I have mixed feelings about this. One i disagree about who is truly at fault. should the platform be responsible because the failed to moderate content like this. If that is the case, then what happens if the content is not eligible for moderation because there is no rules against it? Content like trying to choke yourself till you pass out is stupid. but what about something like free divers. one is a legitimate sport, however if there was a free-diving challenge and a bunch of amateurs give it a try, we would likely see many people film their death. I use this silly example because both have to do with suffocating. point is, if a challenge inherently pushes one to their limits, in what situation is it stupid, or a sport? back to who is at fault. should the creator of the challenge also be responsible? if so then that means that any content that you post, and someone tries to replicate, you are responsible. To a degree this is already the case. If i make a how-to video on a subject you will likley see a "do not do this at home" or "preform all locally required safety procedures" because content creators are responsible for those who follow their guide. None the less this is also stupid. A person has free will to determine if something is within their safety and skill level. If they choose to follow along its their fault and their responsibility. If i want to create a guide for how to do something i should not be responsible for anyone's failed application of it. This is a tech site, so lets be relevant. How would you like it if I made a guide showing you how to set up a home web-server and make it accessible for the rest of the internet. I would be mad if i was sued because some business used my guide and there was some inherent security vulnerability that led the company to get hacked and loose lost of money and customer data. I was not a paid consultant, or sys admin for them yet me creating content that led to them loosing value. This differs ofcouse from this lawsuit. The way that i see this is a precedent that will allow content creators and the platform that it is created on to be liable for damages of people replicating the content. It dont take long for me to find some stupid content online. or even not stupid content but challenges that require a certain skill level that i dont have yet. it would be stupid if youtube & a rebull got sued because i went to a dirt park they filmed at and got injured. Just because one person can safely pass out and record it for the entertainment of others dont meant their viewers can. This is a stupid example ik, but i dont think that platforms should be required to moderate what is or isnt considered "dangerous" since that changes from viewer to viewer, and i dont think that users should be responsible for content that they post that is not deliberately malicious. I dont think that the original creator of this dumb af challenge went into it with the intention to kill someone, but rather as a hey check out what i can do, you try & record it. morons will be morons regardless of if they are told to do something or come up with it themself. It might be cruel to call a dead child a moron, but she did something stupid to get likes online. that stupid.
on the other hand im happy that that cancerous platform gets slapped up and down by the doj. so see; mixed feelings.
I have mixed feelings about this. One i disagree about who is truly at fault. should the platform be responsible because the failed to moderate content like this. If that is the case, then what happens if the content is not eligible for moderation because there is no rules against it? Content like trying to choke yourself till you pass out is stupid. but what about something like free divers. one is a legitimate sport, however if there was a free-diving challenge and a bunch of amateurs give it a try, we would likely see many people film their death. I use this silly example because both have to do with suffocating. point is, if a challenge inherently pushes one to their limits, in what situation is it stupid, or a sport? back to who is at fault. should the creator of the challenge also be responsible? if so then that means that any content that you post, and someone tries to replicate, you are responsible. To a degree this is already the case. If i make a how-to video on a subject you will likley see a "do not do this at home" or "preform all locally required safety procedures" because content creators are responsible for those who follow their guide. None the less this is also stupid. A person has free will to determine if something is within their safety and skill level. If they choose to follow along its their fault and their responsibility. If i want to create a guide for how to do something i should not be responsible for anyone's failed application of it. This is a tech site, so lets be relevant. How would you like it if I made a guide showing you how to set up a home web-server and make it accessible for the rest of the internet. I would be mad if i was sued because some business used my guide and there was some inherent security vulnerability that led the company to get hacked and loose lost of money and customer data. I was not a paid consultant, or sys admin for them yet me creating content that led to them loosing value. This differs ofcouse from this lawsuit. The way that i see this is a precedent that will allow content creators and the platform that it is created on to be liable for damages of people replicating the content. It dont take long for me to find some stupid content online. or even not stupid content but challenges that require a certain skill level that i dont have yet. it would be stupid if youtube & a rebull got sued because i went to a dirt park they filmed at and got injured. Just because one person can safely pass out and record it for the entertainment of others dont meant their viewers can. This is a stupid example ik, but i dont think that platforms should be required to moderate what is or isnt considered "dangerous" since that changes from viewer to viewer, and i dont think that users should be responsible for content that they post that is not deliberately malicious. I dont think that the original creator of this dumb af challenge went into it with the intention to kill someone, but rather as a hey check out what i can do, you try & record it. morons will be morons regardless of if they are told to do something or come up with it themself. It might be cruel to call a dead child a moron, but she did something stupid to get likes online. that stupid. on the other hand im happy that that cancerous platform gets slapped up and down by the doj. so see; mixed feelings.
there are many things in this text that I agree with