say he doesn’t deserve to be put in jail. Sorry, your outrage doesn’t override the first amendment. It’s not “It’s a joke” defense… it’s “There’s freedom of speech”. Hard stop. Are their limitations to it? Sure, but I’m pretty sure he’s not hitting those bars.

                You are misinformed

                No you’re talking about “Principles” which means you’re in the wrong topic and the wrong discussion. And you’re not misinformed, but willfully ignoring the reality of the situation. Maybe you’re angry you’re not right and you’re trying to defend your position, but here’s the thing, your position doesn’t matter, the law matters… And no one is keeping score, so it’s ok, you’re wrong here, just stop making up shit.

                at worst are resorting to the usual alt right talking points.

                I always love this point. “If you don’t agree with me, you’re the enemy.” I guess the ACLU is the Alt-Right, as is any lawyer who defends someone charged with saying something that hurt someone’s feelings.

                As for “priorities”. If you think freedom of speech isn’t important, let’s think about that. It’s great right now, Nazi’s can’t say shit, you can say anything you want to them. But what’s that, a future where someone you don’t like is in power, and suddenly you can’t say anything and some party (potentially Nazis) can… Oh shit, well maybe Freedom of Speech IS actually important.

                As a matter of principle,

                I’ll repeat this again, “principles” don’t matter, laws do.

                which is that I do not place the ultimate value on freedom of speech

                That’s fine, but we’re all talking about an American case, let’s focus on American laws, and not “What dublet feel is right”.

                This is the last time I’m responding to you because you’ve made it clear you’re talking about the world according you. I live in a real place, with actual laws, where this case is taking place. It’s called the United States of America. It doesn’t matter where you live, it doesn’t matter what laws apply to you. We’re talking about a specific place and specific laws. When you want to talk about those laws… well find someone else because you’ve already wasted enough of my time, but until you focus on how the world actually works, really no one should waste their time discussing your version of the law… because it has no basis in reality.

                • @cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  32 years ago

                  My father was Jewish, and he could say all Jewish people should be killed and I still would say he doesn’t deserve to be put in jail

                  Roseanne Barr is jewish and recently denied the holocaust but also said that it should have happened.

                  Sure we’re not gonna put her in jail but she’s a guaranteed laughing stock and everyone knows it.

                  She straight up wrecked her career with that kind of thinking.

                  You don’t have to go to jail for everyone to hate you for what you are. Have fun not being in jail lol

    • @joe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      30
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Well, maybe. I want to be up-front that I haven’t read the actual lawsuit, but it seems from the article that the claim is that youtube and reddit both have an algorithm that helped radicalize him:

      YouTube, named with parent companies Alphabet Inc. and Google, is accused of contributing to the gunman’s radicalization and helping him acquire information to plan the attack. Similarly, the lawsuits claim Reddit promoted extreme content and offered a specialized forum relating to tactical gear.

      I’d say that case is worth pursuing. It’s long been known that social media companies tune their algorithms to increase engagement, and that pissed off people are more likely to engage. This results in algorithms that output content that makes people angry, by design, and that’s a choice these companies make, not “delivering search results”.

    • @SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      52 years ago

      He was treated like a joke candidate by the Democrats at the time. Facebook didn’t get him elected, Hillary ran a weak campaign and didn’t take the threat seriously. He used FB for fundraising and she could’ve done the same thing if she wanted to.

  • @Otkaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1502 years ago

    It use to be video games and movies taking the blame. Now it’s websites. When are we going to decide that people are just bat shit crazy and guns need some form of regulation?

    • @Anonymousllama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      It’s not popular nowadays to mention that people need to have self accountability, there’s always apparently a website, service, game or social media platform to “blame” for the actions of the individual

      • Quokka
        link
        fedilink
        English
        92 years ago

        Exactly and sites that profit off of hosting extremist content that radicalises terrorists need to be held accountable for their actions.

              • Natanael
                link
                fedilink
                English
                02 years ago

                Why did you want them to build an echo chamber out of your space?

