When does "Click Bait" become libel?

[Video Beagle]

What, was LMG sad they were the only ones not in a legal dispute with Apple?

LMG, a pretty major tech influencer, publishes a video titled "More viruses on iPhone"....and then don't even use the word "virus" in your video to justify your joke/inference that 3rd party app stores would open the door for them.

 

It'll be interesting to see if this goes anywhere.

[Turtle Rig]

12 minutes ago, Video Beagle said:

What, was LMG sad they were the only ones not in a legal dispute with Apple?

LMG, a pretty major tech influencer, publishes a video titled "More viruses on iPhone"....and then don't even use the word "virus" in your video to justify your joke/inference that 3rd party app stores would open the door for them.

 

It'll be interesting to see if this goes anywhere.

Im confused I agree with all your saying lol

[Video Beagle]

1 minute ago, Turtle Rig said:

Im confused I agree with all your saying lol

Then I've done my job

[Guest]

Yeah... there was a distinct lack of info there. I was wondering if they meant the anti-trust case would allow for side-loading or less oversight, which means potentially more viruses. That's a stretch though. Maybe they just forgot lol.

[mr moose]

"When does clickbait become libel",  generally when a commercial loss or damage can be established.    Like defamation, Libel requires that the defendant knew their actions would cause harm and can have damages associated with them.

 

In this case LTT can argue that if the case succeeds you will get more viruses, thus the title from this very defensible position is actually in support of apples current practices and thus cannot be deemed to have either caused or be known to cause damages.

[Video Beagle]

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

In this case LTT can argue that if the case succeeds you will get more viruses, thus the title from this very defensible position is actually in support of apples current practices and thus cannot be deemed to have either caused or be known to cause damages.

It's not a bad theory, except, they at no point say that in the video. I said that in my OP.  @Den-Fi.com speculated that's what it meant. You inferred it..But Apple could point to the comments on Youtube who aren't even watching the video just laughing about "iphone's having viriuses despite what Apple says".

I'm also not sure "lack of intent" would fly, given LMG's stature as a major tech "influencer".

 

I'm all just speculating, mind you...free floating brain ideas...triggering on some long ago memories of law classes from a very rusty journalism degree

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Video Beagle said:

It's not a bad theory, except, they at no point say that in the video. I said that in my OP.  @Den-Fi.com speculated that's what it meant. You inferred it..But Apple could point to the comments on Youtube who aren't even watching the video just laughing about "iphone's having viriuses despite what Apple says".

I'm also not sure "lack of intent" would fly, given LMG's stature as a major tech "influencer".

That's not how libel or defamation cases work though.  You have to prove intent,  given we can easily show the intent was not malicious and it's a valid opinion that can't be linked to damages, Unless you can prove it was LTT intent to cause damage.

 

Quote

There are several things a person must prove to establish that libel has taken place. In the United States, a person must prove that the statement was false, caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or public official, a person must prove the first three steps, and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth,[15] which is usually specifically referred to as "actual malice".[16]

I draw your attention to the forth requirement as LTT is a celebrity.

 

4 minutes ago, Video Beagle said:

I'm all just speculating, mind you...free floating brain ideas...triggering on some long ago memories of law classes from a very rusty journalism degree

 

It's cool,  this is a thing I enjoy researching and discussing.

 

 

[Video Beagle]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I draw your attention to the forth requirement as LTT is a celebrity.

In this case, the important celebrity status would be Apple's, and this is the clause that could cause LMG, as a journalistic entity that makes what they say more important than what you or I say,  problems "and that the statement was made...with reckless disregard for the truth,"

 

(this part I remember)... like, if Linus were to say lies about me on a video, I would have an easier time of establishing libel, because as a non-celebrity, the first part is enough. But if I was to say lies about Linus, then he'd have the greater burden. (I remember it being for a regular person, it being untrue is enough, while for a public figure, it's actually harming the reputation...like saying Linus wears a wig wouldn't be enough, unless his reputation was tied into having natural hair, for a silly example)....but like I said, it's been a LOONGG time since I studied this stuff

[RasmusDC]

still think that headlines, drawing in audience as click bait, should have some sort of repercussion. 

 

I do know that as a reader or viewer, i tend to stop pressing these "extreme" headlines, because i ALWAYS end up feeling i have lost my time, on something not valuable to me as a customer.

 

But the issue is that, just browsing headlines today, as a normal consumer, not deepdiving, many titles are defamation.. in our cheaper online news i Denmark, 90% of the titles, are things that seems to be .. extreme, and end up being nothing, but often with "people" tied into the headline, they should be able to sue.

 

fun small thing, is Pauls Hardwares "fun" video on Gamers Nexus modmad.. just reading the title, it seems to be that there is an issue with the product. and if you did not see the video, or knew the friendship between these youtubers, you might abstain from buying that product.

 

Clickbait, is an ugly trend, and will end up killing all value in newz, simply because it degrades trust.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

In this case, the important celebrity status would be Apple's,

And thus you have to prove Linus's intent was to harm apple.  Given the way it reads it can be argued in any direction you cannot prove intent.

 

2 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

and this is the clause that could cause LMG, as a journalistic entity that makes what they say more important than what you or I say,  problems "and that the statement was made...with reckless disregard for the truth,"

 

(this part I remember)... like, if Linus were to say lies about me on a video, I would have an easier time of establishing libel, because as a non-celebrity, the first part is enough. But if I was to say lies about Linus, then he'd have the greater burden. (I remember it being for a regular person, it being untrue is enough, while for a public figure, it's actually harming the reputation...like saying Linus wears a wig wouldn't be enough, unless his reputation was tied into having natural hair, for a silly example)....but like I said, it's been a LOONGG time since I studied this stuff

 

It's not actually easy to win a libel case.

