John Stossel sues Facebook for allegedly defaming him with fact-check(hollywoodreporter.com)
hollywoodreporter.com
John Stossel sues Facebook for allegedly defaming him with fact-check
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/john-stossel-sues-facebook-1235019248/
239 comments
If burning a flag is speach, then so is shadow banning, deplatforming, cancelling, and the whole lot.
If that speach is defamation, then it should also be actionable.
If that speach is defamation, then it should also be actionable.
Wow, this is a great point that I hadn't previously considered. These platforms can even conceivably get away with content removal more easily as ToS violations without stepping over the line to become publishers. But if one considers a fact-check as its own content, then that may become a defining point in a future ruling or examination of 230.
I imagine there's a great case to be made that fact checks are platform sponsored content (if a fact check is viewed as an analysis of the content along with verdict [ie. "Misleading"], easy to view that similarly to the plethora of analysis content [reviews, summaries, etc] populating all social media platforms). I'm fascinated to see how this will play out.
I imagine there's a great case to be made that fact checks are platform sponsored content (if a fact check is viewed as an analysis of the content along with verdict [ie. "Misleading"], easy to view that similarly to the plethora of analysis content [reviews, summaries, etc] populating all social media platforms). I'm fascinated to see how this will play out.
There is no platform/publisher distinction in the law. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 [1] was originally meant to be a carve out to allow websites to host comment sections without being considered the "speaker" of those comments and thereby being subjected to the speech restrictions in the rest of the law. The rest of the law has since been struck down.
When people are mad about 230, what they're really mad about is the 1st Amendment.
Is Facebook the speaker when it applies a fact check? Maybe but it doesn't matter much with respect to 230 offers minimal protection beyond the 1st Amendment. And as others have stated, the bar for libel against public figures is VERY high in the US.
[1]https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
When people are mad about 230, what they're really mad about is the 1st Amendment.
Is Facebook the speaker when it applies a fact check? Maybe but it doesn't matter much with respect to 230 offers minimal protection beyond the 1st Amendment. And as others have stated, the bar for libel against public figures is VERY high in the US.
[1]https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
> When people are mad about 230, what they're really mad about is the 1st Amendment.
Exactly. Facebook are exercising their 1A rights to call him misleading. This is not complicated.
Exactly. Facebook are exercising their 1A rights to call him misleading. This is not complicated.
1A doesn't protect you from libel laws.
The bar for proving libel is so incredibly high in the United States, it's generally easier for a man to jump to the moon than for a public figure to file and win a libel case.
"People said damaging things about me" is just one of the conditions that have to be met.
"People said damaging things about me" is just one of the conditions that have to be met.
Yeah the whole 230 discussions is at best naive and at worst a cynical attack on 1A rights by no nothing dead enders and authoritarian leftists. The same coalition that brought you the drug war, the satanic panic, and the global war on terror.
Uh, both the War on Drugs and War on Terror were started by Republican presidents (Satanic Panic is a little harder to unravel), with broad support (at the time, anyway) on both sides of the aisle. If you're going to spout nonsense, at least pick examples consistent with your nonsense.
The current president was both the author of the notorious crime bill and the precursor to the patriot act. He did this in alliance with lawmakers from the nominally opposing party.
I just want to point out that the person you're responding to did not refer to this coalition they're describing as belonging to any political party.
> But if one considers a fact-check as its own content, then that may become a defining point in a future ruling or examination of 230
I believe that is why they, and other platforms in a similar position, use 3rd party "fact checkers." To try to legally skirt that. "It's not our content/fact check, it's from this unbiased third party. Don't look at us." They seem to have borrowed "plausible deniability" from some 3 letter agencies since it legally works well for them.
> To fight the spread of misinformation and provide people with more reliable information, Facebook partners with independent third-party fact-checkers that are certified through the non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). Since we do not believe that a private company like Facebook should be the arbiters of truth, we rely on fact-checkers to identify, review and rate potential misinformation across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Their work enables us to take action and reduce the spread of problematic content across our apps.
https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/programs/third-pa...
I believe that is why they, and other platforms in a similar position, use 3rd party "fact checkers." To try to legally skirt that. "It's not our content/fact check, it's from this unbiased third party. Don't look at us." They seem to have borrowed "plausible deniability" from some 3 letter agencies since it legally works well for them.
> To fight the spread of misinformation and provide people with more reliable information, Facebook partners with independent third-party fact-checkers that are certified through the non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). Since we do not believe that a private company like Facebook should be the arbiters of truth, we rely on fact-checkers to identify, review and rate potential misinformation across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Their work enables us to take action and reduce the spread of problematic content across our apps.
https://www.facebook.com/journalismproject/programs/third-pa...
Facebook is careful about this. On the fact check in question, Facebook only says "Missing Context" and "Independent fact-checkers say this information is missing context and could mislead people." Only if you click through to the independent site do you see a specific claim labeled as misleading: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores...
If Facebook paste “this information is missing context and could mislead people” under every single post/story, it would still stand true but it would be bad for the business.
That's true, I guess, but we're discussing legal issues here. I think that would still be legal even though it would be dumb.
If they were to do it to every post, they probably wouldn't be libeling anyone, but if they do it selectively, I think they may be guilt of libel.
As an example, imagine that Yelp or AngelList posted "beware: this business may be perpetuating a fraud". If they did it to every business, it would be a general warning, not singling it out; but if they did it to a small proportion of businesses, and it turned out that many of the 'targets' were not committing fraud, it would be libel.
As an example, imagine that Yelp or AngelList posted "beware: this business may be perpetuating a fraud". If they did it to every business, it would be a general warning, not singling it out; but if they did it to a small proportion of businesses, and it turned out that many of the 'targets' were not committing fraud, it would be libel.
Only if there was evidence of malice.
It seems like there would be evidence of willful blindness, which is more or less equivalent to malice.
This is probably not up to the legal standard, but I suspect you know that. There are valid reasons to not support big tech, but is this case really one that you want to advocate?
I don't have anything in particular against 'big tech', but this (Facebook) case does seem like an example of (enabling) libel via willful blindness to me. I also think Yelp and other sites are close to, or past that line as well (in how they enable extortion of many small businesses by fraudulent 'reviews').
Merriam-Webster defines "Willful Blindness" as:
>"deliberate failure to make a reasonable inquiry of wrongdoing (as drug dealing in one's house) despite suspicion or an awareness of the high probability of its existence"
The case law would also appear to go against Facebook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Aimster_Copyright_Litiga...
Merriam-Webster defines "Willful Blindness" as:
>"deliberate failure to make a reasonable inquiry of wrongdoing (as drug dealing in one's house) despite suspicion or an awareness of the high probability of its existence"
The case law would also appear to go against Facebook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Aimster_Copyright_Litiga...
Am I missing something (IANAL), or is that case about copyright infringement?
I guess we'll find out whether or not this case against FB will move forward, but I'd be willing to put down a wager that FB will prevail. Are you equally confident in your position?
I guess we'll find out whether or not this case against FB will move forward, but I'd be willing to put down a wager that FB will prevail. Are you equally confident in your position?
That case was indeed about copyright infringement, but:
>"Courts have held that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves, from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances, understanding that those who behave in such manner should be treated as those who had actual knowledge.
I will bet on anything, but only at odds which result in a positive expected outcome. The question is what terms and odds you're giving.
>"Courts have held that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves, from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances, understanding that those who behave in such manner should be treated as those who had actual knowledge.
I will bet on anything, but only at odds which result in a positive expected outcome. The question is what terms and odds you're giving.
So he then proceeds to sue the fact-checkers. There is definitely liability here from which social media have been shielded so far
The fact checker is included in the lawsuit.
Yes, it seems pretty obvious they are free to fact check if they want to but they also become responsible of all these new fact check contents they push.
Only if the fact checkers acted maliciously. Just like how when people say false things, they generally aren't held accountable for it. [1] Why are you so eager to hold fact checkers to a higher legal standard than the people they are responding to?
It would truly be a bizarre universe if saying things that are damaging to other people were permitted, but fact-checking those statements were not. Fortunately, we don't live in such a universe.
[1] If they were, most of our political class would be in prison.
It would truly be a bizarre universe if saying things that are damaging to other people were permitted, but fact-checking those statements were not. Fortunately, we don't live in such a universe.
[1] If they were, most of our political class would be in prison.
That is interesting.
So... basically we are waiting until they get their fact checking wrong against a wrong person?
This must happen eventually.
But you could argue that so many public persons openly lie and even declare that "they can lie to public since they are not under oath", that it is hard to punish a company that tries to do right by fact checking a lot of falsehoods. It is reasonable to assume that when you correct a million falsehoods you will make some mistakes.
So... basically we are waiting until they get their fact checking wrong against a wrong person?
This must happen eventually.
But you could argue that so many public persons openly lie and even declare that "they can lie to public since they are not under oath", that it is hard to punish a company that tries to do right by fact checking a lot of falsehoods. It is reasonable to assume that when you correct a million falsehoods you will make some mistakes.
Certain famous persons are expected to lie, so it wouldn’t injure their reputation in the way that (the above) defamation is defined. A politician, for example, might pursue such a case only for publicity.
To be clear, if it's a public figure, then just getting the fact checking wrong is not enough to be defamation. There has to be "actual malice" which BASICALLY just means they knew they were wrong or should have known they were wrong. If they can show that they were just following the information that was publicly available then they can make mistakes without losing a lawsuit.
There are some infamous blog posts that will tell you that 230 protects websites no matter what happens. But when bad things happen and the law protects bad actors, then it's a bad law.
The current case doesn't really have anything to do with Section 230 that I can see. Section 230 protects Facebook from being sued for what other people post on their website. It doesn't impact content that they themselves create. If Facebook publishes an illegal blog post or attaches its own content... I mean, it would at least need to make a case that it wasn't making the fact check itself, that this was an API or something.
I'm not sure if they could pull that off or not. But in any case, Section 230 has never been a blanket law that says websites can't be sued for anything. It shields them from liability for 3rd-party content, that's it.
Realistically, the reason this lawsuit is probably going to fail is because it doesn't look like the fact check in question is actually defamation. I'm not a lawyer, maybe Stossel will surprise me. But my immediate take is that I think he has a weaker case than Owens', and her defamation claims got pretty solidly rejected, and not for any 230 reasons.
I'm not sure if they could pull that off or not. But in any case, Section 230 has never been a blanket law that says websites can't be sued for anything. It shields them from liability for 3rd-party content, that's it.
Realistically, the reason this lawsuit is probably going to fail is because it doesn't look like the fact check in question is actually defamation. I'm not a lawyer, maybe Stossel will surprise me. But my immediate take is that I think he has a weaker case than Owens', and her defamation claims got pretty solidly rejected, and not for any 230 reasons.
> The current case doesn't really have anything to do with Section 230 that I can see.
It does. Though NY Times v. Sullivan maybe has more to do with it, and the basic definition of defamation may have the most do with it.
> Section 230 protects Facebook from being sued for what other people post on their website. It doesn't impact content that they themselves create.
Facebook’s fact-check annotation facility, like its newsfeed, is, as I understand it, algorithmically-driven promotion of third-party submitted content.
It is not, in any case, first-party content (well, I mean the actual standarized portion of the annotation that links the article to the thing fact-checked is, but its association with a particular bit of content is driven by the third-party submission.)
> Realistically, the reason this lawsuit is probably going to fail is because it doesn't look like the fact check in question is actually defamation.
That's the most likely reason why it will fail against the creator of the fact check article. It’s failure against Facebook os overdetermined.
It does. Though NY Times v. Sullivan maybe has more to do with it, and the basic definition of defamation may have the most do with it.
> Section 230 protects Facebook from being sued for what other people post on their website. It doesn't impact content that they themselves create.
Facebook’s fact-check annotation facility, like its newsfeed, is, as I understand it, algorithmically-driven promotion of third-party submitted content.
It is not, in any case, first-party content (well, I mean the actual standarized portion of the annotation that links the article to the thing fact-checked is, but its association with a particular bit of content is driven by the third-party submission.)
> Realistically, the reason this lawsuit is probably going to fail is because it doesn't look like the fact check in question is actually defamation.
That's the most likely reason why it will fail against the creator of the fact check article. It’s failure against Facebook os overdetermined.
I'm interested as to whether the courts would consider this fact checking content as Facebook's or a third-party's. If the third party did not explicitly cause the content to be put in this specific "fact check" area, did they create it for the purpose of libel?
Going to an extreme: if Facebook pays Acme Fact check for some text that says "John is a bad lawyer" and facebook then posts that text on John's page, isnt Facebook liable whether or not they actually created the text? The text wasn't posted by Acme, it was posted by FBook.
Going to an extreme: if Facebook pays Acme Fact check for some text that says "John is a bad lawyer" and facebook then posts that text on John's page, isnt Facebook liable whether or not they actually created the text? The text wasn't posted by Acme, it was posted by FBook.
My bad, I didn't realize that Facebook's fact-checking worked that way, I thought this stuff was an in-house decision just using 3rd-party sources to help inform it. Thanks for the correction.
Given that information, I should revise: Section 230 will protect Facebook from liability for a 3rd-party-driven fact check, but even if it didn't this still doesn't look like it rises to the level of defamation for Facebook. So even if Section 230 was repealed, Facebook would still likely win this case (although Section 230 applicability will probably allow them to dismiss it faster).
I don't want people to think that this is obviously defamation, but Section 230 happens to be blocking Facebook from consequences. This being 3rd-party content makes Facebook's position much stronger, but I still think they would most likely win this case even if Zuckerberg himself had labeled the article as misleading under the direction of Facebook's board.
