Social Media Giants Sued For Helping ISIS (torontosun.com)

Long-time Slashdot reader nnet quotes the Toronto Sun: Social media giants Twitter, Google and Facebook are being sued by the families of victims of the San Bernardino terror attacks. The lawsuit claims those companies aided ISIS by letting them build their online profile and bolster recruitment. Fourteen people were killed in the December 2015 attacks by twisted husband-wife Islamist extremists Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. "Without defendants Twitter, Facebook and Google (YouTube), the explosive growth of IS over the last few years into the most feared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible," the suit, filed Wednesday in Los Angeles, alleges.

Comments

Won't go anywhere

[cigawoot]

As much as I feel for the families of those who were killed, there isn't much you can do. This lawsuit just feels like a desperate attempt at answers where they don't exist.

No court would expect the operators of social networks to pour billions of dollars into moderating their platforms. They can remove content when its found and reported, but it is completely unreasonable to expect the operators of social media platforms to keep their platforms free of terrorist material while at the same time keeping it open enough to be usable.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, that's the cost of actively policing your content. Once you start doing it, as Facebook and Twitter have, you lose "common carrier" status and can be held liable for what you've missed.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

This lawsuit just feels like a desperate attempt at answers

This lawsuit just feels like a desperate attempt by some ambulance chasing lawyers to get rich off someone's loss.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[__aaclcg7560]

This lawsuit is a desperate attempt to empty out some deep pockets.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

As the legal teams will point out:
Objection! Calls for speculation.

Re: Won't go anywhere

[nasch]

Actually that's part of the protections of the CDA. Providers can moderate content without losing the safe harbor. That's in there to avoid the perverse disincentive you describe.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[DRJlaw]

Unfortunately, that's the cost of actively policing your content. Once you start doing it, as Facebook and Twitter have, you lose "common carrier" status and can be held liable for what you've missed.

You're not a lawyer, so stop trying to practice law. The reason that we're so protective of that is that even well-meaning people get so many things so wrong.

For example, the EFF, which is significantly staffed by lawyers, reports:

Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish. You may also delete entire posts. However, you may still be held responsible for information you provide in commentary or through editing. For example, if you edit the statement, "Fred is not a criminal" to remove the word "not," a court might find that you have sufficiently contributed to the content to take it as your own.

Do you know why? Because the law literally says:

(c) Protection for 'Good Samaritan' blocking and screening of offensive material[:]
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker[:] No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability[:] No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of--
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

So no, policing the content on your site does not make you liable, protections are not based on "common carrier" status, and you certainly cannot be liable for content that you've "missed" or even decided not to block.

BTW: I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer, in part because you're an idiot.

Re: Won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Over ruled.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

No court would expect the operators of social networks to pour billions of dollars into moderating their platforms.

Maybe that's how law works in the US but at least where I live it doesn't work that way. I'm not defending the lawsuit or claiming that social media should be held responsible for their users, I'd merely like to point out that the reasons for or against such issues are very often flawed like e.g. the above criterion. Judges sometimes have leeway and can make trade-offs, but generally it's safe to assume that it's not up to them to decide how much money companies should spend on some safety or security measures. These are secondary issues, the first and foremost questions are whether laws were broken, whether there was gross negligence, etc.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure none of this applies to supporting terrorist organizations or aiding the enemy. There are a few more laws involved, you know. (Well, maybe you don't because you're a lousy lawyer.)

Re: Won't go anywhere

[DRJlaw]

Reread the last line.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[DRJlaw]

Pretty sure that you're wrong. Because it's been tried before, multiple times.

Also, you can't file civil suits based upon "supporting terrorist organizations" or "aiding the enemy." Only the U.S. government and the states can bring criminal charges, and note that they're not doing so...

Re: Won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok ok. That makes sense. The laws can not be twisted like the liberals twist free speech.

So then, it is ok for Facebook to take down hate speech and leave known terrorists recruiters alone just because they are Muslim (fact), and it would be ... ohh circles now.

They have filed a complaint. It is written in the complaint the legal basis. Will it pass tests. Lets see.

This is a social issue. What is best for society? Strict censorship of social media or not?

This is the slippery slope. A couple ruling laying the foundation and your kkk club can't advertise anymore.

But they can. So I think we can predict this outcome.

I hope they don't settle. It will just make payment seeking from tradgedy increase. Ohh it is already like that.

There is no moral duty is there?

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Opportunist]

Like being unreasonable or outright impossible has ever been a court to not come to a verdict that demands the impossible.

Re: Won't go anywhere

[Plus1Entropy]

Boy do we ever need -1 Incoherent.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

They could also sue weapon manufacturers, car manufacturers, or even clothes manufacturers that made that attack possible.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Kjella]

Also, you can't file civil suits based upon "supporting terrorist organizations" or "aiding the enemy." Only the U.S. government and the states can bring criminal charges, and note that they're not doing so...