                • @aidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  12 years ago

                  I don’t inherently oppose private platforms controlling who is allowed to comment- I oppose the government deciding certain beliefs are too radical to be allowed on any platform.

    • @DarkWasp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      222 years ago

      I can see the nuance in an argument that an online community, unmoderated, could be using an algorithm to group these violent people together and amplifying their views. The same can’t really be said for most other platforms. Writing threats of violence should still be taken seriously over the internet, especially if it was later acted upon. I don’t disagree with you that there’s a lot of bat shit crazy out there though.

    • @Squander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -112 years ago

      The thing about bat shit crazy people is that they dont need guns to be violent, they will find another way.

      • @some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        192 years ago

        I can’t realistically stab ten people in a crowd before I’m disarmed by the mob. And I certainly can’t do it from a hotel window.

        • @CoughProductions@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -122 years ago

          Hella things with more force than guns though, and most of those aren’t outlawed yet. Ppl will make bombs and use vehicular methods if guns arent available. Outlawing guns will not solve the issue I think the most effective method is inclusion and treating people well, maybe there won’t be as many unhinged individuals who act out violently…? Of course more regulation would help too (without infringing 2nd amendment)

          • @Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            32 years ago

            More regulation without infringement is what we want. I don’t care if you have a gun. I care that they’re super easy to get, I also care that you can easily get a big gun that can kill a lot of people just as easily as a handgun.

          • @TheFonz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            132 years ago

            The point they are making is that guns, besides being a force amplifier, are also easily accessible. The more steps involved, the less likely you are engaged in said acts. It’s why Americans will drive 1 mile to get a six pack, even though walking to the shop yields the same result. The easiest path is the most likely.

          • @Yendor@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 years ago

            Where are all these mass bombings and vehicular murders in other Countries then? You average multiple mass shootings per week in the US, while the events in other countries typically happen less than once a year.

          • @hydrospanner@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 years ago

            As disturbing as that comment is, the inverse sheds light on one of the biggest issues with attempts to regulate guns to reduce gun violence:

            Legal attempts to restrict violence through restrictions of legal freedoms will not and have not democratized safety from violence, mostly because the vast majority of violent crime is perpetrated by people who are already in the habit and practice of disregarding laws.

        • @RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -12 years ago

          They’re not going anywhere, because our rights are solidly established and the Supreme Court is not going to abide with any infringements.

            • @RaoulDook@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              6
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              There’s also a long + contemporary history of citizens ignoring bans too. Check out the levels of compliance in New York after they banned some guns. Many of their counties’ sheriffs have even stated they won’t enforce those bans.

              I guarantee the guns will still be here long after everyone who can read this is gone.

        • @jampacked@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -222 years ago

          Basically when you do something over and over your brain rewires to do it more efficiently but nobody seems to think hours of video games or perceived negativity/positivity has any effect when it comes to certain entertainment.

          • @Gork@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Video games are not the causal reason for mass shootings. Do other countries have gun violence like America does? No. But they play video games just at much as we do.

            It’s not video games that are the problem, it’s the easy access to lightly regulated guns.

          • @Anonymousllama@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            7
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Are there any actual scientific studies that back up that summation? Because video games have been under intense scrutiny for decades and every time it’s brought up the consensus seems to be that there’s no direct link

          • @Suru@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            15
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            I mean… if you play video games for hours and hours, your brain will likely learn to play videogames better? Sure. I hardly see a correlation to mass murder here.

            If you believe that action repetition is to blame for rewiring people’s brains to be more efficient at mass murder, why not blame the military, or hell, why not just start picketing outside your local airsoft or paintball places?

            edit: he’ll into hell. I blame autocorrect.

          • @TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            102 years ago

            Because clicking a mouse to go pew pew at fictional characters is drastically different than pointing and shooting a gun at a human being.