Given that information, I should revise: Section 230 will protect Facebook from liability for a 3rd-party-driven fact check, but even if it didn't this still doesn't look like it rises to the level of defamation for Facebook. So even if Section 230 was repealed, Facebook would still likely win this case (although Section 230 applicability will probably allow them to dismiss it faster).
I don't want people to think that this is obviously defamation, but Section 230 happens to be blocking Facebook from consequences. This being 3rd-party content makes Facebook's position much stronger, but I still think they would most likely win this case even if Zuckerberg himself had labeled the article as misleading under the direction of Facebook's board.
[deleted]
Rights protect everyone - including bad actors. Any definition of a bad law that includes rights as such is euphemistically referred to as a "different understanding".
Does nobody remember Blackstone's Principles these dats in their zeal to collect scalps? A good law is one which does not punish innocents - that should be where the lines are always drawn.
Does nobody remember Blackstone's Principles these dats in their zeal to collect scalps? A good law is one which does not punish innocents - that should be where the lines are always drawn.
230 is not a right, it's a special exception afforded to some businesses, and not to others (newspapers). i dont think it should be held that highly. It was a temporary measure to help the internet grow, now the internet IS the media of mass manipulation
>230 is not a right, it's a special exception afforded to some businesses
Yes, section 230 is not a right. But it is afforded to everyone[0]:
There is nothing in Section 230 that applies solely to big tech. Indeed, it applies to every website on the internet and every user of those websites. That means it applies to you, as well, and helps to protect your speech. It's what allows you to repeat something someone else said on Facebook and not be liable for it. It's what protects every website that has comments, or any other third-party content. It applies across the entire internet to every website and every user, and not just to big tech.
[0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
Yes, section 230 is not a right. But it is afforded to everyone[0]:
There is nothing in Section 230 that applies solely to big tech. Indeed, it applies to every website on the internet and every user of those websites. That means it applies to you, as well, and helps to protect your speech. It's what allows you to repeat something someone else said on Facebook and not be liable for it. It's what protects every website that has comments, or any other third-party content. It applies across the entire internet to every website and every user, and not just to big tech.
[0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
Whether the content is third-party or first-party is nowadays the same in the eyes of the end user. They 'll believe a moderated story on facebook or a moderated story on nytimes.com with almost equal frequency. Technicalities of the law aside, why the first is more equal then the other is baffling to me
>Whether the content is third-party or first-party is nowadays the same in the eyes of the end user.
Is it? As an end user, I am acutely aware that the above is from "cblconfederate" and not Hacker News.
>They 'll believe a moderated story on facebook or a moderated story on nytimes.com with almost equal frequency.
The question isn't whether or not "they" (whoever "they" might be) believe it, the question is "Who is the source of the story?"
If I say that you are a wife-beating, child-molesting, puppy-kicking monster, do you assume that Hacker News is responsible for that?
Once you answer that question, perhaps you'll understand things a little better.
Edit: Added context. Fixed punctuation.
Is it? As an end user, I am acutely aware that the above is from "cblconfederate" and not Hacker News.
>They 'll believe a moderated story on facebook or a moderated story on nytimes.com with almost equal frequency.
The question isn't whether or not "they" (whoever "they" might be) believe it, the question is "Who is the source of the story?"
If I say that you are a wife-beating, child-molesting, puppy-kicking monster, do you assume that Hacker News is responsible for that?
Once you answer that question, perhaps you'll understand things a little better.
Edit: Added context. Fixed punctuation.
[deleted]
> If I say that you are a wife-
If you sent the content to a newspaper and they posted it in the relevant section the newspaper would be liable. Those things aren't as distinct as they were made to be.
What i had in mind is the fact that on facebook you have a mix of posted newspaper articles (which are first-party elsewhere and thus someone may be legally liable for them) along with official/governmental first parties, politicians, heads of state, scientists , and random users most of which cannot be legally challenged, at all. And this is done intentionally because facebook has made great effort to get its users to read / post news articles so as to make itself a news source. Plus they apply filters and annotation to give the false impression that the information they provide is the "correct one". This is "publishing via moderating"
I think 230 makes a very basic ontological distinction between "people whose opinion matters/has impact and therefore must be regulated (press)" and "people whose opinion doesnt matter (random users)". That is not so. This allows malicious actors to hide behind "i'm just a user".
If you sent the content to a newspaper and they posted it in the relevant section the newspaper would be liable. Those things aren't as distinct as they were made to be.
What i had in mind is the fact that on facebook you have a mix of posted newspaper articles (which are first-party elsewhere and thus someone may be legally liable for them) along with official/governmental first parties, politicians, heads of state, scientists , and random users most of which cannot be legally challenged, at all. And this is done intentionally because facebook has made great effort to get its users to read / post news articles so as to make itself a news source. Plus they apply filters and annotation to give the false impression that the information they provide is the "correct one". This is "publishing via moderating"
I think 230 makes a very basic ontological distinction between "people whose opinion matters/has impact and therefore must be regulated (press)" and "people whose opinion doesnt matter (random users)". That is not so. This allows malicious actors to hide behind "i'm just a user".
>If you sent the content to a newspaper and they posted it in the relevant section the newspaper would be liable. Those things aren't as distinct as they were made to be.
You ignored the point. Which is I am responsible for what I say, regardless of where it's published online, not the platform that hosts my words.
>What i had in mind is the fact that on facebook you have a mix of posted newspaper articles (which are first-party elsewhere and thus someone may be legally liable for them) along with official/governmental first parties, politicians, heads of state, scientists , and random users most of which cannot be legally challenged, at all. And this is done intentionally because facebook has made great effort to get its users to read / post news articles. If it was just user posts people would have left.
Who says that "official/governmental first parties, politicians, heads of state, scientists , and random users" can't be legally challenged?
All section 230 does is keep you from suing the third party. You can sue any or all of the folks you mention every day of the week and twice on Sundays (okay, probably not at all on Sundays, as most civil courts in the US are closed on Sunday, but I trust you take my point).
>These assymetries no longer make sense imho. This is a new era where everyone, personally is a publisher.
And you can sue anyone and everyone for defamation if you wish. I'm sure your lawyer will absolutely adore you if you do. Just make sure that retainer check doesn't bounce!
>I think 230 makes a very basic ontological distinction between "people whose opinion matters/has impact and therefore must be regulated (press)" and "people whose opinion doesnt matter (random users)".
Actually, Section 230 makes no such distinction. If you are the party making the statement, Section 230 does not apply. Please see here[0] for more details.
[0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
You ignored the point. Which is I am responsible for what I say, regardless of where it's published online, not the platform that hosts my words.
>What i had in mind is the fact that on facebook you have a mix of posted newspaper articles (which are first-party elsewhere and thus someone may be legally liable for them) along with official/governmental first parties, politicians, heads of state, scientists , and random users most of which cannot be legally challenged, at all. And this is done intentionally because facebook has made great effort to get its users to read / post news articles. If it was just user posts people would have left.
Who says that "official/governmental first parties, politicians, heads of state, scientists , and random users" can't be legally challenged?
All section 230 does is keep you from suing the third party. You can sue any or all of the folks you mention every day of the week and twice on Sundays (okay, probably not at all on Sundays, as most civil courts in the US are closed on Sunday, but I trust you take my point).
>These assymetries no longer make sense imho. This is a new era where everyone, personally is a publisher.
And you can sue anyone and everyone for defamation if you wish. I'm sure your lawyer will absolutely adore you if you do. Just make sure that retainer check doesn't bounce!
>I think 230 makes a very basic ontological distinction between "people whose opinion matters/has impact and therefore must be regulated (press)" and "people whose opinion doesnt matter (random users)".
Actually, Section 230 makes no such distinction. If you are the party making the statement, Section 230 does not apply. Please see here[0] for more details.
[0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
> Which is I am responsible for what I say, regardless of where it's published online
I believe if it is published in one of those "letters from our readers" section (where the newspaper makes editorial decisions) then they are responsible, is that not so ?
I know that article btw. It's basically a list of reasons why 230 makes no sense in this age where the internet and algorithms is the dominant medium. Content is overabundant now, it doesnt matter anymore, what matters is how you shape the access to it.
and to your other comment, FB and nytimes should be held to the same standards: either both of them are absolved or responsibility or both are not. Think of it this way: nytimes hires journalists to create content that promotes their favourite soccer team. They affect opinions. Facebook hires programmers who use their abundance of "user generated" content (which covers the entire spectrum of soccer fans) and mold their algorithms to promote their favourites.they affect opinions
The effect is the same on society, why are they treated differently? the mechanisms shouldn't matter. If FB (or HN) is to be held at a differnt standard, they should either be "100% neutral except illegal pics" or be forced to have full transparency on all their algorithms and editing decisions.
(Btw i agree with what you said about the law, i just think it's an absurd legal situation for this day and age)
I believe if it is published in one of those "letters from our readers" section (where the newspaper makes editorial decisions) then they are responsible, is that not so ?
I know that article btw. It's basically a list of reasons why 230 makes no sense in this age where the internet and algorithms is the dominant medium. Content is overabundant now, it doesnt matter anymore, what matters is how you shape the access to it.
and to your other comment, FB and nytimes should be held to the same standards: either both of them are absolved or responsibility or both are not. Think of it this way: nytimes hires journalists to create content that promotes their favourite soccer team. They affect opinions. Facebook hires programmers who use their abundance of "user generated" content (which covers the entire spectrum of soccer fans) and mold their algorithms to promote their favourites.they affect opinions
The effect is the same on society, why are they treated differently? the mechanisms shouldn't matter. If FB (or HN) is to be held at a differnt standard, they should either be "100% neutral except illegal pics" or be forced to have full transparency on all their algorithms and editing decisions.
(Btw i agree with what you said about the law, i just think it's an absurd legal situation for this day and age)
>The effect is the same on society, why are they treated differently? the mechanisms shouldn't matter. If FB (or HN) is to be held at a differnt standard, they should either be "100% neutral except illegal pics" or be forced to have full transparency on all their algorithms and editing decisions.
What I post on HN or Facebook or in a comment section of the NYT is my responsibility, because I am the source of those posts.
What the NYT publishes as news or opinion is their responsibility as the source of those items.
As for the algorithms in use, that's one of the reasons I quit FB seven years ago. But such algorithms are irrelevant to who authored a particular piece of prose.
The author might be liable for libel/defamation (assuming that can be proved), but the platform that hosts their content is not.
I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time with this. And I'm going to stop trying to explain it to you.
Good luck!
What I post on HN or Facebook or in a comment section of the NYT is my responsibility, because I am the source of those posts.
What the NYT publishes as news or opinion is their responsibility as the source of those items.
As for the algorithms in use, that's one of the reasons I quit FB seven years ago. But such algorithms are irrelevant to who authored a particular piece of prose.
The author might be liable for libel/defamation (assuming that can be proved), but the platform that hosts their content is not.
I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time with this. And I'm going to stop trying to explain it to you.
Good luck!
>If you sent the content to a newspaper and they posted it in the relevant section the newspaper would be liable. Those things aren't as distinct as they were made to be.
But I didn't send that content to a newspaper, did I?
I posted it here on HN. Is HN responsible for my words here? Should you be able to sue HN for them?
Answer those questions honestly, and you will be enlightened.
But I didn't send that content to a newspaper, did I?
I posted it here on HN. Is HN responsible for my words here? Should you be able to sue HN for them?
Answer those questions honestly, and you will be enlightened.
One thing that seems to be being ignored on this section 230 (by everyone) is the clause that reasonable action to remove illegal content. If in this case the content is libel, and Facebook did not attempt to remove it after being contacted, that would make them liable.
>One thing that seems to be being ignored on this section 230 (by everyone) is the clause that reasonable action to remove illegal content. If in this case the content is libel, and Facebook did not attempt to remove it after being contacted, that would make them liable.
Except it's not libel until a court says it is.
If I defamed/libeled you right here, right now and HN didn't immediately delete my post, would that make HN liable and hence able to be sued?
If you think the answer to that question is "yes," let me know I will make statements that could be considered to be libelous by a court. Then you can sue HN (and me too, if you like. But blood from a stone and all that, eh?) and see what happens.
What do you think?
Except it's not libel until a court says it is.
If I defamed/libeled you right here, right now and HN didn't immediately delete my post, would that make HN liable and hence able to be sued?
If you think the answer to that question is "yes," let me know I will make statements that could be considered to be libelous by a court. Then you can sue HN (and me too, if you like. But blood from a stone and all that, eh?) and see what happens.
What do you think?
> If I defamed/libeled you right here, right now and HN didn't immediately delete my post, would that make HN liable and hence able to be sued?
That doesn't matter, and that's not what I said. What matters is what section 230 says, not what you or I think should or shouldn't happen. What matters is that if you did so and I contacted HN and informed them that illegal material is being hosted and published on their service, if they made no reasonable effort to remove it, they would be liable. That is the only point I'm making. You're arguing against someone else's (hole riddled) point, not my point.
In your case I wouldn't report it because I don't particularly care, but in Stossel's case, he did and they left the content up. He has a leg to stand on, if, as you said, the fact check is found by the court to actually be libel.
FYI I'm pretty sure making a positive statement claiming intent to put illegal content on HN is a bannable offense, and if you actually did say anything libelous, regardless whether HN responded to a request, I could sue you, and win, because you've explicitly confirmed that what you may or may not say in response to this was in fact intended to be libel. I'm not a litigious individual and don't really care what you say about me, but being candid, this line of discussion you're engaging in is reckless and stupid.
That doesn't matter, and that's not what I said. What matters is what section 230 says, not what you or I think should or shouldn't happen. What matters is that if you did so and I contacted HN and informed them that illegal material is being hosted and published on their service, if they made no reasonable effort to remove it, they would be liable. That is the only point I'm making. You're arguing against someone else's (hole riddled) point, not my point.