Since we have an actual lawyer here, how does it work in the US when the core of the civil tort is an alleged criminal act? Like say someone burned my house down, the police think they don't have evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a criminal conviction but I think I might have a "preponderance of evidence" to win in civil court. It certainly sounds like I'd sue for arson...

And the other question, if say a person was shot dead during a bank robbery, how many could the victim's family sue? The robbers themselves, of course. Anyone in a conspiracy. People aiding and abetting, people supplying like suppliers of illegal guns? The bank for defective alarms, cameras and metal detectors? The security guard for neglect or recklessly starting a shootout? Faulty bulletproof glass etc. that wasn't? Because this sounds like a major case of the butterfly effect, even if social media didn't do all they should it sounds quite removed from the actual terrorist killing.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[DRJlaw]

Since we have an actual lawyer here, how does it work in the US when the core of the civil tort is an alleged criminal act? Like say someone burned my house down, the police think they don't have evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a criminal conviction but I think I might have a "preponderance of evidence" to win in civil court. It certainly sounds like I'd sue for arson...

No, you're sue for "torts" such as destruction of property and intentional infliction of emotional distress. More to the point, you'd have to sue the gas station that sold the arsonist the gasoline for something such as negligence, which means that you'd have to prove that the gas station owed you a duty of care, that they beached that duty, that the breach caused your injury, and that there was actual damage. The mere fact that you partially blame the gas station for the arson isn't enough. Same thing in wrongful death situations.

You can go after everyone for everything that you perceive to have gone wrong (people and lawyers often do), but you're not going to succeed just because you blame them. You have to fit it into a recognized tort, which usually means that you have to show that someone owed you a duty of care, breached it, and that there was a sufficient causal connection to a concrete injury to you (or a close relative).

people supplying like suppliers of illegal guns?

Ah ha! The topical analogy rears its head. Let's sue Remington for manufacturing the gun. But the gun was legally manufactured and sold to Joe. Maybe Joe was a straw purchaser. Maybe Joe was a secret bank robber. Maybe Joe only later decided to rob banks. Who cares -- if Remington hadn't made those guns, this wouldn't have happened. So Congress enacts things like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. You can't sue Remington for manufacturing and lawfully selling a gun that later ends up being used in a crime. Just like the Communications Decency Act says that you can't sue a service provider for providing a lawful service that happens to be used by a terrorist.

Congress decided that allowing communities to post and exchange information was valuable, that requiring background investigations for Internet accounts was ridiculous, and that moderating material should be encouraged but couldn't feasibly be mandated. They passed section 230 of the CDA. And until that law is changed, the law says that nobody on the internet (except for the actual poster of information) is civilly liable to anyone else for things posted by others on the internet. End of story.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

These lawsuits are the work of ambulance chasing lawyers who take advantage of the victims families at their most vulnerable. I never see any lawyers traipsing into the ISIS International HQ to serve subpoenas to the people running the group of organized psychopaths and AK47 armed serial killers looking for 13 year old brides. Instead they approach the families and start trying to convince them the lawsuit is appropriate.

These are the type of lawsuits that will require every online company collecting and delivering content on the Internet to implement a robust censorship layer. And if they can't decide what should be censored they will ere on the side of caution and censor the information. After all if they make the wrong choice and don't censor something they can be hit with even more expensive lawsuits. Maybe they can go to NK and China and see how to effectively implement censorship so the poor and fragile public doesn't get offended or upset at the world surrounding them.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Kjella]

Thanks, easy read and very informative. One follow-up:

They passed section 230 of the CDA. And until that law is changed, the law says that nobody on the internet (except for the actual poster of information) is civilly liable to anyone else for things posted by others on the internet. End of story.

If it's so all-encompassing why do you need to follow USC 17/512 (c) and the DMCA take down procedures, aren't those about civil liability for ISPs?

Re:Won't go anywhere

[DRJlaw]

If it's so all-encompassing why do you need to follow USC 17/512 (c) and the DMCA take down procedures, aren't those about civil liability for ISPs.

My much longer answer was swallowed by the idiotic decision to have backspace function as both backspace and back-page in most browsers. Moronic.

The CDA and DMCA were being negotiated at roughly the same time and interlock in this respect. Also, the CDA says that a provider cannot be treated as the "publisher" or "speaker," but copyright law doesn't care - you're liable for reproducing and/or distributing, whether you published/spoke the post yourself or not.