            Even the most realistic military shooters, you don’t just get a red tint over your eyes if you get shot, you can’t wait it out or use a medkit to immediately be fully recovered, and people don’t respawn the next match after they are killed. They don’t show how gruesome and nerve-wracking real violence it is. They can’t show the lasting consequences of that. People who play video games might not even know how heavy a real gun is.

            And then there are things like Fortnite and Overwatch, which are just silly cartoons. No comparison.

      • @SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        222 years ago

        Neuroplasticity is not really relevant here - it’s just the ability of the brain to form new connections. You’d need a casual effect of video games/entertainment toward radicalization inherently and science does not support that position.

        Even meta studies are not showing any causal link between gaming/entertainment and aggression

      • @Redditiscancer789@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Anecdotally I play a genocidal maniac in every game I can. I love playing total war and killing every single thing I come across, razing pillaging their villages and enslaving the survivors. I’ve done it since I was a young child playing RTS games like age of empires. Adding up all my video game kills would probably be literally in the billions. Can you guess how many people I’ve killed in real life?

            • @aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 years ago

              I agree generally- but I also personally know people who were in some ways inspired to violence by media.

              • @AeroLemming@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                32 years ago

                Yes, some social media groups or propaganda productions ABSOLUTELY DO incite violence in people. I’m talking about violent videogames like FPSes, not deliberate propaganda.

                Sorry if this double posts, my internet cut out in the middle of hitting reply and I’m trying again.

          • @Redditiscancer789@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            92 years ago

            I imagine it feels that way when tons of people disagree with you. But that’s also part of posting in public discourse, if people don’t like what you’re saying they will surely let you know.

    • @aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 years ago

      Guns have more legislation written about them than nearly any other product. They are heavily regulated. They are not effectively regulated however.

      • @dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        This ineffectiveness is directly due to NRA lobbying, and their zero-tolerance attitude towards any new gun legislation. Any gun-friendly lawmaker who even gets close to writing gun control legislation will end up getting harassed (and likely primaried in the next election). So when gun control legislation passes, it’s inevitably written by people who don’t understand guns at all. No wonder it’s all shit!

        Maybe now that the NRA is having financial difficulties legislators will have make leeway to enact things that might have a chance of working.

        • @hydrospanner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          That’s the biggest ball of nonsense speak I’ve read all day.

          So we have regulations, the regulations don’t work, and that’s the fault of the NRA…because they oppose more regulations?

          Look, I’m no fan of the NRA either but that’s just word vomit.

          Also, the political angle you describe is also nonsense. Just look at Sen. Feinstein, one of the biggest gun grabbers in American politics, who’s been in her seat for thirty years.

          Getting the party nod or not getting it based on being anti-gun is basically a non-issue. If you’re an anti-gun Democrat, that won’t likely set you apart from other primary challengers, and certainly not enough to singlehandedly unseat an incumbent (not to mention the questions raised by your party leaving you vulnerable to primary challengers). If you’re an anti-gun Republican, you’ve got bigger issues to worry about than the NRA.

          No, the NRA doesn’t make it so that gun friendly legislators don’t draft gun legislation, leaving it to be written by those who know nothing about the subject…rather it’s just common sense. A pro gun legislator knows that we’ve been trying that shit for years and it just… doesn’t…work. You’re expecting them to push for something that is not only against their political self interest but also their personal self interest, then blaming the NRA when it doesn’t happen.

    • ofk12
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 years ago

      I don’t know man, sounds a bit too much like sense to me.

        • @Eufalconimorph@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          92 years ago

          Yep. This guy thought he was fighting a righteous battle against the evil of white replacement. Brainwashed, but not insane by any clinical definition any more than any soldier is.

          • @MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            82 years ago

            This is a key insight. There have been plenty of despots and dictators that ruled countries for decades while committing uncountable atrocities who had full command of their faculties.

      • @some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        272 years ago

        Because every gun owner thinks they are “the good guys”

        Just wait till I use my gun to save a bunch of lives. Then you’ll see that I’m a hero. /s

          • @lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -22 years ago

            Because most are.

