The complementary lawsuits claim that the massacre in 2022 was made possible by tech giants, a local gun shop, and the gunman’s parents.

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

  • adroit balloon@lemmy.mlEnglish
    94·
    1 year ago

    interesting… whether the sites will be found liable…. it’s pretty unlikely, but it sure does shine a spotlight on how each are magnets for alt-right crazies. I wonder if that will have any effect on their moderation?

    I doubt it.

    • Kinglink@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1313·
      1 year ago

      They’re also “magnets” for progressive, liberal, conservative and all other crazies and normal people. That’s mostly because everyone uses them. It’s the most popular video sharing site and (one of?) the most popular social media site.

      • adroit balloon@lemmy.mlEnglish
        228·
        1 year ago

        yeah, but progressives and liberals and all other “crazies and normal people” aren’t the ones committing mass shootings all the time.

        • danielton@lemmy.worldEnglish
          48·
          1 year ago

          Right, but since YouTube and Facebook are two of the most popular sites in the world, they aren’t really just magnets for alt-right crazies, since they appeal to almost everybody.

          • adroit balloon@lemmy.mlEnglish
            123·
            1 year ago

            right, but “everybody” aren’t the ones committing mass shootings all the time. that’s an alt-right crazies problem.

            • mister_monsterEnglish
              15·
              1 year ago

              Ok so isn’t the issue at hand whether the sites are to blame?

              • adroit balloon@lemmy.mlEnglish
                111·
                1 year ago

                Ok so isn’t the issue at hand whether the sites are to blame?

                let’s break this down so I can answer you in what I think is an honest way:

                1. Are the sites legally responsible for the content they host, generally speaking and/or in this context of radicalization and such subsequent results as these?

                and

                1. Do these sites bear any social/moral responsibility to moderate their more extreme content in good faith to try to prevent this sort of result?

                and

                1. Is there an overlap of 1 and 2?

                1 - this is for a court to decide. I’m not familiar enough with the very specifics of case law or with the suits being brought to know exactly what is being alleged, etc. I can’t opine on this other that to say that, from what I do know, it’s unlikely that a court would hold these sites legally responsible.

                2 - I fully believe that, yes, sites like these, massive, general-use public sites have a social and moral responsibility to keep their platforms safe. How and what that means is a matter for much debate, and I’m sure people here will do just that.

                3 - is there overlap? again, legally, I’m not sure, but there might be, and in the near future, there might be much more. also, should there be more? another subject for debate.

            • danielton@lemmy.worldEnglish
              49·
              1 year ago

              I didn’t say they were. Facebook and YouTube didn’t commit the shootings, and there isn’t anything particularly special about them that would disproportionately attract the alt-right crazies. They’re not hate sites.