The CDA therefore included a quasi-exception for intellectual property (47 USC 230(e)(2)), "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.") and the DMCA shortly afterward extended the CDA immunity concept by saying that there's no civil liability for copyright infringement so long as you follow the notice/takedown/counternotice/restore procedure, do not have "red flag" knowledge of specific infringements, and terminate service to repeat infringers. Note that if you've complied with the technicalities of the DMCA (register an agent with the copyright office!) and restored material after receiving a counternotice, you're not civilly liable just as you would have been under an exceptionless CDA.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[jamesjw]

Agreed, They might as well sue Apple for providing a phone that facilitated communications on said social media services, the car manufacturer who built a vehicle that allowed somebody with questionable intentions from starting the vehicle and those responsible for building the roads that allowed the attacker to get to their destination without obstruction.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[loufoque]

I don't think they're doing it for answers, they're just seizing an opportunity to make money.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wanted to chime in here and thank you for providing detailed answers!

Re:Won't go anywhere

[stealth_finger]

Isn't it a thing you can't sue whatever gun maker, or gun shop or bullet company or whoever in relation to a crime committed with their products, this should really be in the same boat.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Hognoxious]

the police think they don't have evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a criminal conviction but I think I might have a "preponderance of evidence" to win in civil court.

I don't know, but OJ Simpson probably does.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[tuxisthefuture]

Agreed, if they are able to sue social media companies for providing a platform for spouting their terrorist nonsense, where will it end? Sue HP for allowing terrorist plans to be printed on their device. Sue Microsoft for allowing Windows to be used on a terrorists laptop. Sue the paper manufacturer. Sue BIC for manufacturing the pen the terrorists used to make their notes. ...

Re: Won't go anywhere

[Wootery]

My money's on one too many coffees.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Wootery]

Given how toxic extremism is to advertisers, I really doubt Twitter thinks this way.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

And the other question, if say a person was shot dead during a bank robbery, how many could the victim's family sue? The robbers themselves, of course. Anyone in a conspiracy. People aiding and abetting, people supplying like suppliers of illegal guns? The bank for defective alarms, cameras and metal detectors? The security guard for neglect or recklessly starting a shootout? Faulty bulletproof glass etc. that wasn't? Because this sounds like a major case of the butterfly effect, even if social media didn't do all they should it sounds quite removed from the actual terrorist killing.

For a real life, very public example of this, see the OJ Simpson case from the 90s. He was acquitted of criminal charges but was found liable in the civil case. You ought to be able to find plenty of material on the case.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[thegarbz]

This has been the most interesting thread I've read on Slashdot for years. Thanks for your informative posts. This is getting bookmarked and referred to in the future.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

>No court would expect the operators of social networks to pour billions of dollars into moderating their platforms.

Congratulations, you've admitted that they're public utilities.

And they hate being called that. That means regulation out the ass.

> They can remove content when its found and reported

They don't. They know the IP ranges of suspected terrorists, and do nothing. No reports to the CIA, FBI, NSA, anything.

I personally don't think that they *should*, but as of right now, they're a private company with a monopoly, and nobody wants to break Facebook and Google up, so they should be public utilities, to me.

The Postal Service has a mail fraud division, and the FBI receives reports of suspicious packages all of the damn time.

> but it is completely unreasonable to expect the operators of social media platforms to keep their platforms free of terrorist material while at the same time keeping it open enough to be usable.

If anyone's asking them to be completely free of terrorist material, insult them for me, please. Making them public utilities would go a long way to fixing these problems (and many others).

Here's my logic - if you're a private company AND YOU OWN THE DATA that caused material harm to a person, you own your responsibility of that crime. That's aiding and abetting. Hell, if you provided a means of financing, now we're talking about money laundering and/or tax liability, or material means of support.

Facebook and Google cannot claim common carrier status if they own and track everything that you do on their services and platforms.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. It is rare to read something, especially by someone who knows what they are writing about. Thank you, DRJLaw for your insight on this.

Re: Won't go anywhere

[Maritz]

Soylent News. Now, fuck off.

Re: Won't go anywhere

[Maritz]

BTW: I'm a lawyer,

You should read all of a post that you're slagging off, helps to avoid looking stupid like this.

Re: Won't go anywhere

[Maritz]

Somewhat bizarre writing style you have there. Don't have much of an idea where you sit on any of this. But thanks anyway.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Maritz]

Twitter, in a desperate attempt to keep their userbase growing, allowed every islamist and neo-nazi to open a dozen sock puppet accounts. They do have responsibility for this. Hey, investors, don't worry, we added another million users, we're still relevant, of course 20% of them were just bots controlled by ISIS and white nationalists, but don't mind that!

Your conjecture is... unconvincing.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[martinfb]

There's much more to this...

There is that "Freedom of Speech" thing that is fundamental to a free society.

Re:Won't go anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, easy read and very informative.

Unlike most other things written by lawyers...

And what next?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are going to sue manufacturer of the SUV which was used by terrorists to escape?

Re: And what next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple for not unlocking the phones the FBI wants them to

Re:And what next?

[mfh]

They are going to sue manufacturer of the SUV which was used by terrorists to escape?

I take your point but a vehicle is very different from a communication platform.