            Now I know the new trendy thing is for gun lobbyists and right-wing operatives online to stoke the division by pitching guns to the left. I know the intent is to profit from a wider market while simultaneously muddying the waters of who is the most violent ideological group.

            … And some ground is being made with this vector, but it’s still nowhere close to comparable.

  • @some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    242 years ago

    The lawsuit claims Mean LLC manufactured an easily removable gun lock, offering a way to circumvent New York laws prohibiting assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

    This seems like the only part of the suits that might have traction. All the other bits seem easy to dismiss. That’s not a statement on whether others share responsibility, only on what seems legally actionable in the US.

  • @infyrin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -2
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    This is a step in the right direction. YouTube and especially Reddit, have some of the most awful moderations in practice to date. People online in general, are some of the poorest role models to be looking up to. They’ll encourage and stoke anyone to do anything. Whether it’s suicide, whether to perform dumb harmful pranks, just anything.

    I don’t agree with the local gunshop. The gun store owner couldn’t have known that any gun he’d sell would be used within moments, to take innocent lives. The gunman’s parents? Maaaaaybe a little insight into upbringing and examine that until it’s exhausted before we judge there.

    • Phoenixz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 years ago

      The gun store owner couldn’t have known that any gun he’d sell would be used within moments, to take innocent lives.

      Hundreds, thousands of deaths due to gun violence committed right after the gun was bought would disagree with you

      • @infyrin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -22 years ago

        Did the gun owner tell gun purchasers to kill?

        Did the gun start having voices of it’s own to tell people to kill?

        You figure that out.

        • Phoenixz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          No, the gun owner pulled that trigger. Take away the gun and he can’t pull that trigger anymore.

          It’s not that hard, and mental gymnastics won’t help your cause

            • @cubedsteaks@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 years ago

              You don’t know how I think, this is our first interaction ever. How can you know what I think? Why are you not able to tell me what guns are for? They are for killing. Either hunting animals or shooting people.

              Are there any other uses for guns besides that? What, target practice for funsies? Where you… shoot a silhouette of a human? (I’m sure some places just have a target instead but what else would you be practicing shooting for?)

  • @TIEPilot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    15
    edit-2
    2 years ago
    • RMA Armament is named for providing the body armor Gendron wore during the shooting.

    No he bought it.

    • Vintage Firearms of Endicott, New York, is singled out for selling the shooter the weapon used in the attack.

    Not their issue he passed the background check.

    • The lawsuit claims Mean LLC manufactured an easily removable gun lock, offering a way to circumvent New York laws prohibiting assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

    Any knob w/ a dremel can make a gun full auto, let alone defeating a mag lock. And he broke NY law doing this.

    • YouTube, named with parent companies Alphabet Inc. and Google, is accused of contributing to the gunman’s radicalization and helping him acquire information to plan the attack.

    This is just absurd.

    My guess is they are hoping for settlements vs going to trial where they lose.

    • @Hype@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      Next they will announce that they are suing Disney because he watched the History Channel, and that had violence on it which contributed to his actions.

    • @vertigo3pc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      52 years ago

      Only responding to the last point, but if they can prove that Google somehow curated his content to push him towards fringe, terroristic websites, they could be found liable as a civil suit.

          • @Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Oh you watch WWII videos because you like hearing about how liberal democracy stomped fascism with superior tactics, weapons and intelligence?

            Here’s some videos by actual fascists! Women are the patriarchy!

            Oh you like videos about Cold War Russia and espionage?

            How about this video about why Ukraine is run by Jewish paedophile Nazis?

          • @TechnoBabble@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 years ago

            That is legitimately a problem.

            For some reason, YouTube’s algorithm heavily favors extremist content if you show even a casual interest in related material.

            It’s probably as simple as “shocking content gets more clicks”, but still, it’s not good for our society to have entertainment platforms recommending extremist views.

            In the old days, you’d have to seek out this kind of fringe content on your own. And you’d get pushback from your community if you started talking nonsense.