[K1ng]

I think this sadly just comes down to a joint effect of apple itself and the general market consensus umbrella-ing the term virus into any exploit. Like anyone who can make a .bat file in 1999 was a hacker...

Apple has "dummed down" the consumer intelligence of modern terms by just "streamlining" the os to a point a toddler cant mess it up. So in effect if they want to go after LTT for libel they have alot of ground themselves to cover on re-educating the market they prey on to the reality of what they say vs actual reality.

[SansVarnic]

Click bait is inherently the exact opposite of anything said in use of slander against someone or something.

If LMG was to post a title in a manner that wold indicate direct attack then yes it could be taken in the at way, but on a legal side (dont quote me) libel has been used in click-bait, news-casts, newspaper articles (onion, verge, wc...) with no little to no repercussion so I have little to no confidence Apple would go after LMG for this this one realistically.

 

Quote

a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.Compare with slander.

Apple would have to show some hard evidence that the comment/title had a real, direct effect on the companies status and or sales/profit to show that slander or defamation occurred. Nearly impossible to show or link.

[Noctus]

15 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Apple would have to show some hard evidence that the comment/title had a real, direct effect on the companies status and or sales/profit to show that slander or defamation occurred. Nearly impossible to show or link.

Pretty sure i've read headlines of companies doing exactly that and winning.... all from a "headline". Surely pointing to youtube comments stating "whoop, another reason not to buy apple" or something to that effect would constitute a link? Good lawyers could work that i'd guess?

[SansVarnic]

24 minutes ago, Noctus said:

Pretty sure i've read headlines of companies doing exactly that and winning.... all from a "headline". Surely pointing to youtube comments stating "whoop, another reason not to buy apple" or something to that effect would constitute a link? Good lawyers could work that i'd guess?

If they could show direct correlation then yes it would be libel. 

[Kisai]

17 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

What, was LMG sad they were the only ones not in a legal dispute with Apple?

LMG, a pretty major tech influencer, publishes a video titled "More viruses on iPhone"....and then don't even use the word "virus" in your video to justify your joke/inference that 3rd party app stores would open the door for them.

 

It'll be interesting to see if this goes anywhere.

Libel is the act of stating something as fact to cause damage to a brand/product. This is why all the fake-news sites like infow*rs,breitb*rt,f*x news, etc make money off of selling opinion "entertainment" and aren't news outlets, or very little actual news exists in between opinion editorialize pieces that are all about selling snake oil to the most gullible person. This is why advertisers do not want to advertise on fake content, because it tarnishes their own brand when people associate their product with that channel or site. 

 

Like to me, I think Linus is respectable, but I really do not want to see misleading titles on videos, because this can cause the videos to be filtered and algorithmicly associated with the scareware fake software videos. If you say iphone and virus, it's going to end up bringing all the "your iphone has millions of viruses and the government doesn't want you to know" kind of nonsense.

 

Even if the intent was not to damage the brand for entertainment it becomes libel, and this is one reason why even really really safe brands, get renamed in content for the US market, even if it's pretty darn obvious what the brand is. This is why on Mythbusters they print new labels over products so they don't give people wrong ideas about those brands, even if those brands themselves might be bad. (There's also a general issue about not giving free marketing to products that haven't paid for endorsement, so that door swings both ways.)

 

 

 

[Video Beagle]

On 5/14/2019 at 2:15 PM, SansVarnic said:

Apple would have to show some hard evidence that the comment/title had a real, direct effect on the companies status and or sales/profit to show that slander or defamation occurred. Nearly impossible to show or link.

Keeping in mind I doubt Apple would do anything like going after LMG legally (a polite email asking to "clarify" the title would be the most I could see....and I note it looks like that vid's title has altered a little...

 

A company like Apple has more than enough money and lawyers to pursue legal action if they want to make a point about this kind of thing.

[SenKa]

This is the only civilized discussion about LTT clickbait I have ever seen. Im impressed...

 

Technically it could be, but in this case I think Apple would have a hell of a case proving it.

[Video Beagle]

1 minute ago, SenpaiKaplan said:

Technically it could be, but in this case I think Apple would have a hell of a case proving it.

 

Oh sure...most of those kind of lawsuits are settled rather than ruled on,,part of why it's a pretty fuzzy area.

[SenKa]

3 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

 

Oh sure...most of those kind of lawsuits are settled rather than ruled on,,part of why it's a pretty fuzzy area.

The issue of Libel is that you need to prove it. And the only measurable case of Libel I know of in recent history is Elon Musk's "Pedo Guy" debacle, and it hasn't even hit court yet. I don't think it ever will.

 

If I went on record saying "Video Beagle smells bad", and then you sued me for libel, how would you prove it? What proves it? What qualifies libel, considering it is almost always based within disagreements on personal beliefs/interpretations. None of this is defined, and relying on preceding cases won't get you much further.

 

The issue is (atleast in the US) you have about as much chance of quantifiably proving libel as you would winning a case against the federal government. In my Government professors words, "Good luck."

[EldritchMoose]

On 5/14/2019 at 10:30 PM, Noctus said:

Pretty sure i've read headlines of companies doing exactly that and winning.... all from a "headline". Surely pointing to youtube comments stating "whoop, another reason not to buy apple" or something to that effect would constitute a link? Good lawyers could work that i'd guess?

I dunno, you'd have to be an amazing lawyer to prove that this video title is the thing that made the difference for that one lost sale, which I'd say is a stretch considering that the hypothetical commenter appears to already have a list of reasons not to buy.