The manufacturer of the SUV relinquishes control of the vehicle to the licensed purchaser. The communications platform stays in communication and continues an ongoing relationship with those who could misuse it.

An example of this is if a hostile government used a private company to rig or influence an election with hate speech or false news. The owner of the communication infrastructure used is responsible to take appropriate measures to prevent the misuse of the platform through active moderation of said platform because they are taking part by continuing to profit from this misuse.

The same is not true for a cell provider because the use of the cellphone is private whereas the communication platform is public.

Re: And what next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or sue the backbone operators for allowing the traffic to flow over the Internet. Maybe the DNS providers up to the root servers? Or the companies responsible for having the terrorists as customers to get in the Internet. Maybe the cellphone companies for allowing them to communicate. The chip makers for all the devices. Surely they can be sued as well. Our society is overly litigious and that is costing us more dearly than the physical acts of the terrorists. The reactive actions we make are letting the terrorists win.

Re:And what next?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would make more sense to sue the manufacturers of the weapons used - or the people that modified them illegally.

Re: And what next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly. Backbones don't examine or publish packets. Stupid liberal thinking.

Lol. Using the communitive property like a communists. Lol.

Re: And what next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reactive actions? You mean reactions?

Re:And what next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not, the Clinton administration tried putting firearms manufacturers out of business by having them sued for criminal use of their products.

Re:And what next?

[Anonymous Coward]

How did that pan out?

Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope every one of these family members is sued into bankruptcy.

Re: Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome comment, so you hate people whose loved ones have slaughtered? Or just those who litigate?

Yes

[cheesybagel]

Let's just enact martial law nationwide. These dangerous things named "streets" are places were criminals can meet and gather.

Re:Yes

[martinfb]

Right! Call in our own terrorists!

While we are at it

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we should sue Hillary Clinton and George Bush because they are the ones that really made ISIS take off.

Section 230 of the Community Decency Act

[ameyer17]

Doesn't the Communications Decency Act give social media companies immunity in cases like this?

Re:Section 230 of the Community Decency Act

[schwit1]

There is a bill making its way through congress that would chip away at section 230 for sex trafficking. I would expect another that deals with aiding organizations on the terror watch list.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/04...

Re:Section 230 of the Community Decency Act

[Qzukk]

So they'll finally shut down pizzerias for selling "cheese pizza" which, as we all know, is a code word for child porn?

Re:Section 230 of the Community Decency Act

[ubrgeek]

Please don't tell me what "extra toppings" is code for ...

Good. Squeeze 'Em for All They Got

[RobotRunAmok]

These outfits pretend they are some kind of common carrier until they realize there is more money being content creators (and competing with their customers) until they realize there is more money in selling and analyzing users' data until they realize such intimate knowledge of their users' data makes them liable for distribution of terrorist materials and then they pretend to be some kind of common carrier again...

They already censor

[Anonymous Coward]

These companies already censor content, search results, trending topics to fit their agenda and preferred narrative . Let's not pretend that they don't.... no one could possibly be that naive.

This is merely forcing them to modify the narrative that they're pushing into their user's headspace.

Re:They already censor

[Anonymous Coward]

These companies already censor content, search results, trending topics to fit their agenda and preferred narrative.

Exactly, and that censoring opens up legal liability loopholes.

Re:They already censor

[Anonymous Coward]

These companies already censor content, search results, trending topics to fit their agenda and preferred narrative

Don't mix up the ideological preferences of the users to that of the companies, or to the economic realities. The US is not under marshal law and you are not governed by a nazi/communist party.

Ludicrous

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure they:
- Used public roads.
- Used electricity.
- Used petroleum.
- Used Apple Maps or Google Maps.
- Used a cell phone company.
- Bought stuff at Walmart, Target, etc.
- Maybe even had food at Chipotle.

Let's sue them all because they all aided the enemy!

Maybe instead we should tolerate ALL free speech and not blame everyone in between. I hate Facebook (and Zuckerdouche with a passion), but FB is not to blame.

Re:Ludicrous

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but petrolem electricity etc are equal access. They do not exercise content-based censorship. Once you start to exercise control over the content of what people say, you become responsible for that content. Either pass it all through as a common carrier, or be held accountable for what your users say. You can't have it both ways as happens to be convenient at any moment.

Re:Ludicrous

[Anonymous Coward]

come on now, twitter has banned people's accounts for being rude to that fat black lady from the new ghostbusters, but they can't be bothered to ban the accounts of active recruiters for terrorist groups? yeah, ok.

Try suing the CIA....

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they are the ones who created this crap and continue to use al-quaeda/isis as their proxy army/boogie man in the middle east.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/737430/CIA-ISIS-Wikileaks-Carter-Cables-III-Julian-Assange

http://www.topinfopost.com/2014/09/30/isis-completely-fabricated-enemy-by-us-former-cia-contractor

golf clap

[Hognoxious]

the explosive growth of IS

I see what you did there.

