4 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 23.1 ms ] thread
$875,000!!
Care to elaborate? Too much, too little?
I see three issues here:

1. If we force/ask un-social media like facepalm to block fake news, then who do we trust to provide true news? Fact checking at least forces people to admit there are gray areas, but thinking people are not on un-social media anyways and the unthinking people will see what they want to see. “They only say that because they have to”.

2. Defamation is and always was punishable under law in most jurisdictions. The fact that someone is stupid enough to post something online rather then slander in mouth to mouth fashion is new. The problem here is that “going to court” is a too big a step (and too costly) for most people. This outcome does not fix this.

3. What if later on it turn out that this defamation/slander/gossip was actually true? If facepalm was forced to delete such posts, then who is going to find out? “Serious” news outlets might not even want to publish this because it could damage their search ranking (after all it is blocked or deleted on un-social media).

1. Rupert Murdoch

2. True

3. We should pay Rupert Murdoch more money to take care of this.