In your case I wouldn't report it because I don't particularly care, but in Stossel's case, he did and they left the content up. He has a leg to stand on, if, as you said, the fact check is found by the court to actually be libel.
FYI I'm pretty sure making a positive statement claiming intent to put illegal content on HN is a bannable offense, and if you actually did say anything libelous, regardless whether HN responded to a request, I could sue you, and win, because you've explicitly confirmed that what you may or may not say in response to this was in fact intended to be libel. I'm not a litigious individual and don't really care what you say about me, but being candid, this line of discussion you're engaging in is reckless and stupid.
>In your case I wouldn't report it because I don't particularly care, but in Stossel's case, he did and they left the content up. He has a leg to stand on, if, as you said, the fact check is found by the court to actually be libel.
But it ain't libel unless and until the court says it is. Which makes your argument specious at best.
>FYI I'm pretty sure making a positive statement claiming intent to put illegal content on HN is a bannable offense,
Firstly, libel is not illegal content. It's a civil tort. And sure, I can imagine that HN might ban someone for actual illegal content (torrent links, links to child porn, etc.)
But as I understand it, the First Amendment here in the US (where HN and I are both based), there are just a very few circumstances where my speech could make me civilly liable and almost none which could make me criminally liable.
As such, you're living in a fantasy world.
As for actually libeling/defaming you, given the context of this discussion, even if I made knowingly false statements, it would likely be clear to any jury that my statements were exemplars rather than actual attempts at libel.
What's more, I don't know you. I don't know your name or anything about you.
Since I can't identify you, I have no way to determine whether anything I say about you is true or not. Should I loose a stream of invective and accusations at "betwixtthewires", it really can't be libel, since there's no way for me to do actual harm to you.
Even more, as I said, context matters. I tell you what, if you're game (and have the cash and the will to hire lawyers), I will say awful things about you here.
If you're down for it, I wish you luck with your lawsuits. Because you're gonna need it.
But it ain't libel unless and until the court says it is. Which makes your argument specious at best.
>FYI I'm pretty sure making a positive statement claiming intent to put illegal content on HN is a bannable offense,
Firstly, libel is not illegal content. It's a civil tort. And sure, I can imagine that HN might ban someone for actual illegal content (torrent links, links to child porn, etc.)
But as I understand it, the First Amendment here in the US (where HN and I are both based), there are just a very few circumstances where my speech could make me civilly liable and almost none which could make me criminally liable.
As such, you're living in a fantasy world.
As for actually libeling/defaming you, given the context of this discussion, even if I made knowingly false statements, it would likely be clear to any jury that my statements were exemplars rather than actual attempts at libel.
What's more, I don't know you. I don't know your name or anything about you.
Since I can't identify you, I have no way to determine whether anything I say about you is true or not. Should I loose a stream of invective and accusations at "betwixtthewires", it really can't be libel, since there's no way for me to do actual harm to you.
Even more, as I said, context matters. I tell you what, if you're game (and have the cash and the will to hire lawyers), I will say awful things about you here.
If you're down for it, I wish you luck with your lawsuits. Because you're gonna need it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
But 230 wouldn’t even come into this discussion because the standard of libel for Stossel, as a public figure, is significantly higher. He has to prove that Facebook/the fact checkers had actual malice in stating its claims. Meaning, the Facebook/fact checkers had to be intentionally lying or acting in reckless disregard for whether the statement was true or not.
It’s a more interesting situation if he wasn’t a public figure, but even then, I doubt Facebook would be the one deemed responsible for the so-called libel, it would come down to the fact checked. In fact, in the similar Candace Owens lawsuit (which the court threw out), she sued USA Today and the fact-checking company, not Facebook. And her claims were still thrown out, both because she couldn’t show there was actual malice involved or that the claims that her statement was “false” was untrue. That opinion is here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21068070-owens Owens is of course a public figure, but that wasn’t even a large part of the reason her lawsuit was thrown out on its face.
Stossel is getting press time by suing but he’s a public figure and suing Facebook because a fact checking service elicited an opinion/notation that didn’t have the nuance he wanted is laughable.
It’s a more interesting situation if he wasn’t a public figure, but even then, I doubt Facebook would be the one deemed responsible for the so-called libel, it would come down to the fact checked. In fact, in the similar Candace Owens lawsuit (which the court threw out), she sued USA Today and the fact-checking company, not Facebook. And her claims were still thrown out, both because she couldn’t show there was actual malice involved or that the claims that her statement was “false” was untrue. That opinion is here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21068070-owens Owens is of course a public figure, but that wasn’t even a large part of the reason her lawsuit was thrown out on its face.
Stossel is getting press time by suing but he’s a public figure and suing Facebook because a fact checking service elicited an opinion/notation that didn’t have the nuance he wanted is laughable.
I feel like the malice standard makes libel essentially impossible to prove in the US. Are there any cases where malice has been proven? I imagine they would have had to look at private conversations by the accused indicated that they really didn't like alleged victim or something.
"Actual malice" is a confusing term for a layperson because it doesn't mean what it sounds like. It doesn't mean "not liking" the plaintiff. Instead, it is the defendant's knowledge or reckless disregard of the statement's falsity.
> Stossel is getting press time by suing but he’s a public figure and suing Facebook because a fact checking service elicited an opinion/notation that didn’t have the nuance he wanted is laughable.
Really? From his filing it sounds like Stossel has explicit evidence that the fact checkers admitted that he didn't make any false claims and still refused to correct their speech.
We'll see if that counts as "deliberate malice" or no, but it does seem to be a case with much stronger claims than Owens'
Really? From his filing it sounds like Stossel has explicit evidence that the fact checkers admitted that he didn't make any false claims and still refused to correct their speech.
We'll see if that counts as "deliberate malice" or no, but it does seem to be a case with much stronger claims than Owens'
On the other hand, from the evidence presented in the filing I would guess Facebook didn't act with deliberate malice; some automated or sound-bite-level manual system caught a bit of the video that did make a false statement and hit the label button. (I haven't seen the original video, but from what I have read I don't think it could be done without a "some people believe X but they're wrong" style statement, X being the false statement.)
So the question is, does Facebook's gross incompetence at fact-checking satisfy the negligence part of the malice definition?
So the question is, does Facebook's gross incompetence at fact-checking satisfy the negligence part of the malice definition?
he s a journalist, like the fact-checkers, no? how does 'public figure' work? So, it's like a barber libeling another barber?
(btw it's ridiculous to call them 'fact-checkers' -- all journalists are factcheckers, some are good some bad)
(btw it's ridiculous to call them 'fact-checkers' -- all journalists are factcheckers, some are good some bad)
He’s a famous person who has been a prominent television anchor, his being a journalist has nothing to do with it.
The definition of public figure is nebulous, and sometimes it can even be argued a regular person becomes a ”limited purpose public figure” if they are involved in a public controversy.
Stossel isn’t even an argument because again, he used to host 20/20 on ABC and has been a broadcaster for 30 some odd years. He’s a public figure. But using a real world example, I’m not famous, but by any legal standard, I would be considered a public figure because I have a Wikipedia page, I'm verified on every major social network, I’ve appeared on television, and I’m recognized as a prominent person in the various industries that I have worked in. I know this, not because I’ve ever wanted to sue someone for libel or defamation, but because there have been a few isolated incidents where I received harassment/death threats/rape threats via my work addresses (which obligates me to report them to law enforcement), and the amount of fucks police in the US are willing to give about idle threats to public figures are almost zero. I’m generally OK with this (I have only ever reported threats when I’ve been required to do so my company policy), but it is what it is.
Even taking legal protections out of it and just looking policy enforcement, according to Facebook's terms of service, people can call for my death on their platform, provided they don’t tag me. But if someone says, “Christina Warren should just die already,” that’s completely fine according to Facebook's own terms of service, because they consider me a public figure. Now if someone directly tags me, that may or may not be harassment, but even though Facebook isn’t the same as legal requirements, it shows their own rules are different for public figures.
The definition of public figure is nebulous, and sometimes it can even be argued a regular person becomes a ”limited purpose public figure” if they are involved in a public controversy.
Stossel isn’t even an argument because again, he used to host 20/20 on ABC and has been a broadcaster for 30 some odd years. He’s a public figure. But using a real world example, I’m not famous, but by any legal standard, I would be considered a public figure because I have a Wikipedia page, I'm verified on every major social network, I’ve appeared on television, and I’m recognized as a prominent person in the various industries that I have worked in. I know this, not because I’ve ever wanted to sue someone for libel or defamation, but because there have been a few isolated incidents where I received harassment/death threats/rape threats via my work addresses (which obligates me to report them to law enforcement), and the amount of fucks police in the US are willing to give about idle threats to public figures are almost zero. I’m generally OK with this (I have only ever reported threats when I’ve been required to do so my company policy), but it is what it is.
Even taking legal protections out of it and just looking policy enforcement, according to Facebook's terms of service, people can call for my death on their platform, provided they don’t tag me. But if someone says, “Christina Warren should just die already,” that’s completely fine according to Facebook's own terms of service, because they consider me a public figure. Now if someone directly tags me, that may or may not be harassment, but even though Facebook isn’t the same as legal requirements, it shows their own rules are different for public figures.
how is this public figure thing relevant when facebook is a public figure itself ? Isn't it actively damaging the journalist's reputation. So it would be OK if e.g. CNN claimed that "scientists say that iphones cause heart attacks"
Assuming a scientist actually said that, that would be fine. CNN doesn’t need to fact-check the scientists statement. Now, if evidence comes out that iPhones don’t cause cancer and CNN refuses to mention that there are refutations or disputes about that OR if CNN finds out affirmatively that those claims are false (the scientist admits they lied or retracts their statement) and doesn’t issue an on-air clarification or retraction (and if it was found that the scientist admitted to lying, that would almost certainly necessitate a retraction), CNN could be sued for defamation. That’s actually essentially what Dominion and others are doing with their lawsuits against Fox News and Newsmax and OANN.
You’re not wrong that there could be a damage done to the public figure/journalist's reputation. There could. But on the basis of New York Times vs Sullivan (a landmark Supreme Court decision and one of the most important first amendment cases), that doesn’t outweigh the free speech rights of the press. Moreover, the public figures by their nature, have more access and ability to respond to a defamatory claim, because they gave their own platform and reach. That’s why the standards of actual malice and reckless disregard are so high.
This is from a website with a very good definition of libel law (https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center...):
> The different standards exist because public figures are at the center of matters of public concern–matters that the press should report on as part of its “watchdog” role on the government. If journalists could be punished for every error published about a public figure, they might avoid reporting on controversial subjects that concern the public. The public would lose access to crucial information. > > Also, public figures generally have greater access to the media in order to counter defamatory statements, and to a certain extent seek out public acclaim and assume the risks of fame.
You’re not wrong that there could be a damage done to the public figure/journalist's reputation. There could. But on the basis of New York Times vs Sullivan (a landmark Supreme Court decision and one of the most important first amendment cases), that doesn’t outweigh the free speech rights of the press. Moreover, the public figures by their nature, have more access and ability to respond to a defamatory claim, because they gave their own platform and reach. That’s why the standards of actual malice and reckless disregard are so high.
This is from a website with a very good definition of libel law (https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center...):
> The different standards exist because public figures are at the center of matters of public concern–matters that the press should report on as part of its “watchdog” role on the government. If journalists could be punished for every error published about a public figure, they might avoid reporting on controversial subjects that concern the public. The public would lose access to crucial information. > > Also, public figures generally have greater access to the media in order to counter defamatory statements, and to a certain extent seek out public acclaim and assume the risks of fame.
yeah i m talking about the case when it's a lie (which is what stossel claims). Also it seems the case you mention applies to public officials or people running for office, which doesnt seem to be the case here
The category isn't public "officials or people running for office." If you carefully read the preceding comments, you'll see that "public persons" is the phrase that was used. I think perhaps you read the "public" part and misunderstood what the phrase means in legal writing. In legal writing, it's a bit nebulous as mentioned, but includes well-known people commenting on matters, people who become unintentionally well-known for their thoughts, in addition to the obvious stuff like politicians.
Host of a nationwide broadcast? 100% a public person and not even close. It's a dumb lawsuit and a good lawyer would have told Stossel as much.
Host of a nationwide broadcast? 100% a public person and not even close. It's a dumb lawsuit and a good lawyer would have told Stossel as much.
according to the wiki of the referenced case
> it held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or person running for public office, not only must he or she prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—he or she must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice",
But as i understand it is now being applied to celebrities as well
TBH i only know stossel from his twitter and videos that i see in libertarian channels (i m not in the US). Didn't know he was so famous in the US. I wonder whether that (international audience) counts for defining what is "public official"
> it held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or person running for public office, not only must he or she prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—he or she must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice",
But as i understand it is now being applied to celebrities as well
TBH i only know stossel from his twitter and videos that i see in libertarian channels (i m not in the US). Didn't know he was so famous in the US. I wonder whether that (international audience) counts for defining what is "public official"
Formerly famous. He's one of those formerly small-L libertarians like Dennis Miller who took hard right turns after 9/11.
It's highly fact specific.
"Determining who is a public or private figure is not always easy. In some instances, the categories may overlap. For example, a blogger who is a well-known authority on clinical research involving autism may be considered a public figure for purposes of controversies involving autism, but not for other purposes. "
https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice...
"Determining who is a public or private figure is not always easy. In some instances, the categories may overlap. For example, a blogger who is a well-known authority on clinical research involving autism may be considered a public figure for purposes of controversies involving autism, but not for other purposes. "
https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice...