Pandora's box

[fluffernutter]

Social media is a bad idea for humanity in the first place. Since it's too late to close that Pandora's box, we really have to take what comes of it. You make a gun, some people will use it to kill. You make a giant communication platform, some terrorists will use it. It is up to people whether they want these things to be allowed in their society or not. Once we are allowed them there is little that can be done about the ramifications.

Re:Pandora's box

[Anonymous Coward]

Why'd the pull Infowars' ad money but allow ISIS terrorists and violent ISLAM videos to get ad money then? Explain that. All I've ever seen Infowars do is show things like Soros saying "I am a god. I want to bring down the USA. I was a Nazi collaborator who led my own fellow Jews into Hitler's clutches" with a video of him saying it trying FAKE NEWS bs like paying off subversive groups to divide the USA and to get us to fight one another via payoffs https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Soros+paid%22&sa=G&hl=en&gbv=1&sei=3pIMWf34AoSkmwGvs6DwDw/ (Women's groups (odd championing sharia law where women are treated as chattel property/slaves), BLM, Antifa are ALL on soros' payrolls. They don't believe in him. They're only taking his cash. Most are poor students etc. is why). Not crap like mainstream media does like "Russians hacked the election" with no proof and with the msm later saying "they influenced it with bots" but it was Shillary Clinton caught using bots https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Hillary%22+and+%22bots%22&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1/

Re:Pandora's box

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that social media is a bad idea. Social media sites were created to collect and sell what should be people's private information. However, when people use social media, it is used as a service, a tool to communicate with others. A tool can be used for good or evil.

A wrench can be used for its intended purpose, or to beat someone to death. Its not the tool's fault, or the manufacturer of the tool's fault that someone misuses it!

Re:Pandora's box

[admin7087]

The crucial problem with all those cases is that so many people argue radically on the basis of false dichotomies rather than opting for reasonable, though perhaps boring middle grounds. Closing down Daesh twitter accounts and Daesh Facebook pages is just a reasonable thing to do, and no, it doesn't inevitably lead to some slippery slope that automatically turns the world into a fascist dictatorship. It's a matter of balancing Pros and Cons and implementing good mechanisms for the balancing of powers and taking them away from single individuals, not of binary choices.

Never listen to people who see the world only in black and white, it's a telltale sign of being small and narrow minded.

Re:Pandora's box

[fluffernutter]

How would you prevent them from simply turning around an opening another account the next day?

since it's the US and it's Allies running ISIS..

[Anonymous Coward]

.. this stands no chance of going anywhere.

only if they act as common carriers

[Anonymous Coward]

if the social media giants are simply carriers of traffic, then they are under the shield.

if the social media giants perform editorial functions of their content, then they could theoretically become liable.

depending on the judge and the lawyers involved.

considering that facebook has an algorithm, and that algorithm is written by people, we could be in a gray area of the law not considered when the original laws were created that provided shields for ISPs back in the day. it is one thing to say you are not responsible for the content created by your customers.

it is another thing to say you have an algorithm that organizes and modifies the data of your customers, and that this is the core of your business model. FedEx and AT&T, the typical examples used when these laws were written, never collected massive databases of customer traffic so they could modify that traffic in a way that exploits it for profit.

By modification here I mean the generation of 'feeds', the choosing of what gets promoted, what gets displayed, what gets recommended.

The companies are caught in a bind. If they are truly common carriers of traffic then they are essentially in a commodity business with low profit margin.

If they become more than common carrier, by editing traffic, they open themselves up to liability.

Re: only if they act as common carriers

[nasch]

No way organizing others' content on their sites exposes them to liability.

Good. Shut them all down NOW!

[Anonymous Coward]

and the world will be a better place.

Oh, and the US Immigration Goons won't be able to ask you for your creds when coming into the 'Land of the Free'.

Good: The Way Forward.

[lbalbalba]

This is the *only* way we can even hope to held the enablers responsible for their actions: financially.

Re:Good: The Way Forward.

[CanadianMacFan]

Well then why not sue the country responsible for setting up the conditions that enabled ISIS to be formed in the first place?

Re: Good: The Way Forward.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Mohammad wasn't a country, he was a goat fucker. And you can't sue dead goat fuckers.

Re:Good: The Way Forward.

[Anonymous Coward]

Never gonna happen.

Re:Good: The Way Forward.

[lbalbalba]

Well then why not sue the country responsible for setting up the conditions that enabled ISIS to be formed in the first place?

