|
Last year, we wrote about a lawsuit against Yahoo where Yahoo effectively lost its Section 230 safe harbors because an employee told someone they would takedown content, even if they didn't have to, based on Section 230. Taking that argument a step further, a guy named Scott P. sued Craigslist after the company did not successfully block fake posts made from someone pretending to be him, despite a customer service rep telling Scott that they would "take care of it." Craigslist did take down the posts, but there was simply no real way to promise that no new fake posts would ever get through again -- and, in fact, some did, leading to the lawsuit. Unfortunately, a court ruled that Craigslist may have lost its Section 230 protections for the same reason as the Yahoo/Barnes case. That seems odd, as the situation is somewhat different (promising to takedown content vs. supposedly promising never to let certain content go up again -- an impossible promise).
Craigslist is now appealing the ruling and the EFF has filed an amicus brief, pointing out that if this ruling stands, it actually goes against the deeper purpose of Section 230, which is to make service providers comfortable in moderating or taking certain steps to help users, without worrying about increasing liability on themselves. In other words, if such a ruling stands, then websites will be hesitant to help users at all for fear of losing Section 230 protections -- and that doesn't seem like a reasonable result.
Furthermore, as Eric Goldman noted back when the ruling first came out, this case is a perfect reminder of why Section 230 exists: to properly apply liability and not get people suing third parties:
Overall, this case illustrates why 230 makes so much sense. The underlying problem involves a workplace harassment campaign that took place both online and off. Craigslist was just one of several tools used by the harasser(s) as part of the campaign. For example, the harasser(s) allegedly obtained a fake Hotmail account in the plaintiff's name, so why not sue Hotmail? The plaintiff didn't, even though the Hotmail account was an integral part of the scheme. Meanwhile, the people misusing the tools remain accountable for their choices. Most conspicuously, one harasser has already been criminally busted for his behavior in this matter. In light of the criminal bust, I don't understand why the plaintiffs think Craigslist should be part of the liability chain, and presumptively 230 reinforces its illogic by preventing the plaintiff from complaining about third party conduct.
Hopefully the appeals court recognizes this and makes it clear that Craigslist is, in fact, protected.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more at.... |
|
|
LaCie has expanded its lineup of USB 3.0-enabled external hard drives (maybe because the Rugged USB 3.0 mobile hard drive it launched in late April had begun pining for siblings). The Minimus and Rikiki are the company's latest USB 3.0-powered HDD offerings. If you believe in love at first sight, then an innate predilection for “sturdy brushed aluminum”will surely boost the odds of you falling for these two drives.
Available in 500GB and 1TB capacities, the Rikiki USB 3.0 is the world's smallest USB 3.0 mobile hard drive at 2.9" x 4.6" x 0.52". The cheapest Rikiki USB 3.0 is priced at $99.99. Coming to the slightly bigger Minimus USB 3.0 desktop hard drive, it is available in 1TB and 2TB capacities, with the former priced at $129.99.
"The Minimus and Rikiki USB 3.0 offer our customers easy and affordable options to access the super speeds of USB 3.0," Philippe Rault, LaCie Consumer Product Manager, is quoted as saying in a release. "Since these products offer backward compatibility with USB 2.0, they will work on any PC or Mac with no worry."
Image Credit: LaCie Read more at.... |
|
|
We were pretty skeptical two plus years ago when the details came out concerning the lawsuit between eBay and Craigslist over Craigslist's decision to exclude an eBay representative from its board to unilaterally diluting eBay and ignoring a proposed new board member, while holding board meetings without him. As we said at the time, it's quite clear why Craigslist did what it did, but that doesn't make it legal. And, in fact, a judge has now ruled in eBay's favor, rescinding the poison pill anti-takeover rules that Craigslist's board passed without eBay present. The whole situation really is a bit of a mess, and while I think Craigslist was wrong to take the actions it took here, it does make you wonder if eBay should recognize that having a board member on Craigslist's board is too big a conflict of interest. Updated: The original coverage of this news was a bit vague, but now the details are coming out, and the report is mixed: the dilution was rolled back, so eBay still owns the larger percentage, but eBay has been kept off Craigslist's board for now...Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more at.... |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 7 of 453 |