This is correct, but by any standard or definition, Stossel is a public figure. He's a television host (and was a correspondent and then co-anchor for one of the biggest newsmagazine programs in the US), he's been an author, a syndicated columnist, he’s won 19 Emmys. He’s an incredibly famous libertarian (I would argue he was probably the most prominent libertarian commentator in the media until he left television). He's a public figure. The fact that he’s on this website with a headline that includes his name is proof that he’s a public figure.
But yes, it can be very fact specific.
But yes, it can be very fact specific.
In news organizations fact-checkers are separate roles or department to independently check the statements made by journalists in their work. It's an additional layer. Same as there are grammar and style checkers although journalist can write correctly, some better some worse. And journalists work is not limited to checking facts alone.
At least that was the case before the checkers started to get fired to save cost because online you can easily change errors after publication.
At least that was the case before the checkers started to get fired to save cost because online you can easily change errors after publication.
in this case the fact-checkers are acting as journalists, though i dont know where that distinction lies. Otherwise , facebook would look very much like a news organization with a fact-checking team
He likes to sue.
He did a interview on wrestling years ago. He went in doing his cutesy made for tv interview. The kind of interview that idiots seem to like. That in you face, and I'm going to out you.
He kept on calling it fake, which it is.
A idiot wrestler got fed up up with the guy, and slaped him. An open slap that most of us might slough off.
In court, he claimed long term physical/psychological damage from the slap. He claimed his hearing was permently damaged. Just a whiny baby with a monetary motive?
He got a nice fat settlement, from the wrestler, and WWF.
(I don't condone any violence, and never understood fake wrestling, but Stossel got his taste of easy judicial money, and him suing doesn't suprise me.)
He did a interview on wrestling years ago. He went in doing his cutesy made for tv interview. The kind of interview that idiots seem to like. That in you face, and I'm going to out you.
He kept on calling it fake, which it is.
A idiot wrestler got fed up up with the guy, and slaped him. An open slap that most of us might slough off.
In court, he claimed long term physical/psychological damage from the slap. He claimed his hearing was permently damaged. Just a whiny baby with a monetary motive?
He got a nice fat settlement, from the wrestler, and WWF.
(I don't condone any violence, and never understood fake wrestling, but Stossel got his taste of easy judicial money, and him suing doesn't suprise me.)
Most of us would slough off getting slapped twice by an angry 6'6", 270 lbs professional athlete?
And getting slapped in the ear can cause permanent damage. Look up "boxing someone's ears" for more info.
And getting slapped in the ear can cause permanent damage. Look up "boxing someone's ears" for more info.
Stossel was once a legit anchor/news-program talking head.
Some time ago, I don't know when, he _really_ went off the deep end into libertarian la-la land. Suing and aggressive legal maneuvers are practically a sacrament to such hardcore libertarians.
Some time ago, I don't know when, he _really_ went off the deep end into libertarian la-la land. Suing and aggressive legal maneuvers are practically a sacrament to such hardcore libertarians.
Stossel has always been a hardcore libertarian. It's one of the reasons he's so great. Even if you don't agree with everything he says he presents an underrepresented point of view in journalism.
So some grown man play acting as a fighter to help keep people's mind off anything that might improve their situation reacts with violence to being called out on it, but Stossel is the "whiny baby" doing "cutesy stuff idiots seem to like"? That's rich.
> I don't condone any violence
No, you just talk about "an open slap that most of us might slough off", and call someone a "whiny baby" for not sloughing it off.
> I don't condone any violence
No, you just talk about "an open slap that most of us might slough off", and call someone a "whiny baby" for not sloughing it off.
What happens if he gets slapped again after the settlement? Like if Bill Gates slaps him. Pays whatever. Slaps him again etc.
> all journalists are factcheckers
I don't think so. Most journalists these days start with a agenda and cherry pick facts to make their stories. It's so obvious it's laughable.
I don't think so. Most journalists these days start with a agenda and cherry pick facts to make their stories. It's so obvious it's laughable.
While this might not work in the US, it might work elsewhere. Other countries have legal protections for platforms from their users too, but that usually have lower standards for proving defamation of public figures than the US.
That's why David Irving sued an American historian in England. It did him no good.
> Stossel is getting press time by suing but he’s a public figure and suing Facebook because a fact checking service elicited an opinion/notation that didn’t have the nuance he wanted is laughable.
If the facts alleged in Stossel's initial filing are true, they are fairly damning against the defendants[0]. The Candace Owens initial complaint, by contrast, is kind of a mess [1].
Re: Owens: One of her claims was that a manager at one of the defendant companies had once held a prominent position at CNN, and CNN has an obvious Democrat bias. Even if all of those things were true, the suit doesn't allege any sort of causal connection, not even "upon information or belief," between that claim and her being demonetized or otherwise sanctioned by Facebook. Her complaint was 50 pages long with 50 pages of exhibits, and yet a lot of it was used just to make political grandstanding statements. It just reads like a poorly-drafted lawsuit meant to generate publicity insofar as it exceeds a lawyer's duty not to file frivolous nonsense. For what it's worth, the judge also seems to kind of give Owens short shrift by asserting in his judgment that no reasonable person would conclude the words "hoax alert" and "false" attached to Owens' post imply that Owens was intentionally lying. (This was backed by case law involving claims of "blackmail" to be judged more hyperbolic and rhetorical than alleging the commission of a crime. The two cases seem pretty different. Thin gruel, IMO.) Regardless, I can't help but think that Owens really did fail to state a claim.
Stossel's claims are much tighter. He published two videos on Facebook, and both were "fact checked" by one particular organization.
In the first video, Stossel claims that climate change, forestry management and other practices are each partly responsible for the 2020 CA wildfires to varying degrees. Per the complaint, the defendants then attached a "fact check" claiming that Stossel did not mention the effects of climate change on the fires. Stossel made efforts to contact the fact checking organization and interviewed two of the three employees who were listed as reviewers for his video. Neither of them had even seen the video, and each admitted after watching the video that it was factually accurate, though one later changed his mind after Stossel again contacted the manager of the organization. Moreover, the article cited as the reason for why Stossel's post was flagged lists climate change and forest management as two partial reasons for wildfires, quite similar to Stossel's actual claim.
The second item in the complaint involves another video with a similar fact pattern. Stossel again secured an interview with one of the putative reviewers, who concluded the factual representations in the video were correct. IMO it's less damning than the first, but interesting if true.
Stossel does seem to state a claim, he does seem to allege sufficient facts to prove actual malice (e.g. posting a fact check without reviewing the underlying material with reckless disregarding the truth). It's also only 25 pages with the relevant exhibits in the text, and tells a much clearer story as to why Stossel was injured by this.
I still would give him long odds at winning, but he might actually survive a motion to dismiss and get to discovery. This one at least doesn't seem like a stupid publicity stunt.
[0] https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/John-Stossel-vs-facebook.pdf
[1] https://www.factcheckzuck.com/assets/10-19-2020-Owens-Compla...
If the facts alleged in Stossel's initial filing are true, they are fairly damning against the defendants[0]. The Candace Owens initial complaint, by contrast, is kind of a mess [1].
Re: Owens: One of her claims was that a manager at one of the defendant companies had once held a prominent position at CNN, and CNN has an obvious Democrat bias. Even if all of those things were true, the suit doesn't allege any sort of causal connection, not even "upon information or belief," between that claim and her being demonetized or otherwise sanctioned by Facebook. Her complaint was 50 pages long with 50 pages of exhibits, and yet a lot of it was used just to make political grandstanding statements. It just reads like a poorly-drafted lawsuit meant to generate publicity insofar as it exceeds a lawyer's duty not to file frivolous nonsense. For what it's worth, the judge also seems to kind of give Owens short shrift by asserting in his judgment that no reasonable person would conclude the words "hoax alert" and "false" attached to Owens' post imply that Owens was intentionally lying. (This was backed by case law involving claims of "blackmail" to be judged more hyperbolic and rhetorical than alleging the commission of a crime. The two cases seem pretty different. Thin gruel, IMO.) Regardless, I can't help but think that Owens really did fail to state a claim.
Stossel's claims are much tighter. He published two videos on Facebook, and both were "fact checked" by one particular organization.
In the first video, Stossel claims that climate change, forestry management and other practices are each partly responsible for the 2020 CA wildfires to varying degrees. Per the complaint, the defendants then attached a "fact check" claiming that Stossel did not mention the effects of climate change on the fires. Stossel made efforts to contact the fact checking organization and interviewed two of the three employees who were listed as reviewers for his video. Neither of them had even seen the video, and each admitted after watching the video that it was factually accurate, though one later changed his mind after Stossel again contacted the manager of the organization. Moreover, the article cited as the reason for why Stossel's post was flagged lists climate change and forest management as two partial reasons for wildfires, quite similar to Stossel's actual claim.
The second item in the complaint involves another video with a similar fact pattern. Stossel again secured an interview with one of the putative reviewers, who concluded the factual representations in the video were correct. IMO it's less damning than the first, but interesting if true.
Stossel does seem to state a claim, he does seem to allege sufficient facts to prove actual malice (e.g. posting a fact check without reviewing the underlying material with reckless disregarding the truth). It's also only 25 pages with the relevant exhibits in the text, and tells a much clearer story as to why Stossel was injured by this.
I still would give him long odds at winning, but he might actually survive a motion to dismiss and get to discovery. This one at least doesn't seem like a stupid publicity stunt.
[0] https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/John-Stossel-vs-facebook.pdf
[1] https://www.factcheckzuck.com/assets/10-19-2020-Owens-Compla...
Stossel has spent his whole career as a hype man promoting disingenuous partisan/ideological bullshit† and carrying water for those who profit off other people’s misery. It’s really hard to take his claims here seriously.
† e.g. in middle school 20 years ago one of my “environmental science” (!) teachers spent 2 class days playing a Stossel video whose premise was more or less: America is the #1 best at everything because wealthy business owners are awesome, and countries whose governments do anything to thwart them are universally evil failures. For example, Hong Kong = awesomely successful because yay business, but India = terrible and impoverished because boo, government. The video was perhaps the most absurd, infantile thing ever presented in 13 years of public school (a high bar!).
† e.g. in middle school 20 years ago one of my “environmental science” (!) teachers spent 2 class days playing a Stossel video whose premise was more or less: America is the #1 best at everything because wealthy business owners are awesome, and countries whose governments do anything to thwart them are universally evil failures. For example, Hong Kong = awesomely successful because yay business, but India = terrible and impoverished because boo, government. The video was perhaps the most absurd, infantile thing ever presented in 13 years of public school (a high bar!).
The parent posted relevant details to the case at hand.
Your comment doesn't really add to the conversation and suggests that your opinion as a middle-schooler 20-years ago about a video that has nothing to do with this case is a more important thing for us to consider. I disagree.
Your comment doesn't really add to the conversation and suggests that your opinion as a middle-schooler 20-years ago about a video that has nothing to do with this case is a more important thing for us to consider. I disagree.
My point is that everything I have ever seen Stossel write or show on video, decade after decade, is more or less misleading, disingenuous, often slanderous propaganda. With that well-established reputation, it is hard to take what he says at face value; we can safely assume that his comments in this case are also distorted and self-serving.
Given the difficulty of winning a defamation lawsuit as a public figure in the USA, I would be shocked if he prevailed here.
Given the difficulty of winning a defamation lawsuit as a public figure in the USA, I would be shocked if he prevailed here.
Speaking of “slanderous propaganda”, I can’t help but feel reminded of the quote about accusing the other side of that of which you are guilty. With the view you’re expressing here, its actually easier to understand how the “fact-checkers” fact checked the video false without even seeing it. The job of a fact-checker is not to be a judge of character, nor is it to fact check based on assumptions.
The outcome of the case really doesn't depend on whether you saw (by compulsion) a couple of segments he did for the (I guess) highly partisan and propagandistic ABC News two decades ago. His continued employment there for years after whenever those videos you watched were published would seem to indicate that his reputation suffered no serious harm as a result of them, as would his subsequent employment at Fox Business. (It's theoretically possible that Facebook could say he has no good reputation capable of being defamed, but, again, the facts, including those pleaded in the filing if true, would seem to cut against it.)
As I said in GGGP, I agree that I'd be surprised if he won, but I think this has some likelihood of going to discovery. With high-profile defendants, documents and depositions are sometimes the goal.
As I said in GGGP, I agree that I'd be surprised if he won, but I think this has some likelihood of going to discovery. With high-profile defendants, documents and depositions are sometimes the goal.
Democrat bias -> Democratic bias, please
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
No, thank you.
I don't know from where you are getting that libel in most US states requires malice.
IANAL, but I am pretty sure it's just saying something provable to be factually wrong that can be demonstrably linked as the precipitating cause to damages against the plaintiff.
IANAL, but I am pretty sure it's just saying something provable to be factually wrong that can be demonstrably linked as the precipitating cause to damages against the plaintiff.
Fun fact. In Sweden, telling something truthful can be libel. A Swedish politician was sentenced for libel for pointing out, in a Facebook post, that a legal representative in a civil lawsuit she was involved with had earlier had been sentenced for a crime of sexual nature involving children. (I can't recall the details). This was a true fact, but since she said it with the intent to defame (according to the court) she was sentenced for defamation.
Under English common law, truth is no defense against libel. "Mansfield said it, it's true as the Bible,/The greater the truth, the greater the libel." But since late colonial times, American precedents allow truth as a defense.
I'm sure there is not an exact equivalent between Swedish "defame" and English "defame", but wouldn't airing any negative news about a person be defamation? If Löfven was found sexually abusing a child in flagrante delicto, wouldn't it ruin his otherwise fairly good reputation to let the public know this fact?
It certainly would.