Well that would actually be a good idea. The only problem with it is that there is no *single* country responsible here. The entire world (including but not limited to the 'western' and 'islamic' country's) just stood by and let this happen. When the civil war broke out in Syria ~6-ish years ago, it should have been stopped right there and then. Instead, *everyone* had this 'not my problem' attitude, decided to turn away, and let it foster. In fact, the 'western' country's didn't even start caring about the issue whatsoever until the problem literally landed on their doorsteps, with refugees and terrorist attacks. Oh, *now* they want to solve it. And even now the proposed solution isn't even stopping the warfare in Syria and returning the country to a stable state: It is sought in stopping the refugees and terrorists from entering the 'western' country's; who gives a fuck what they do in Syria. 'Not my problem'.

Re:Good: The Way Forward.

[david_thornley]

Are you seriously advocating that the US and other Western countries should pick winners and losers in civil war, and send troops in to enforce that? That's the sort of thing that got us into a lot of this mess in the first place.

Re:Good: The Way Forward.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously advocating that terrorist attacks should be allowed for, instead of being stopped at the root cause ? That's the sort of thing that got us into a lot of this mess in the first place.

Sue Religion?

[Murdoch5]

Instead of blaming Social Media, why not get rid of the root problem, religion? in 2017 we still have adults who think invisible, non-existent men in the sky, actually exist and have a plan for them. It's fair to say if you follow any kind of organized religion, you are a child, an immature, irrational, illogical child, trapped in adults body. ISIS is purely the cause of immature adults, who think God exists, PERIOD!

Re:Sue Religion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, no one has seriously believed in religion in like a 100 years. Religions are a social network, that is all. If you weren't so autistic, you'd be able to see this.

Re:Sue Religion?

[Anonymous Coward]

The root problem is not religion, it's disenfranchisement (for local-grown) and legitimate obvious blowback from spending decades destabilizing foreign governments and accidentally killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Re:Sue Religion?

[Anonymous Coward]

You couldn't be more wrong. The real root is some humans being assholes. That's not related and not correlating with religion. Some religions are perfectly peaceful and you don't need to be religious to be an asshole. Even ISIS is barely religious, it's just an excuse they use.

Re:Sue Religion?

[Anonymous Coward]

So how do you propose to achieve getting rid of religion?

If it involves fines, imprisonment, torture, labor camps, reeducation, or outright murder, count me out. That would just make you as bad as IS. But a great communist.

Re:Sue Religion?

[bobmajdakjr]

didn't trump just sign some thing last week to purposely let religion do this? >_>

Re:Sue Religion?

[Murdoch5]

Well I'm in Canada but yes, he signed a bill or order that lets religious people discriminate against others, because they have an invisible, non-existent friend.

Re:Sue Religion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Missing defendant. Case dismissed.

It's fair to say if you follow any kind of organized religion

As opposed to believing some random "spiritual" consumerist experiences? I don't know it that would be any better. The superstitions are deep even in today's world and it will take a long time and hard work to fix the damage done by not having a working school and general education systems, and a government capable of defending and funding them.

Re:Sue Religion?

[drinkypoo]

So how do you propose to achieve getting rid of religion?

All it takes is education. The statistics show it over and over again. That's why the republicans are always trying to punch education in the nuts. About the only way they can get voters is to scream about the morality they themselves lack. And the only way to make people care about some antiquated notions of morality invented to control people is to make them religious.

Re:Sue Religion?

[CanadianMacFan]

The bill lets people who have the same invisible, non-existent friend as the president and most of the rest of the elected government (who are supposed to keep church and state separate) to discriminate against people who have a different invisible, non-existent friend. However it is still wrong for those other people with the different invisible, non-existent friend to discriminate against people who have the same invisible, non-existent friend as the president.

Please note that some people do have the same invisible, non-existent friend as the president but it's okay to discriminate against them because they read from a book that has most of the same information as the president's book but tells it in a bit different way.

Re:Sue Religion?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are so many people still do, dude. You need to get our your mom's basement to see the world.

Re:Sue Religion?

[Pseudonym]

Instead of blaming Social Media, why not get rid of the root problem, religion?

If we didn't kill each other over gods, we'd kill each other over economic systems or text editors. People require a good excuse to be bad people, but it doesn't really matter what the excuse is.

The second Iraq war was fought on the pretext of "freedom" and "democracy". How about we get rid of those? That'd fix the problem, right?

Re:Sue Religion?

[david_thornley]

I know some well-educated people who are religiously very devout. One of them blows up at people who annoy him too much while remaining theologically correct.

What education is likely to do is reduce the role of religion in governance, which I consider a Good Thing about education. Organized religion and politics should not mix.

Re:Sue Religion?

[david_thornley]

Frighteningly, there are those far from the Light who use neither vim nor emacs. Obviously we need a crusade or two.

Seriously, if you look back in history, revolutionary movements often tended to adopt a local heresy as justification for their actions and to provide a bigger "us-them" boundary. The battles between Spain and the Ottomans for control of the Mediterranean in the 1500s were easily justified as Christian vs. Muslim, but they were mostly just Great Power struggles.