            Nowadays, my aunt is getting blasted with reptilian democrat stuff after showing an interest in typical conservative lady content years ago. And there is not much of a community left to help her out. The algorithms just amplify all the worst shit.

  • @Mdotaut801@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    142 years ago

    I dislike Reddit now but this is fucked up. It’s not like the platform itself said “hey man, you should totally commit this barbaric, racist act and we’ll supply you with the weapons.”

  • @iHUNTcriminals@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    9
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    The village (community/lack of community) makes the villains. Everyone’s a problem. We are all to blame.

      • @iHUNTcriminals@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Not saying something shouldn’t be done or not done with the gun situation. But I believe it’s the community driving these kids to want a gun to kill people. Gun laws are just one part of many problems that are a part of our broken community. I guess the guns are a result of a broken community is part of what I mean. Banning guns alone in my eyes is an extremely over simplified bandaid fix. Tbh these days I see the gun debate as crooked politics just trying to get votes… They want that free publicity.

        Edit: a politician is never going to speak negatively about the general community. They can’t, it would kill their career. I think that’s a big problem in why nothing changes. Politics is money and business it’s like gang life for white collars

  • @SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    302 years ago

    Say what you want about youtube and reddit but if you want them to censor more and more you are creating a sword that can be used against you too. I also don’t like the idea of shooting the messenger no matter how much we may dislike the messages. When I hear lawsuits like this I always think it is greedy lawyers pushing people to sue because they see deep pockets.

    • @TyrionsNose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      122 years ago

      Right, so then they should be operated as a public telecom and be regulated as Title II. This would allow them to be free from such lawsuits.

      However, they want to remain as private for profit companies so they should be held responsible for not acting responsibly.

      • Natanael
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        It doesn’t make sense to treat websites as utilities. Net neutrality can’t be applied to websites, it would make most basic spam filtering infeasible and blow up operational costs

        • @TyrionsNose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          You’re right. I was wrong. There is a big difference between websites and ISPs, and in my eagerness to respond I skipped that basic understanding.

          I feel like their should be basic policing of the most horrific things, e.g. child porn. But you’re right, it’s impossible to filter everything out in a timely manner by websites.

      • Cosmic Cleric
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        Last I heard they’re already covered under Safe Harbor laws and are protected.

    • @joel_feila@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 years ago

      and with hold sites like youtube accountable I am living a gun that can shoot me. Its a double edge sword that can be used to hurt me no matter what we do

    • @CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 years ago

      If you don’t believe online words can sway people’s beliefs/opinions or drive them to action then why are you leaving this comment here?

      • @FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -22 years ago

        I didn’t say that. You’re putting words into my mouth. It still took a human to take up arms and use a tool. Youtube alone didn’t do this. Reddit alone didn’t do this. Guns alone didn’t do this. Training and a license would not have prevented this.

        • @CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          Now you’re putting words into everyone else’s mouth. Who said any of those things are solely responsible for this tragedy? Why are you arguing as if the shooter is walking free while prosecutors go after YouTube and Reddit?

          • @FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -22 years ago

            Then why are they suing Youtube and Reddit if they don’t think those platforms are responsible? I’m saying that you people want to blame every fucking other thing in the world, EXCEPT for the person doing the fucking crime. How am I arguing that the shooter is free? I’m literally saying, this kid would have likely done this with or without those things and the stupid idea that a license would prevent it is asinine.

            • @CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 years ago

              How am I arguing that the shooter is free?

              This right here:

              I’m saying that you people want to blame every fucking other thing in the world, EXCEPT for the person doing the fucking crime

              The shooter is facing his day in court as will the companies who helped drive him to commit this tragedy.

              • @FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -22 years ago

                lol, ok. sure buddy. Any yet we get constant cries for the removal of guns because without guns this wouldn’t happen right?

                • @CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  22 years ago

                  Not sure what this has to do with the rest of the discussion, but no I don’t think mass shootings would be very common if guns didn’t exist.