>acting in reckless disregard
Negligence is a motive. Considering the influence facebook has a compelling argument could be made on the chilling effects of a "sleepy code writer".
Negligence is a motive. Considering the influence facebook has a compelling argument could be made on the chilling effects of a "sleepy code writer".
The fact checking services are wrong, a LOT. They are not ideologically neutral, particularly the ones used by Facebook.
For a specific example of the abusive and censorious nature of this business model, see Glenn Greenwald's recent article on the subject, specifically in regards to the blanket denunciation of the New York Post's Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian disinformation. Greenwald isn't a right-wing hack, and in fact he is aggressively pro-Palestinian, anti-war, and has been a loud critic of Bolsonaro despite being a resident of Brazil.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/new-proof-emerges-of-the-bi...
Edit:
Yes, a parade of downvotes without any refutations. Pay no attention to the fact that the guy in charge of censoring and fact checking operations at Facebook is a lifelong Democratic Party operative who literally worked for the Democratic House Majority PAC, and before that Senator Barbara Boxer, before going to work for Facebook.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/andy-stone-7575b34a
For a specific example of the abusive and censorious nature of this business model, see Glenn Greenwald's recent article on the subject, specifically in regards to the blanket denunciation of the New York Post's Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian disinformation. Greenwald isn't a right-wing hack, and in fact he is aggressively pro-Palestinian, anti-war, and has been a loud critic of Bolsonaro despite being a resident of Brazil.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/new-proof-emerges-of-the-bi...
Edit:
Yes, a parade of downvotes without any refutations. Pay no attention to the fact that the guy in charge of censoring and fact checking operations at Facebook is a lifelong Democratic Party operative who literally worked for the Democratic House Majority PAC, and before that Senator Barbara Boxer, before going to work for Facebook.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/andy-stone-7575b34a
Narrative violation detected. -4 applied to your social credit score. Have a good day, comrade.
> Greenwald isn't a right-wing hack, and in fact he is aggressively…
Correct, he isn’t and technically more liberal than a lot of folks on the left, but then again the left is no longer liberal. He speaks truth to power without regard to political party/leaning and is therefore generally hated now by the left because he doesn’t follow the orthodoxy.
Correct, he isn’t and technically more liberal than a lot of folks on the left, but then again the left is no longer liberal. He speaks truth to power without regard to political party/leaning and is therefore generally hated now by the left because he doesn’t follow the orthodoxy.
I'm receiving downvotes too, but keep sharing your thoughts with details! I provided a life experience based on changing political parties, and people obviously aren't comfortable that they have created an illiberal web.
Apparently not? See 'If you said "Once a company like that starts moderating content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher"' here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
they dont need to be a publisher to be sued for defamation
I suppose that depends on whether the courts agree that "flagging" is a form of original content, and is defamatory.
i wonder if the courts take into account how things have changed since 230 became law
>i wonder if the courts take into account how things have changed since 230 became law
One would hope that the courts follow the law. Anything else would be inappropriate, don't you think?
One would hope that the courts follow the law. Anything else would be inappropriate, don't you think?
Via proprietary and non-transparent algorithmic content recommendation engines, they have all been publishers for a while now.
FTFA: To be a bit more explicit: at no point in any court case regarding Section 230 is there a need to determine whether or not a particular website is a "platform" or a "publisher." What matters is solely the content in question. If that content is created by someone else, the website hosting it cannot be sued over it.
That assumes anything they did was actually libelous which is... unlikely.
Claiming a journalist makes "false claims" and is "misleading" could be injurious to their reputation as a journalist. Which would hurt them in their business or profession.
It's not a slam dunk for him by any means, but I can understand why he filed.
It's not a slam dunk for him by any means, but I can understand why he filed.
The bar for libel is high in the US. Something could be false, misleading and injurious to reputation and not be libel. Particularly if the person in question is a public figure, which is defined very broadly.
That's... not what 230 is about at all. This myth just recycles itself again and again. Why do people insist on repeating it?
Section 230 immunizes a web content company from liability for statements made ON ITS SERVICE BY THIRD PARTIES (to wit: you can't sue Facebook for what its users say on it).
No one here thinks Facebook is immune to a liability claim for its own speech. No one is invoking 230 to defend it. 230 is not applicable. Why do people keep insisting it's some kind of boogeyman that can be "revoked" to get "big tech" in line? It doesn't apply here.
Section 230 immunizes a web content company from liability for statements made ON ITS SERVICE BY THIRD PARTIES (to wit: you can't sue Facebook for what its users say on it).
No one here thinks Facebook is immune to a liability claim for its own speech. No one is invoking 230 to defend it. 230 is not applicable. Why do people keep insisting it's some kind of boogeyman that can be "revoked" to get "big tech" in line? It doesn't apply here.
Seems good for society that Stossel will be taking this to court.
Relevant quotes from article: "According to Stossel’s complaint (read here), he published on Facebook a video titled “Government Fueled Fires,” where he took on “sensational media reporting about a so-called ‘climate apocalypse,’ and explored a scientific hypothesis … that while climate change undoubtedly contributes to forest fires, it was not the primary cause of the 2020 California fires.”"
"[On facebook] Further information told readers: “Claim — ‘forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change.’ Verdict: misleading.”"
If Stossel never said "Not by climate change", and then Facebook falsely attributed that statement to him and rated it false, they certainly seem guilty of defamation.
Relevant quotes from article: "According to Stossel’s complaint (read here), he published on Facebook a video titled “Government Fueled Fires,” where he took on “sensational media reporting about a so-called ‘climate apocalypse,’ and explored a scientific hypothesis … that while climate change undoubtedly contributes to forest fires, it was not the primary cause of the 2020 California fires.”"
"[On facebook] Further information told readers: “Claim — ‘forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change.’ Verdict: misleading.”"
If Stossel never said "Not by climate change", and then Facebook falsely attributed that statement to him and rated it false, they certainly seem guilty of defamation.
I don’t see a material difference between claiming “not the primary cause” and “not caused by” when in a short summary
I don't think Facebook would have been credibly able to rate “not the primary cause” as false - that requires being able to quantify the individual contributions of each factor. To rate “not caused by” is false, they just need to argue it contributed to the slightest extent: it's a much lower bar.
One is possibly true and one is probably false. They're very different statements, and they are about the same length, so there's no excuse to use a misleading phrase simply for the sake of brevity.
I have seen the video and it is pretty sensible and definitely helps the debate around the fire. Either ways what caused fires is far from settled, the fact that climate change has anything to do with it is also disputed "fact".
I would recommend reading the fact check as well to get a full sense of what happened here.
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores...
https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o...
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores...
https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o...
This doesn't effectively refute Stossel's claims in my opinion.
To claim Stossel was being misleading, they'd need to successfully argue that climate had a greater impact than forest management practices. This rebuttal article only "This is at odds with the majority of wildfire scientists, who suggest that both are major factors in driving the changes we are seeing".
This is an NPO whose full reason to exist is to increase climate awareness, so I'm sure they don't like the idea that climate wasn't the primary factor, but I don't see a good argument for why we should consider climate the primary factor vs forest management.
Their rebuttal reads like someone scrambling after their hand was caught in the cookie jar overstepping their bounds.
EDIT (to reply because max thread depth): "They are rebutting the claim that climate change is not a factor at all, which Stossel does claim in his video" - What? I watched the video - you linked it. He absolutely did not claim "climate change is not a factor at all" - he explicitly said that it IS a factor it just isn't the main one.
To claim Stossel was being misleading, they'd need to successfully argue that climate had a greater impact than forest management practices. This rebuttal article only "This is at odds with the majority of wildfire scientists, who suggest that both are major factors in driving the changes we are seeing".
This is an NPO whose full reason to exist is to increase climate awareness, so I'm sure they don't like the idea that climate wasn't the primary factor, but I don't see a good argument for why we should consider climate the primary factor vs forest management.
Their rebuttal reads like someone scrambling after their hand was caught in the cookie jar overstepping their bounds.
EDIT (to reply because max thread depth): "They are rebutting the claim that climate change is not a factor at all, which Stossel does claim in his video" - What? I watched the video - you linked it. He absolutely did not claim "climate change is not a factor at all" - he explicitly said that it IS a factor it just isn't the main one.
> To claim Stossel was being misleading, they'd need to successfully argue that climate had a greater impact than forest management practices.
No. Stossel would need to prove that forest management practices had a greater impact than climate change, and that the fact checkers knew that, and that they deliberately lied.
You don't have to prove that you're correct if someone sues you for defamation. The standards for defamation are a lot higher than that.
To take this a step further, they don't even need to prove Stossel actually made that claim. The fact that a reasonable person could interpret Stossel as having made the claim that climate change was not a contributing factor (evidenced by multiple scientists chiming in that they felt the label was appropriate) would be enough of a defense.
Finally, they probably don't even need to prove that they thought Stossel made the claim, because calling someone misleading or saying that their statements are missing context likely doesn't rise to the level of defamation regardless of any of the above points.
No. Stossel would need to prove that forest management practices had a greater impact than climate change, and that the fact checkers knew that, and that they deliberately lied.
You don't have to prove that you're correct if someone sues you for defamation. The standards for defamation are a lot higher than that.
To take this a step further, they don't even need to prove Stossel actually made that claim. The fact that a reasonable person could interpret Stossel as having made the claim that climate change was not a contributing factor (evidenced by multiple scientists chiming in that they felt the label was appropriate) would be enough of a defense.
Finally, they probably don't even need to prove that they thought Stossel made the claim, because calling someone misleading or saying that their statements are missing context likely doesn't rise to the level of defamation regardless of any of the above points.
Stossel saying "sensational media reporting about a so-called ‘climate apocalypse'" reads to me that he's a climate denier and his reporting was to enforce that (and double down on his favorite hate: "government").
The phrase "climate apocalypse" comes from his interview of Michael Shellenberger, a pro nuclear environmentalist. Shellenberger's core points aren't climate denial, but instead optimism that we as a species will prevail against the challenges posed by climate change, and that the apocalyptic rhetoric of some environmentalists hurts that effort.
I want to make it really clear though; it doesn't matter whether or not Stossel is a climate denier, it's still probably not defamation. The fact checkers don't need to prove that Stossel is a climate denier.
They did not say at any point that climate change is the primary factor. They are rebutting the claim that climate change is not a factor at all, which Stossel does claim in his video (although the fact check was not written to specifically address that video). Stossel also says that climate change has made things worse, but the fact that his video contradicts itself does not make the fact check invalid.
It's pretty scary that an advocacy organization gets to be an "independent" fact checker. The ones that are at least nominally independent definitely show their biases but this is really egregious.
Why do you call them an advocacy organization?
they're unaffiliated which makes them independent but why are you concerned about them being an advocacy organization? do you think that means they're going to lie or have a vested interest in misrepresenting the truth?
Sadly we live in the times where nuances are completely ignored.
We can all agree that climate change increased fuel aridity in forests (which is what lots of research indicates) and yet agree with Stossel's point that bad forest management lead to those forests burning down. And this need not even be a politically charged issue as anyone who cares deeply about climate should also be upset with forests burning down.
> For years, they and environmentalists increased the risk of big fires by opposing the thinning of forests. > The town of Berry Creek, California, tried to get permits to legally clear their forest. For two years, regulators delayed approval. This year, fire destroyed the town.
Who is responsible here for the forest fire ? While many academicians will talk about "climate change", the local people will be right to see the regulatory hurdles as the biggest reason.
We can all acknowledge the fact that climate change is real, california's temperatures warmed by 3 degrees in last 50 years, that this increases probability and scope of fire AND still agree with Stossel's point that bad forest management, California's failure to create sensible policies that would have helped us manage these forests better are key contributor to the damage these fires have done in California.
We can all agree that climate change increased fuel aridity in forests (which is what lots of research indicates) and yet agree with Stossel's point that bad forest management lead to those forests burning down. And this need not even be a politically charged issue as anyone who cares deeply about climate should also be upset with forests burning down.
> For years, they and environmentalists increased the risk of big fires by opposing the thinning of forests. > The town of Berry Creek, California, tried to get permits to legally clear their forest. For two years, regulators delayed approval. This year, fire destroyed the town.
Who is responsible here for the forest fire ? While many academicians will talk about "climate change", the local people will be right to see the regulatory hurdles as the biggest reason.
We can all acknowledge the fact that climate change is real, california's temperatures warmed by 3 degrees in last 50 years, that this increases probability and scope of fire AND still agree with Stossel's point that bad forest management, California's failure to create sensible policies that would have helped us manage these forests better are key contributor to the damage these fires have done in California.
Stossel complains that we should not have rated his post using a claim review of a quote that does not appear in his video. This is a misunderstanding of how fact-checking partners operate on Facebook. Given that many pieces of content posted on Facebook can separately make the same claim, it is not necessary to create a separate claim review article for each post we rate. It is, of course, necessary that the claim we reviewed is representative of the claim in each post we rate, which is true in this case.
https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o...
https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o...
The responses are laughably long. If John Stossel made false claims, a few paragraphs should be sufficient. If you need to write two full length articles to explain what happened, you don’t get to label other people as false/misleading.
It was not labeled as false, it was labeled as missing context, and this is the context. You can see the label here: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1015712197...
While I don’t disagree that the responses may be overlong, I think it harms your argument to criticize the format of the response rather than the content.
If we’re to have productive discourse, we must all act in good faith and look at opposing arguments with the most charitable interpretation reasonably possible, otherwise we risk arguing against an interpretation of viewpoint that others may not have or agree with.
EDIT: having looked closer at the fact check website referenced, most of the length seems to be from references to research and expert testimony. The actual rebuttal is indeed a paragraph or two at the very top of the page.