Re:Sue Religion?

[Pseudonym]

Yup, that's very accurate. My point is that pretext heresies don't have to be religious.

Not a logical argument.

[Gravis Zero]

I'm not fan of social networking but I realize that they are just tools for communication. By their logic, everyone that has forwarded communication technologies (e.g. telephones and internet) has also enabled them. Social networking isn't a weapon, it cannot hurt people. Perhaps they should go after the people who do sell things that are used exclusively to hurt people.

Re:Not a logical argument.

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the thread, fuckhead. Once Facebook and Twitter started censoring content they stopped being a "common carrier" and are now in the content curation business, and as such are responsible for the terror groups using their platform.

Lawsuit going away quickly

[Afty0r]

This lawsuit won't last long. When the NSA and CIA have a vested interest in having Islamists out in the open and posting on well-known networks, there will have been many times they asked Twitter, Google and Facebook for communications, to leave accounts open etc to monitor contributors. For this reason, this suit will go nowhere. The agencies don't want the tech companies to admit it, the tech companies don't want to admit it, and the agencies REALLY don't want eavesdropping tools to be taken away from them. Primarily for this last reason, nothing will happen here.

Might have a basis for Twitter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter has been shutting down accounts of anyone it doesn't like politically, but hasn't done anything about the ISIS propaganda accounts.

It may not have a defense if sued.

Re:Might have a basis for Twitter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter has been shutting down accounts of anyone it doesn't like politically.....

Why is Trump's account still active?

Sue the water company

[avandesande]

If they didn't provide water to terrorists, how could they survive?

Also Oxygen

[Dishevel]

Oxygen has also been sued for helping to keep terrorists alive.

Re:Also Oxygen

[Pseudonym]

Emit more carbon for great good!

It is the family's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the family's fault they died. It was obvious these coworkers were muslims. They never should have pretended the muslims aren't part of a death cult.

The office workers must have been too liberal to see it coming. Sadly I don't think Californistan has learned its lesson.

Inexplicable

[hackel]

I've never understood the common reaction of those grieving from a tragedy to demand *financial compensation*. Their family members died, not them! Why do they think they are entitled to money at all? The only explanation is that they are greedy bastards who only care about themselves and see an opportunity to take advantage of the tragic situation. It's sickening.

It would be one thing if they were taking a stand to fight against an unjust system, but they're not doing that at all. They should all be ashamed of themselves. I'm sure they're already working out book deals and film rights to milk it even further. Pathetic.

Re:Inexplicable

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You couldn't conceive any other motive? You have no imagination.

I'll try to stimulate it. Imagine the day to day of it. Your family member is murdered. You have to take time off work. Have funerals. The press constantly wants to talk to you. Many months go by and your life is havoc. Finally, things settle down, and you have a minute to grieve. Still not really that easy to go back to work. Could take years before they end up feeling like normal person again.

That isn't worth financial compensation?

That being said. I can't imagine an argument where Facebook, etc. are actually somehow liable. I've read all the comments and so far it seems no one else can imagine it either.

Re:Inexplicable

[R3d M3rcury]

Their family members died, not them!

Well, there are two ways to look at it.

First, if I'm contributing money to my family and I'm unable to do so because I'm killed, it's reasonable to expect the person who killed me to be responsible for that. Second, the lifeblood of corporations is money--you can't put a company in jail. So how else do you control corporations that are ultimately only interested in money?

Don't get me wrong--it sounds like lawyers decided that they might hit a payday so they're giving it a shot.

Re:Inexplicable

[sumdumass]

Many state's laws require the executor of an estate (person closing a deceased person's life and distributing the property and all in either intestate deaths or those with a will) to pursue any wrongful death claims there might be or end up liable themselves for any missed claims. In a lot of situations, it is not up to the people being greedy but following the law.

That being said, I'm not sure this is one of those cases. It may be but I have not invested any time in researching it. But this is California, the inventor of the telephone book lawsuit where they just flip to a page and put their finger on a number in order to claim damages for pulling someone out of a burning car where they would surely perish and scraping their skin while doing it.

Re: Inexplicable

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah, I know someone in California who did rescue someone from a burning vehicle but neither party sued the other. So basically you are disparaging CA without basis.

Re: Inexplicable

[sumdumass]

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/s...

All you would have to do is google for it. Sigh.. you youngsters..

How about...?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sue islam and moslems instead of Social Media companies? They are the ones spreading this vile cancer called islam.

Who's helping ISIS?

[fustakrakich]

Chances are it's your various governments, American, European, Russia etc. As usual it's just business.

Here this is just plain old scapegoating to control the medium and individual communications. Standard stuff. You go with what works.

This approach can't work

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened in this incident was horrific, I truly feel for the families and friends affected by this.