Is the presentation of the data here your primary objection?
If we’re to have productive discourse, we must all act in good faith and look at opposing arguments with the most charitable interpretation reasonably possible, otherwise we risk arguing against an interpretation of viewpoint that others may not have or agree with.
EDIT: having looked closer at the fact check website referenced, most of the length seems to be from references to research and expert testimony. The actual rebuttal is indeed a paragraph or two at the very top of the page.
Is the presentation of the data here your primary objection?
Long is not about format. The content has to be long. This means simple label is wrong. This is a very easy point in my previous comment.
>If Stossel never said "Not by climate change", and then Facebook falsely attributed that statement to him and rated it false, they certainly seem guilty of defamation.
This is strictly, legally false in the US. What you have described here does not satisfy the legal definition of defamation. It will get thrown out in court immediately.
Here are the qualifiers for speech to be considered defamation:
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
and here's a relevant Supreme Court ruling that further restrains what can be considered defamation:
In The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that for a publicly-known figure to succeed on a defamation claims, the public-figure plaintiff must show that the false, defaming statements was said with "actual malice." The Sullivan court stated that"actual malice" means that the defendant said the defamatory statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
This is strictly, legally false in the US. What you have described here does not satisfy the legal definition of defamation. It will get thrown out in court immediately.
Here are the qualifiers for speech to be considered defamation:
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
and here's a relevant Supreme Court ruling that further restrains what can be considered defamation:
In The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that for a publicly-known figure to succeed on a defamation claims, the public-figure plaintiff must show that the false, defaming statements was said with "actual malice." The Sullivan court stated that"actual malice" means that the defendant said the defamatory statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
> This is strictly, legally false in the US.
GPs point is the only one that’s in question (covers your point 1), the rest should be straightforward to prove:
2- it appears on Facebook
3- they have appointed themselves as fact checkers and supposedly review the video. They have full access to it as does anyone.
4- the difference between this and other view counts on the platform should be enough.
GPs point is the only one that’s in question (covers your point 1), the rest should be straightforward to prove:
2- it appears on Facebook
3- they have appointed themselves as fact checkers and supposedly review the video. They have full access to it as does anyone.
4- the difference between this and other view counts on the platform should be enough.
This seems to get awfully close to making disagreement actionable.
If I claimed "xondono's understanding of the law is incorrect", should that be a cause of action?
If I claimed "xondono's understanding of the law is incorrect", should that be a cause of action?
No. You would have to find the fault amounted to at least negligence (meaning your claim was made baselessly and without any thought or consideration at all). Simply being incorrect isn’t enough, you have to be incorrect and have been wholly and completely negligent about making the statements.
Xondono would also have to show they were damaged and harmed by the statements, which would be difficult to prove.
If a newspaper falsely said that someone (let’s use a non public figure in this example, as there is a different standard for public figures, making defamation more difficult) was a child molester, that in and of itself isn’t instantly defamation, even though the person can easily show they have been harmed and damaged. You would need to show that the newspaper did zero or near zero due diligence into making the claim, meaning they were negligent. If there was evidence supporting the fact that someone was a child molester (even if the claim was untrue), that could show there wasn’t negligence involved. It very well might be libel, but it wouldn’t be assured.
This is one reason it is important to say things like “alleged” or “ in my opinion.” So if I said, “in my opinion, xondono's understanding of the law is incorrect,” I haven’t defamed xondono, even if my opinion is wrong and even if he feels harmed by my opinion.
Where this gets interesting is with the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuits against Fox News, Newsmax and various on-air personalities. In this case, Dominion (https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/03/26/fox-dominion... ) is arguing that by amplifying statements that were false, what Fox News did was with “reckless disregard” for the truth. Meaning Fox was knowingly lying. Usually, Fox News would probably have an easier time defending itself, but Dominion argues that Fox ignored its outreach to correct the record. It’s also arguing that debunked claims were continuously amplified after being debunked, because those false claims led to higher ratings. As a result of the libel lawsuits by Dominion and others, other networks like Newsmax have gone as far as to withdraw their false claims on the air and publicly apologize. Dominion may still lose its lawsuits, but it’s a much more interesting defamation lawsuit that could have significantly more of an impact on other companies, including Facebook or its fact-checking partners, than whatever Stossel is trying to do.
Xondono would also have to show they were damaged and harmed by the statements, which would be difficult to prove.
If a newspaper falsely said that someone (let’s use a non public figure in this example, as there is a different standard for public figures, making defamation more difficult) was a child molester, that in and of itself isn’t instantly defamation, even though the person can easily show they have been harmed and damaged. You would need to show that the newspaper did zero or near zero due diligence into making the claim, meaning they were negligent. If there was evidence supporting the fact that someone was a child molester (even if the claim was untrue), that could show there wasn’t negligence involved. It very well might be libel, but it wouldn’t be assured.
This is one reason it is important to say things like “alleged” or “ in my opinion.” So if I said, “in my opinion, xondono's understanding of the law is incorrect,” I haven’t defamed xondono, even if my opinion is wrong and even if he feels harmed by my opinion.
Where this gets interesting is with the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuits against Fox News, Newsmax and various on-air personalities. In this case, Dominion (https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/03/26/fox-dominion... ) is arguing that by amplifying statements that were false, what Fox News did was with “reckless disregard” for the truth. Meaning Fox was knowingly lying. Usually, Fox News would probably have an easier time defending itself, but Dominion argues that Fox ignored its outreach to correct the record. It’s also arguing that debunked claims were continuously amplified after being debunked, because those false claims led to higher ratings. As a result of the libel lawsuits by Dominion and others, other networks like Newsmax have gone as far as to withdraw their false claims on the air and publicly apologize. Dominion may still lose its lawsuits, but it’s a much more interesting defamation lawsuit that could have significantly more of an impact on other companies, including Facebook or its fact-checking partners, than whatever Stossel is trying to do.
> If I claimed "xondono's understanding of the law is incorrect", should that be a cause of action?
I guess that depends on other factors. Let’s say I’m correct (for the sake of argument, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not even in the US). You’d have to be negligent (amongst other things), so as I understand it, you’d have to set yourself as an authority. It would be different to make that statement if, for instance, you were to be a judge.
I guess that depends on other factors. Let’s say I’m correct (for the sake of argument, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not even in the US). You’d have to be negligent (amongst other things), so as I understand it, you’d have to set yourself as an authority. It would be different to make that statement if, for instance, you were to be a judge.
if HN placed a [liar] badge next to their username, would that be a cause for action?
No, not for the word "liar".
Defamation laws in the US are narrow. Insulting someone, calling their character into question -- that's not defamation. Even technically factual statements can be shown to be not defamation if the context shows they were not meant to be taken literally. The word "liar" is very, very unlikely to ever rise to that standard.
This is also why Stossel's claim is likely to fail. It is very hard to argue that the label "misleading" is a provably false statement of fact.
IANAL, but if you're hoping for Stossel to win, you probably shouldn't hold your breath.
Defamation laws in the US are narrow. Insulting someone, calling their character into question -- that's not defamation. Even technically factual statements can be shown to be not defamation if the context shows they were not meant to be taken literally. The word "liar" is very, very unlikely to ever rise to that standard.
This is also why Stossel's claim is likely to fail. It is very hard to argue that the label "misleading" is a provably false statement of fact.
IANAL, but if you're hoping for Stossel to win, you probably shouldn't hold your breath.
Ok, [lies]
No, still probably not. People call each other liars all of the time both online and in real life. You still need to connect this to some kind of intent, you still need to show that the instance of "you're lying" demonstrates a reckless disregard for truth.
In American courts that is a very, very hard bar to clear -- particularly if the target is a public figure.
In American courts that is a very, very hard bar to clear -- particularly if the target is a public figure.
it's not random "people" , it would be ycombinator, an entity with considerable weight which they would use against me. Second, stossel's job is to generally be credible, as he's a journalist. Doesn't the attack on his credibility by a major news medium (FB; regardless if it's disguised as third party for which we have no guarantees that they re impartial) carry more weight than if some random person shouted at him on the street? What if he got fired by his employer because they consider his reputation to be tarnished now? Why is it OK that people have no recourse against such action with social media companies?
Anyway i understand the thing about the high bar of the US. But, if this comes to the point where facebook has to prove they did not have intent or that they were not stating false things, then stossel will still have "won", because from then on facebook will have to do that for all their future "labeling" of information
(i think that "misleading" can very well taken to mean false. and the fact that it's not applied automatically by an algorithm makes it carry more intent)
Anyway i understand the thing about the high bar of the US. But, if this comes to the point where facebook has to prove they did not have intent or that they were not stating false things, then stossel will still have "won", because from then on facebook will have to do that for all their future "labeling" of information
(i think that "misleading" can very well taken to mean false. and the fact that it's not applied automatically by an algorithm makes it carry more intent)
At the end of the day, if you don't believe me then you can watch the court case and see how it resolves.
Stossel can sue Facebook, and if Facebook gets dismissed for 230 reasons he can also sue the fact checker directly. You don't have to believe me, you can wait and see how that works out. I'm just saying, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Stossel can sue Facebook, and if Facebook gets dismissed for 230 reasons he can also sue the fact checker directly. You don't have to believe me, you can wait and see how that works out. I'm just saying, I wouldn't hold my breath.
its not that i dont believe u, i m just stating the things that seem odd to me from a common sense point of view [IANAL , obviously]
I 'm not expecting that he will win, but maybe facebook will be forced to prove something which will mean they will have to prove it again in the future
I 'm not expecting that he will win, but maybe facebook will be forced to prove something which will mean they will have to prove it again in the future
> 4- the difference between this and other view counts on the platform should be enough.
If the only harm is view counts, it's not going to be a very big award.
If the only harm is view counts, it's not going to be a very big award.
It’s the demonstration of malice that will make this suit fail. You have to show evidence that the alleged defamer knew their statements are false. You might even need to prove intent. Unless they dig up a Facebook email saying “We know this isn’t true but let’s screw Stossel” it’s going to be a hard case to win.
Exactly correct, which is why virtually all defamation suits in the US don't ever make it to court. And it should be that way! Overly broad defamation laws greatly restrict freedom of speech.
Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpLIBY9nReU
In includes phrases like: "If all you know is climate scientists then every weather event you blame on climate change. If not climate change, what is to blame? [...] Foolish policies."
"You could have had this amount of warming and not had these fires."
"Bad policies were the biggest cause of this year's fires, not the slightly warmer climate."
"While climate change is a problem, Schellenberger's new book explains it's not an apocalypse: natural disasters aren't getting worse, in fact they're getting better. [...] A small change in temperature is not the difference between normalcy and catastrophe."
To summarize: the video heavily implies throughout that the fires are not caused by climate change, and literally says so a couple times. Facebook did not falsely attribute that claim. They didn't fully summarize the entire video, but I don't think the fact check is intended to - it just pulls out one particular claim it wants to address.
Aside: this video wasn't that bad, and I don't know if it needed a fact check, but that's not what the lawsuit is about. It did acknowledge that climate change is real and happening. However, it exclusively talked about climate change as a warming phenomenon, which is not the main issue and is a misleading characterization of why climate change is bad. Warming causes many other issues which are much more harmful than just "a small change in temperature". The discussion about forest management was valid and important, it should just be happening at the same time as discussion about climate change.
Edit: Here's the original Facebook post where you can see the fact check: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1015712197.... I believe this is visible even if you don't have an account.
Here's the fact check: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores....
Here's the fact checkers response to the lawsuit: https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o....
In includes phrases like: "If all you know is climate scientists then every weather event you blame on climate change. If not climate change, what is to blame? [...] Foolish policies."
"You could have had this amount of warming and not had these fires."
"Bad policies were the biggest cause of this year's fires, not the slightly warmer climate."
"While climate change is a problem, Schellenberger's new book explains it's not an apocalypse: natural disasters aren't getting worse, in fact they're getting better. [...] A small change in temperature is not the difference between normalcy and catastrophe."
To summarize: the video heavily implies throughout that the fires are not caused by climate change, and literally says so a couple times. Facebook did not falsely attribute that claim. They didn't fully summarize the entire video, but I don't think the fact check is intended to - it just pulls out one particular claim it wants to address.
Aside: this video wasn't that bad, and I don't know if it needed a fact check, but that's not what the lawsuit is about. It did acknowledge that climate change is real and happening. However, it exclusively talked about climate change as a warming phenomenon, which is not the main issue and is a misleading characterization of why climate change is bad. Warming causes many other issues which are much more harmful than just "a small change in temperature". The discussion about forest management was valid and important, it should just be happening at the same time as discussion about climate change.
Edit: Here's the original Facebook post where you can see the fact check: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1015712197.... I believe this is visible even if you don't have an account.
Here's the fact check: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores....
Here's the fact checkers response to the lawsuit: https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o....
Sounds like the discussion is nuanced. But this nuance is lost by Facebook slapping a label on his content as "misleading", which for all intents and purposes means "wrong". Sounds like defamation to me. Why is Facebook involved in adjudicating the nuance of unsolved public policy debates?
Totally agree that Facebook's label bypasses any nuance, but that isn't illegal and we can't make it illegal. It isn't defamation by the dictionary definition (it isn't a false claim), and it certainly isn't defamation by the stricter legal definition. Imagine what would happen if you could sue anyone for accurately quoting you but leaving out a piece of context. Could you sue a movie critic for a bad review that misunderstood the director's intentions? Could you sue for an internet reply that quoted only part of your comment and misrepresented your views? Could you sue a journalist for not printing every interview unedited in its entirety? Could you sue the NFL for stating that a team lost without explaining that a star player was injured at the time?
Edit: Actually, the fact check includes a lot of nuance and discussion, it's not just a "misleading" label with no other context. Read it here: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores...
Edit: Actually, the fact check includes a lot of nuance and discussion, it's not just a "misleading" label with no other context. Read it here: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores...
Where is the nuance? It opens by mocking politicians for blaming the fires on climate change, then it spend the rest of the video explaining that forest management is the cause of these large fires. Facebook's brief version is an excellent summary of his video's content. What is this nuance that it has left out?
> Why is Facebook involved in adjudicating the nuance of unsolved public policy debates?
Indeed, and what does anyone at Facebook even know about the subject, other than what the prevailing opinion bubble of everyone else working there is?
Indeed, and what does anyone at Facebook even know about the subject, other than what the prevailing opinion bubble of everyone else working there is?
> But this nuance is lost by Facebook slapping a label on his content as "misleading", which for all intents and purposes means "wrong". Sounds like defamation to me.
I can't speak for other countries, but in America reducing nuance is not defamation; provably false statements of fact are defamation.
The 1st Amendment protects your right to oversimplify things.
I can't speak for other countries, but in America reducing nuance is not defamation; provably false statements of fact are defamation.
The 1st Amendment protects your right to oversimplify things.
I don't know. From what I have seen, so-called "nuance" is often explicitly invoked as an excuse to be deliberately misleading.
>why is Facebook involved in adjudicating the nuance of unsolved public policy debates
presumably because that debate took place on Facebook. Is it unusual to you that the party that is responsible for hosting a public debate adjudicates said debate? That's generally how it works.
presumably because that debate took place on Facebook. Is it unusual to you that the party that is responsible for hosting a public debate adjudicates said debate? That's generally how it works.
In none of your quotes is Stossel saying climate change was not a cause.
All of your quotes support the assertion that Stossel was claiming they aren't the main cause.
It's as though language is failing as us as a culture when public discourse is impossible due to constant strawman fallacies. The claim quoted by the fact checkers is reworded to omit "main."
All of your quotes support the assertion that Stossel was claiming they aren't the main cause.
It's as though language is failing as us as a culture when public discourse is impossible due to constant strawman fallacies. The claim quoted by the fact checkers is reworded to omit "main."
> fires are not caused by climate change
Maybe it's wrong to base the entire premise exclusively on climate change. I am pretty sure we had forest fires before the current age. For example, 1920s in California were particularly bad. Sierra Nevada forests were on fire and even made it all the way down to Oakland and Berkeley resulting in hundreds of homes being lost.
Facebook's fact checkers need to be a bit more educated and exercise greater finesse regarding these types of subjects.
Maybe it's wrong to base the entire premise exclusively on climate change. I am pretty sure we had forest fires before the current age. For example, 1920s in California were particularly bad. Sierra Nevada forests were on fire and even made it all the way down to Oakland and Berkeley resulting in hundreds of homes being lost.
Facebook's fact checkers need to be a bit more educated and exercise greater finesse regarding these types of subjects.
Sorry if I was unclear, when I said that the video implies fires are not caused by climate change, I was referring to the specific fires discussed in the video, not all forest fires. I'd encourage you to read the fact check, I think they demonstrate quite a bit of education and finesse: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores..., https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o...
I read your link and, frankly, I find their science shoddy at best. They seem to simultaneously dismiss and indirectly state that forest management is important.
For instance, they state dismissively: "While forest management practices, specifically fire suppression, have increased the fuel load, scientific evidence... [it don't matter cause climate change]"
The question that's not answered is whether or not we would have these fires had the forest management been done aggressively as it has in the past.
This guy (http://www.excelhero.com/blog/2010/04/california-climate.htm...) analyzed NASA weather station data for the last 120 years in California only (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/). The average temperature has increased by 1 degree over that time. He then filtered only to stations that have been in service for 100 years to produce stability in the dataset. That reduced the temperature increase to half a degree.
He then further filtered the set to rural weather stations only to remove the Urban Heat Island Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island). That reduced the number of stations from 114 to 26, but the temperature change actually showed slight cooling.
So given that forests in CA are largely in the rural regions where temperature hasn't changed much, wouldn't it stand to reason that the other change (reduced forest management) is largely responsible?
For instance, they state dismissively: "While forest management practices, specifically fire suppression, have increased the fuel load, scientific evidence... [it don't matter cause climate change]"
The question that's not answered is whether or not we would have these fires had the forest management been done aggressively as it has in the past.
This guy (http://www.excelhero.com/blog/2010/04/california-climate.htm...) analyzed NASA weather station data for the last 120 years in California only (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/). The average temperature has increased by 1 degree over that time. He then filtered only to stations that have been in service for 100 years to produce stability in the dataset. That reduced the temperature increase to half a degree.
He then further filtered the set to rural weather stations only to remove the Urban Heat Island Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island). That reduced the number of stations from 114 to 26, but the temperature change actually showed slight cooling.
So given that forests in CA are largely in the rural regions where temperature hasn't changed much, wouldn't it stand to reason that the other change (reduced forest management) is largely responsible?
I didn't read the blog post you linked to. It appears from the date in the link that the guy analyzed temperature data from 1890 to 2010, roughly. He threw out out data from weather stations that hadn't been continuously in service for at least 100 years -- to "stabilize" the dataset. This implies that NASA (or whoever compiled the data) hadn't already analyzed and corrected the data to ensure that the readings (i) over the 120-year span and (ii) from disparate locations and different instruments were commensurable. If so, limiting his exercise to 100-year-plus stations provides a surface veneer of illusory "stability", but doesn't speak to the accuracy of the reduced or full dataset -- and the accuracy is key to conclusions that can be drawn from analysis. (And if NASA did analyze and correct the readings in the full dataset, then the guy is cherry-picking.)
The guy then drastically restricts the dataset to only include rural weather stations, to less than a quarter of the original set of 100-year+ stations. At the least, there has to be some accounting of geograpical distribution in the analysis. The bigger question, though, is why would he remove the urban heat islands? Does their effect on the climate stop at the city limits, with a partition rising straight up into space? The whole concern about climate change is whether human activity (which certainly includes urban heat islands) will eventually lead to irreversible climate change that will have catastrophic effects.
(If folks feel "catastrophic" is alarmist, I suggest they Google "nine planetary boundaries", of which climate change is but one of the interdependent boundaries, for some truly alarming reading.)
Anyway, someone more knowledgeable than me can perhaps provide a better perspective on whether any climate-/weather-related elements have more of a role than temperature in affecting the initiation and spreading of forest fires. I'm particularly thinking of low humidity and drought caused by climate-change-induced storms, winds, etc. Are forest fires less likely to occur in cooler regions experiencing low humidity and drought?
Aah, starik36 and Excel Hero have gotten me interested in researching further; thank you, sincerely!
The guy then drastically restricts the dataset to only include rural weather stations, to less than a quarter of the original set of 100-year+ stations. At the least, there has to be some accounting of geograpical distribution in the analysis. The bigger question, though, is why would he remove the urban heat islands? Does their effect on the climate stop at the city limits, with a partition rising straight up into space? The whole concern about climate change is whether human activity (which certainly includes urban heat islands) will eventually lead to irreversible climate change that will have catastrophic effects.
(If folks feel "catastrophic" is alarmist, I suggest they Google "nine planetary boundaries", of which climate change is but one of the interdependent boundaries, for some truly alarming reading.)
Anyway, someone more knowledgeable than me can perhaps provide a better perspective on whether any climate-/weather-related elements have more of a role than temperature in affecting the initiation and spreading of forest fires. I'm particularly thinking of low humidity and drought caused by climate-change-induced storms, winds, etc. Are forest fires less likely to occur in cooler regions experiencing low humidity and drought?
Aah, starik36 and Excel Hero have gotten me interested in researching further; thank you, sincerely!
Yes, you got the outline of the blog post right. You should still read it - he provides many more details than I did.
To be fair, this was more of an exercise in showcasing what Excel could do than anything else. Climate change data was just used for effect.
To be fair, this was more of an exercise in showcasing what Excel could do than anything else. Climate change data was just used for effect.
> The discussion about forest management was valid and important, it should just be happening at the same time as discussion about climate change.
I disagree. From where I sit, if you want to have a discussion about forest management, you first have to address the "it's all climate change's fault" smokescreen. Otherwise everybody shrugs and says "climate change, what can you do" and nobody will talk about what you actually can do.
I disagree. From where I sit, if you want to have a discussion about forest management, you first have to address the "it's all climate change's fault" smokescreen. Otherwise everybody shrugs and says "climate change, what can you do" and nobody will talk about what you actually can do.
In the video, it also says "climate change is real", "climate change has made things worse", and "CA warmed up by 3 deg in the last 50 years". And they blame the CA gov for stopping controlled fires in the last couple of years for no real reason that made this huge time bomb that we've experienced. There is nothing misleading in that.
> And they blame the CA gov for stopping controlled fires in the last couple of years
This is what is crazy to me. Growing up in the Midwest, we always had controlled burns on extended family's rural farmland near forests, to prevent future wildfires. It was a regular occurrence
Looking up how absolutely little CA does for controlled burns compared to the Midwest and Southeast was an insane eye opener to me.
Florida alone does like 50x the amount of controlled burns than CA.
Minnesota, which is tiny by comparison, does more controlled burns than CA (or at least used to within the last few years)
This is what is crazy to me. Growing up in the Midwest, we always had controlled burns on extended family's rural farmland near forests, to prevent future wildfires. It was a regular occurrence
Looking up how absolutely little CA does for controlled burns compared to the Midwest and Southeast was an insane eye opener to me.
Florida alone does like 50x the amount of controlled burns than CA.
Minnesota, which is tiny by comparison, does more controlled burns than CA (or at least used to within the last few years)
Minnesota is 50% of the land mass of California and 1/8 the population. easier to burn with less people affected
CA, also is largely federal forests. Not sure how florida compares to that.
CA, also is largely federal forests. Not sure how florida compares to that.
The multi year drought probably influences number of controlled burns in CA
I'd encourage you to read the fact check to understand why they described it as misleading: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores..., https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o...
> Given that many pieces of content posted on Facebook can separately make the same claim, it is not necessary to create a separate claim review article for each post we rate.
I mean they are admitting here that Stossel never made the claim they say he did. Then use all the rest of the article to stretch out that their interpretation of Stossel's "climate change has made things worse but" is actually the same "Not by climate change". Which is obviously untrue.
I mean they are admitting here that Stossel never made the claim they say he did. Then use all the rest of the article to stretch out that their interpretation of Stossel's "climate change has made things worse but" is actually the same "Not by climate change". Which is obviously untrue.
> Our review was based on one specific formulation of a claim we saw frequently appearing amidst record-setting wildfires on the US West Coast: “Forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change.” We relied on comments supplied by three scientists for a previous appearance of this exact claim by Michael Shellenberger—who was also the guest Stossel interviewed in his video. The scientists explained that this claim is misleading
They re definitely in defensive mode with regards to this. It's funny to see the liability being thrown around like a hot potato. Stossel says it's facebook's, FB says it's the fact-checker's, the fact checkers say it's the scientists'. Yeah something smells bad when such things happen
Possible he could sue facebook in countries that have stronger libel laws?
They re definitely in defensive mode with regards to this. It's funny to see the liability being thrown around like a hot potato. Stossel says it's facebook's, FB says it's the fact-checker's, the fact checkers say it's the scientists'. Yeah something smells bad when such things happen
Possible he could sue facebook in countries that have stronger libel laws?
I'm not sure how someone could watch that video and think "not climate change" was the main takeaway vs "forest management was the more-primary factor, though climate change contributes"
The video talks about how climate change contributed and is getting worse, it just points out that there is a clear policy factor that are the main cause for these factors, and climate change is being used as a political scapegoat to justify policy inaction.
The video talks about how climate change contributed and is getting worse, it just points out that there is a clear policy factor that are the main cause for these factors, and climate change is being used as a political scapegoat to justify policy inaction.
[deleted]
His shtick is to express a contrarian viewpoint on anything and everything. It was mostly harmless 40 years ago. Now it feeds into right wing trolldom and he's notably cozied up to his new core audience. I wouldn't value anything he does these days.
Being contrarian on climate change is just as bad as being a denier, both result in inaction and increase the consequences.
[deleted]
"Misleading" seems to be the current politically motivated way to handle the fact checker's tie to either liberal or democratic politics. A fact check should be either true or false.
> Seems good for society that Stossel will be taking this to court.
It's good for society that he's taking somebody to court with ample resources to defend themselves against this utterly frivolous lawsuit.
"Disagreeing with an easily triggered blowhard" is not actionable under US law. And, much as you might think it should be in this particular case, I suspect you would find that libel laws more favorable to plaintiffs (as they exist, e.g. in the UK) would often be used against people with whose political views you are sympathetic.
It's good for society that he's taking somebody to court with ample resources to defend themselves against this utterly frivolous lawsuit.
"Disagreeing with an easily triggered blowhard" is not actionable under US law. And, much as you might think it should be in this particular case, I suspect you would find that libel laws more favorable to plaintiffs (as they exist, e.g. in the UK) would often be used against people with whose political views you are sympathetic.
Stossel is far from an easily triggered blowhard.
> If Stossel never said "Not by climate change"
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine
I think the big red "Misleading" is the libel.
Misleading is opinion though, which in the US can never be libel
never is a strong word but even so I could prove something is misleading making it an objective assessment which wouldn't be covered under opinion exclusive.
That is simply not substantial enough to win a libel case. This is like someone saying "McDonald's hamburgers are the worst" and then someone else saying, "you said McDonald's hamburgers aren't good". You never said that -- in theory the worst burgers could still be good, but it's not an unreasonable take given no other additional context. The libel is simply not substantial enough.