I disagree with this approach -- as much as Facebook and others would like to be omniscient and have ways of predicting people's behavior, this isn't likely to happen. You wouldn't, for example, sue your internet provider because they provided a medium by which someone harassed you, or hacked your computer -- doesn't make sense.

That being said, on some level I can appreciate where these folks want someone to be held accountable. But going after the service providers won't bring about that peace. But I do hope these families find peace, as they of all people deserve it.
 

The sue the guns makers

[Anonymous Coward]

Without guns "the explosive growth of IS over the last few years into the most feared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible".

Wait! Sue the gun manufacturer

[Anonymous Coward]

oh wait .. that never works.

Frivolous

[NormanHaga2580]

This is a silly and frivolous lawsuit that appears to be intended only to draw nuisance settlements from the companies. I hope Google, Twitter, and Facebook not only fight but seek legal costs for have to fight such a meritless case.

We will be fighting this war until...

[Zombie Ryushu]

Saudi Arabia falls and the Sunni Wahabi Jihadist movement is crushed.

Saudi Arabia is the "Nazi Germany" of the War on Terrorism. ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and all these terrorist groups are actually Saudi front Armies. The people suing FaceBook, Google, etc. are actually suing free speech.

Stopping what's going on would require basically every country in the world to stop fighting over fossil fuels, invest in renewable resources that do not come from the middle east, and developing weapons that make the Jihadists incapable of hurting us, such as Force fields in Vehicles, and Air craft they can't shoot down. The step after that is to tell the Saudi Royal Family that started this, its over.

Sue the pavement companies.

[Anonymous Coward]

ISIS uses roads to conduct attacks.

Re:Apply "$" pressure: Boycott their ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Yawn, APK. Is still usingblast centuries ad blocking, just as he promotes last centuries ideas, poor thing, the slide to irrelevance is really butt hurting him.

Web & Security pros + nations support me

[Anonymous Coward]

Oliver Day (SYMANTEC/SECURITYFOCUS):

http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster"

"More recently, projects like Spybot Search & Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans & other forms of malware"

OReilly hosts security -> http://oreilly.com/pub/a/windo... & speed -> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/...

Steve Gibson endorses hosts https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-045....

Aryeh Goretsky/ESET/NOD32: hosts = good security http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Malwarebytes hpHosts' hosts/RECOMMENDS me!

Brocke Wilders of WILDERS' SECURITY does inferior clone of MY work http://www.wilderssecurity.com...

APK

P.S.=> China = imitation = flattery too http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/

And why not get rid of all the nonwhite people too

[Anonymous Coward]

>call God funny names
>shame and insult followers

Am I being enlightened and intellectual yet?

/.ers also support me... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell

his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

I've never tried to belittle (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

take a look at the APK hosts file engine by SuperKendall

APK is kinda right. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

I like your host file system by Karmashock

I find your hosts file admirable by vel-ex-tech

* My code's liked + recommended & hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

APK

P.S.=> Between web/security pros & nations https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10579917&cid=54373655/ hosts & myself = relevant unlike UNIDENTIFIABLE ac you, lol... apk

Also Farmers

[Anonymous Coward]

Farmers grow the food that keep terrorists alive! Farmers are the hidden Fifth Column in our midst!

The farmers must pay for their passive, terroristic supporting ways. Why farmers, why do you do this?

Just sue all ISP's while you're at it!

[TheGrimmReaper]

After all, THEY let the bad guys ON TO the Internet! I'm sorry, I feel for these people but come on...

litigious fecal matter

[bitterblackale]

Why not also sue the manufacturer of the weapons they used? Why not sue the auto manufacturer who made the car they drove in? Why not sue the farmers who grew the cotton used to make their clothing - because no self-respecting jihadist likes going on a shooting rampage while naked.

Apply "$" pressure: Boycott their ads

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Ads/script & malware rob speed/security/privacy

Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirects (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + lightens DNS load & resolves faster from local system RAM!

* Via what u NATIVELY have in the IP stack in FASTER kernelmode!

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

Better sue the car company, just to be safe.

[NoSalt]

Better sue the company that made the vehicle the shooters used to go to and from the attack. Also better sue the gun manufacturers for making the weapons the shooters used. While we're at it, we should sue Walmart and some other stores for providing food and clothing to keep the shooters alive until they could kill their victims. Lastly, sue the people who rented the shooters their apartment that kept them safely sheltered until they were able to go on their rampage.

Farook's wife was never "radicalized" on facebook

[Rujiel]

The israel-based SITE intelligence group, which was the source for all those weirdly well-produced "ISIS" videos in 2014, was the source of the claim that Farook's wife was radicalized in a private jihadist Facebook group that SITE had magically joined and had happened to be monitoring before the San Bernadino attack. SITE never provised evidence for this claim, but the media ran it, anyway. Anyone claiming ISIS has an effective social media front is full of shit.