I'm surprised FB, YT, Google, etc and these fact-checking websites don't get sued more often. Or maybe they are, and there's some loophole like "entertainment purposes only". It's horrifying how many people defer to these websites without hesitation, as if they somehow transcend bias, malice, and incompetence. It's the privatized version of the ministry of truth.
"In other words, to the question of whether a user was defamed through the announcement that content failed a “fact-check,” this Delaware court didn’t see a problem."
John Stossel, defamed? Who is that fool? What a fall from 20/20 TV entertainment days.
John Stossel, defamed? Who is that fool? What a fall from 20/20 TV entertainment days.
Before they were against an unregulated free market they were certainly for it...
NYTimes versus Sullivan needs to be overturned. It was decided in an entirely different era where yellow journalism was an exception rather than the rule.
I can’t find the video to check myself. The articles description of stossel’s claims seem to be exactly what the fact check said was claimed.
Is this article biased or is the suit that frivolous?
Is this article biased or is the suit that frivolous?
I suspect its this video [1]
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-xvc2o4ezk
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-xvc2o4ezk
Is this different from someone calling Stossel a fraud in the comments? The platform just added a comment on his post. The more interesting thing for me is to see if this has other ramifications if decided in favor of Stossel.
An internet commenter is less likely to be successfully sued than Facebook, because it is easier to argue that Stossel suffered reputational damage from an incorrect statement by Facebook, compared to an unspecific insult from a random individual.
It's different because Facebook are shielded from liability for other people's comments that they publish, but not for their own comments.
Opinion based on disclosed facts is protected speech [0]. Hard to be defamatory when the facts under dispute (the text of Stossel's post) are public.
[0] https://www.rcfp.org/two-courts-reaffirm-protections-opinion...
[0] https://www.rcfp.org/two-courts-reaffirm-protections-opinion...
To use that defense, Facebook would have to label their fact checks as opinions, something that AFAIK they do not.
> To use that defense, Facebook would have to label their fact checks as opinions, something that AFAIK they do not.
Cause these "fact checks" ARE opinions and Facebook should start labelling their own "fact checks" as "Facebook opinion". The cowardice of that system as well... like Facebook can be an arbiter of truth at first place? They are trying to have their cake and eat it too, by still profiting from content they deem "falsehoods" while trying to get off the hook regarding mass media critical of Facebook.
Cause these "fact checks" ARE opinions and Facebook should start labelling their own "fact checks" as "Facebook opinion". The cowardice of that system as well... like Facebook can be an arbiter of truth at first place? They are trying to have their cake and eat it too, by still profiting from content they deem "falsehoods" while trying to get off the hook regarding mass media critical of Facebook.
It seems "Independent Fact Checkers" simply parrot whatever other mass media outlets say regardless of facts.
Facebook gets to say "look, someone else verified it", knowing that "someone else" here thinks and acts accordingly. If they don't they probably get fired and replaced.
Given that this about 2020 California fires, I suspect this had to do with Trump or someone from his administration blaming forest management. And then, naturally, most of the media made fun of that and quickly went to debunk it, including the aforementioned "Independent Fact Checkers". Had Stossel waited a year, and applied the article to the 2021 fires, the fact checkers might have given him a pass.
Facebook gets to say "look, someone else verified it", knowing that "someone else" here thinks and acts accordingly. If they don't they probably get fired and replaced.
Given that this about 2020 California fires, I suspect this had to do with Trump or someone from his administration blaming forest management. And then, naturally, most of the media made fun of that and quickly went to debunk it, including the aforementioned "Independent Fact Checkers". Had Stossel waited a year, and applied the article to the 2021 fires, the fact checkers might have given him a pass.
"Independent Fact Checkers" is a rhetorical persuasion play. If you think about it, what does "Independent" actually mean? Does it really matter if a cohort of "fact checkers" aren't owned by the same conglomerate when they are cut from the same ideological cloth?
[deleted]
> simply parrot whatever other mass media outlets say regardless of facts.
bias aside, are you asserting that generally mass media news is more lies than truths?
bias aside, are you asserting that generally mass media news is more lies than truths?
[deleted]
I was once a fan of Stossel as a more mainstream libertarian voice. However, the segment he did where he slept rough for one night to “prove” that homelessness wasn’t so bad after all was so deeply offensive to me that I haven’t viewed any of his content since.
I personally know a guy who was homeless for over 15 years. He would soundly agree with Stossel's take. His opinion is... if I can attempt to summarise in a few words, that homeless people nearly universally choose that lifestyle, and if you ever give them a 100% guaranteed way out of it, they will run the other direction as fast as they can. I suggest you re-think your opinion of Stossel based on that segment.
> I personally know a guy who was homeless for over 15 years. He would soundly agree with Stossel's take. His opinion is... if I can attempt to summarise in a few words, that homeless people nearly universally choose that lifestyle, and if you ever give them a 100% guaranteed way out of it, they will run the other direction as fast as they can. I suggest you re-think your opinion of Stossel based on that segment.
---
> that homeless people nearly universally choose that lifestyle,
I'm sorry but I can't really let that slide. A lot of homeless people aren't homeless because they chose that lifestyle and your anecdote doesn't change that fact. A lot of homeless people (roughly half of them) have serious psychological issues that make them barely able to function normally in society, this is why a significant number of war veterans are homeless. Don't make me started on people of all sorts or people that are unable to have a home because of their history (former criminals, illegal aliens, ...).
https://www.bbrfoundation.org/blog/homelessness-and-mental-i...
Few people would chose that lifestyle willingly, certainly not "universally".
I slept rough 2 times in my life, in dangerous places, and it was already bad, I can't imagine having to do that for months or years.
---
> that homeless people nearly universally choose that lifestyle,
I'm sorry but I can't really let that slide. A lot of homeless people aren't homeless because they chose that lifestyle and your anecdote doesn't change that fact. A lot of homeless people (roughly half of them) have serious psychological issues that make them barely able to function normally in society, this is why a significant number of war veterans are homeless. Don't make me started on people of all sorts or people that are unable to have a home because of their history (former criminals, illegal aliens, ...).
https://www.bbrfoundation.org/blog/homelessness-and-mental-i...
Few people would chose that lifestyle willingly, certainly not "universally".
I slept rough 2 times in my life, in dangerous places, and it was already bad, I can't imagine having to do that for months or years.
Anecdote warning:
My experience living in a city with a non-trivial homeless population is most homeless -- at least the visible ones -- are predominantly able-body young men (and increasing women too) in their 20-30s. We're not talking factory workers who got laid off after 15 years due to outsourcing. They strike me more like urban, drug addled version of Chris McCandless from 'into the wild'.
Of course this experience may not reflect other regions.
My experience living in a city with a non-trivial homeless population is most homeless -- at least the visible ones -- are predominantly able-body young men (and increasing women too) in their 20-30s. We're not talking factory workers who got laid off after 15 years due to outsourcing. They strike me more like urban, drug addled version of Chris McCandless from 'into the wild'.
Of course this experience may not reflect other regions.
[deleted]
We all personally know outliers. It changes nothing to the statistics. As people of science on HN, we must not rely on narratives, this is the sort of thing the grand parent is pushing, associating homelessness with laziness in a cunning fashion. This is a mostly a lie.
A quick google suggests that his opinion is strictly incorrect and its a myth.
The largest reason for homelessness is addiction.
The largest reason for homelessness is addiction.
That claim is beyond ignorant. I'd suggest reading up on the topic beyond individual anecdotes. There are hundreds of organizations dealing with that topic so there is more than enough information out there you can learn from. I recommend searches like https://duckduckgo.com/?q=study+reasons+for+homelessness to get started.
Useful context for this story:
The original Facebook post with the video and fact check, which you can see without logging in: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1015712197...
The fact check: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores...
The fact checkers response to Stossel's complaint: https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o...
The original Facebook post with the video and fact check, which you can see without logging in: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1015712197...
The fact check: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/climate-change-fores...
The fact checkers response to Stossel's complaint: https://climatefeedback.org/responding-to-stossel-tv-video-o...
[deleted]
[deleted]
What could go wrong by having the Zuck and his minions fact check? Naturally it's going to lead to chaos. Tech Bros. have no business even going down this road. Stick to what you know and are good at.
Nothing - it isn't chaos, it is the long standing status quo of free speech. Even a complete idiot flat earther can "fact check" NASA and no parade of horribles has come to pass from this.
'tech bro' is a pointless pejorative here. Misplaced, too, since it doesn't have anything to do with this.
Aren't fact-checkers another semantic for censors?
Fact check: While it's true that oftentimes fact-checkers use carefully crafted semantic arguments and an appeal to authority to validate or invalidate certain claims to sway opinion, they do not perform any censoring themselves.
My favorite is this one, quoted directly from Snopes:
> Hillary Clinton used a hammer to smash her mobile phone during an FBI investigation.
> What's True: One of Hillary Clinton's aides told the FBI that on two occasions he disposed of her unwanted mobile devices by breaking or hammering them.
> What's False: Hillary Clinton did not personally destroy her phone with a hammer.
Source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-smash-phon...
My favorite is this one, quoted directly from Snopes:
> Hillary Clinton used a hammer to smash her mobile phone during an FBI investigation.
> What's True: One of Hillary Clinton's aides told the FBI that on two occasions he disposed of her unwanted mobile devices by breaking or hammering them.
> What's False: Hillary Clinton did not personally destroy her phone with a hammer.
Source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-smash-phon...
This sort of thing is sadly very frequent. The thumb is definitely on the scales. Fact checkers show their bias not only in things like this where they bend over backwards to say something is false, but also in what they choose to fact check.
Lying by omission is the nastiest, dirtiest, disgusting-est (lol) type of lying and misdirection.
It's the worst because the people that do it know they're doing it and they know they're doing it to hide the truth in a weaselly-worded way.
It's the worst because the people that do it know they're doing it and they know they're doing it to hide the truth in a weaselly-worded way.
In theory a fact checker is a censor that can only censor content found to be not true.
A regular censor can remove content for any reason, most commonly because it violates community standards or is politically inconvenient for the people in power.
This distinction is important so calling fact checkers a censor is potentially misleading.
A regular censor can remove content for any reason, most commonly because it violates community standards or is politically inconvenient for the people in power.
This distinction is important so calling fact checkers a censor is potentially misleading.
Censors only censor content found to be not true by their political operatives. Do you honestly think there has even been a government filled with bureaucrats maliciously censoring what they themselves believe are truth? What kind of comically evil villain do you think were censors in other regimes?
After reading and hearing what Americans think about censorship, I am forced to conclude a significant portion of the population believes that -- so long as someone doesn't look like a childhood disney villain -- they're probably a noble person with noble goals and noble results.
After reading and hearing what Americans think about censorship, I am forced to conclude a significant portion of the population believes that -- so long as someone doesn't look like a childhood disney villain -- they're probably a noble person with noble goals and noble results.
It's soft censorship with extra steps.
No, fact checkers gives data and hopefully sources and explain why a statement is believed to be true or false. The original statement can still be seen.
Censoring usually completely removes the statement with usually no justification (perhaps national security or whatever).
Not saying this is the case here, but in general these days (mostly?) right wingers completely mistake what censorship means. It seems like someone ignored my opinion is the new standard on censorship.
Censoring usually completely removes the statement with usually no justification (perhaps national security or whatever).
Not saying this is the case here, but in general these days (mostly?) right wingers completely mistake what censorship means. It seems like someone ignored my opinion is the new standard on censorship.
> Not saying this is the case here, but in general these days (mostly?) right wingers completely mistake what censorship means. It seems like someone ignored my opinion is the new standard on censorship.
You should create a separate twitter, and tweet moderately conservative ideas, and see what happens to that user, and your experience.
I have the unique life perspective of changing political parties from Hillary Clinton (Elected DNC Delegate) -> Libertarian based on my life experience in San Francisco, and personal perception that my original thoughts may have been wrong.
The way I'm treated on Twitter is entirely different. My comments, while not angry or aggressive, or extreme, find themselves hidden below the fold. When just a few years ago they were highlighted and never hidden. Trends I'm not interested in are suggested, I provide feedback to the AI and they are still suggested. I hide terms and they are highlighted. It is very Amorphous, but I suspect there is a machine learning categorization behind the scenes. It's more than coincidence.
You should create a separate twitter, and tweet moderately conservative ideas, and see what happens to that user, and your experience.
I have the unique life perspective of changing political parties from Hillary Clinton (Elected DNC Delegate) -> Libertarian based on my life experience in San Francisco, and personal perception that my original thoughts may have been wrong.
The way I'm treated on Twitter is entirely different. My comments, while not angry or aggressive, or extreme, find themselves hidden below the fold. When just a few years ago they were highlighted and never hidden. Trends I'm not interested in are suggested, I provide feedback to the AI and they are still suggested. I hide terms and they are highlighted. It is very Amorphous, but I suspect there is a machine learning categorization behind the scenes. It's more than coincidence.
I’m not saying that is in any way right or pleasant. I’m saying that is not censorship and there are important distinctions.
Opinions can't be fact-checked.
You can only fact-check stuff that is objective (and the percentage of objective stuff in news is 0)
In my opinion that is obviously false and extremely silly. So if a news channel says for example the 49ers lost and another won there is a fact there and it is in the news. Similar for budgets, elections etc. Most of news are facts. Plane went missing, new shooting etc.
Absolutely, but calling the man with the opinion a misleader is defamation.
This is interesting as it seems that platforms like Twitter and Facebook have avoided liability through Section 230 for content posted on their websites as the platform did not create the content.
However, now that they seem to be automatically "fact-checking" and/or otherwise creating content with people as subjects, the platforms may be opening the door to liability.
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel