Do you think that sites should be responsible for the content users post?

[tom564]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/video/2013/aug/08/boycott-websites-david-cameron-video?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

David Cameron is suggesting that people boycott sites due to user posted content and has cost the site last.fm a large amount of potential revenue http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/08/askfm-advertisers-cameron-boycott-cyberbullying because he claims that they should be responsible and control what is posted on the site. 

 

Personally i don't think that any site should be punished for content that a user has posted and I completely disagree with boycotting a site over it , If people don't like the content on a site they don't have to stay.    

 

[Cacao]

That's complete BS, it's like all of youtube getting taken down because someone uploads a video with a song in the background. These copyright laws have become ridiculous. 

[Beskamir]

Oh it's the same idiot that thinks its possible to create a blacklist that would block certain parts of the internet. Nothing new here, move along...

[ShiverMePenguins]

yes they should. any website should try to mediate their content and make sure no one is performing any reprehensible actions on their intellectual property.

 

 

edit: and if a website were found to be performing no attempt to mediate their content nore users, and have made not steps nor grounds to fix or rectify any illegal activities they should be held accountable for aiding and abetting, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to ____

[Cronus]

Personally i don't think that any site should be punished for content that a user has posted and I completely disagree with boycotting a site over it , If people don't like the content on a site they don't have to stay.    

 

 

Wouldn't boycotting a site due to not liking the content be not staying because they don't like the content? :P

 

A site does choose what it allows on its servers, and if you as a person don't agree with that content on a moral level you should be free to boycott it. If this site allowed crude, racist or otherwise bigoted remarks and was saturated with such things I would be boycotting it. But because the owner and moderators don't allow such nonsense, I don't. People can boycott a site with a gray background if they wish, and no one has the right to tell them to do otherwise, because that's how they choose to use their influence. I don't agree with downright using your power to punish or wipe a site from existence because you don't like it, but using that power to say "I don't like what this site stands for or allows, and I think you should consider and share that reasoning with others." is a right that shouldn't be impeached. If your country forbids racism or libel or any such thing, I believe it should be your responsibility as a host to forbid such things on sites owned and operated in that county as well. I never think the site should be held legally responsible, because that's like holding the US government responsible for the crimes of its people, but they should at least take responsibility in making sure abuse is weeded out when necessary.

 

Of course, I'm not saying that if Facebook facilitated something like the communication of a death threat they should be held as an accomplice, but they should make it a reportable and bannable offense and state in their rules or terms that it won't be tolerated.

[Yoinkerman]

Within reason.  Alleged unproven "infringements" shouldn't be allowed like they currently are via DCMA.

 

yes they should. any website should try to mediate their content and make sure no one is performing any reprehensible actions on their intellectual property.

 

 

edit: and if a website were found to be performing no attempt to mediate their content nore users, and have made not steps nor grounds to fix or rectify any illegal activities they should be held accountable for aiding and abetting, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to ____

[Rhotis]

yes they should. any website should try to mediate their content and make sure no one is performing any reprehensible actions on their intellectual property.

 

 

edit: and if a website were found to be performing no attempt to mediate their content nore users, and have made not steps nor grounds to fix or rectify any illegal activities they should be held accountable for aiding and abetting, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to ____

 

You must work for the RIAA or some such crap.  Why on earth would you make ANOTHER person responsible for the words of someone else?  Completely wrong minded ideology and why the corporations are going buck wild locking up ever phrase and even words out there as their "property".  

[ShiverMePenguins]

Within reason.  Alleged unproven "infringements" shouldn't be allowed like they currently are via DCMA.

exactly. if you just take time to think about it, a person is always held responsible to a measure of degree when they hold any form of authority over another. it is the same as when a school is held accountable for not punishing hate crimes, or when a government is held responsible for allowing murder to be committed upon olympic athletes. or whenever a mother is held responsible for allowing her child to be abusive and evil towards her classmates.

 

they should take measure to make sure they are not allowing anything reprehensible to take place if they hold a measure of authority. and if proof is shown and produced proving otherwise they should be held accountable for their crime by omission. nothing more, nothing less.

 

You must work for the RIAA or some such crap.  Why on earth would you make ANOTHER person responsible for the words of someone else?  Completely wrong minded ideology and why the corporations are going buck wild locking up ever phrase and even words out there as their "property".  

please refrain from your idiotic posts from now on please.

[ygohome]

Common sense needs to be used, which is missing from alot of court rooms.  A website owner, if they were ignorant of illegal content in a thread or video, does not make them absolved of guilt.  But I wouldn't want to see an innocent website owner go to jail.  They shouldn't be running a website in my opinion.  But if the website owner knew of it, ignored it or did not do anything to prevent it... then yeah, they are not really innocent bystanders.

 

I don't like the idea of absolutes without common sense.

[Rhotis]

exactly. if you just take time to think about it, a person is always held responsible to a measure of degree when they hold any form of authority over another. it is the same as when a school is held accountable for not punishing hate crimes, or when a government is held responsible for allowing murder to be committed upon olympic athletes. or whenever a mother is held responsible for allowing her child to be abusive and evil towards her classmates.

 

they should take measure to make sure they are not allowing anything reprehensible to take place if they hold a measure of authority. and if proof is shown and produced proving otherwise they should be held accountable for their crime by omission. nothing more, nothing less.

 

please refrain from your idiotic posts from now on please.

 

 

Please refrain from trying to make people responsible for your actions.  YOU are the only one responsible for YOUR actions.  Everyone wants a nanny state,  until they see the conclusion of the nanny state (all the NSA stuff going on lately)

[ShiverMePenguins]

Please refrain from trying to make people responsible for your actions.  YOU are the only one responsible for YOUR actions.  Everyone wants a nanny state,  until they see the conclusion of the nanny state (all the NSA stuff going on lately)

roflcoptr. i'm glad to know you assume that i'm trying to shove any fallacy of my own upon you. let me know when you grow up and pay for your own life. or you could use that social welfare thing you americans have.

[Night]

Sites try to be responsible with terms and conditions and rules. In the end its not something easy to police so its not really possible.

Its sad that people die because of our community. I dont mean just LTT, I mean us, the people of the internet.

[Torg73]

Just say Someone here on this forum post something that was stupid but the government see's it then pull's the whole LLT and fines Linus for it, do you think that's fair?  The individual should take responsibly and  restraint and watch what they are posting on the internet as a whole.

 

We seen people getting in trouble on Facebook and other websites because of what they said, after all on the internet if one person does not understand a joke or sarcasm then your in trouble.

[xBlizzDevious]

I don't think that a company that isn't directly doing something wrong should get punished. If you're a website such as Google of Facebook and one of your users posts some illegal content of any form, Google/Facebook should not be the people to get punished for something they didn't do. I do, however, think that the company should have some degree of anti-illegal content filter thing to reduce this. Which I believe, most do.

[ConfusedDolphin]

Oh it's the same idiot that thinks its possible to create a blacklist that would block certain parts of the internet. Nothing new here, move along...

You can actually do that. But it is not what they proposed regarding the adult material thing a few weeks back.

[qwertywarrior]

well it depends

 

 

if its within their control then yes

 

if its not then no

[ConfusedDolphin]

There is a part of me that think that a site should have moderators that crack down on plane nasty behaviour which could be very damaging to the mental state and wellbeing of more vulnerable users. But I also do not want to get to the stage where we have a set of "internet police" deciding what should and should be said on a forum, message board, comments section etc.

 

[tom564]

Wouldn't boycotting a site due to not liking the content be not staying because they don't like the content? :P

 

 

 

Of course, I'm not saying that if Facebook facilitated something like the communication of a death threat they should be held as an accomplice, but they should make it a reportable and bannable offense and state in their rules or terms that it won't be tolerated.

Yes that would be the case however in this case the advertisers did not pull support because of their opinion they are boycotting advertising the site because Cameron urged them to and described the site as vial and they don't want to be seen supporting a site that is getting negative media attention.  Nothing has changed about the content that is on the site and they have a report abuse function AFAIK however as soon as someone kills themselves the site is automatically branded as vile that i don't agree with. 

[JordanCormack]

yes they should. any website should try to mediate their content and make sure no one is performing any reprehensible actions on their intellectual property.

 

 

edit: and if a website were found to be performing no attempt to mediate their content nore users, and have made not steps nor grounds to fix or rectify any illegal activities they should be held accountable for aiding and abetting, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to ____

But it would cost a fortune for a site like YouTube/Facebook to mediate all their content. There are rules and filters and if a person chooses to go against these then they should be responsible not the website.

[Flynn]

I'm going to say yes for a specific reason.  Liability.

 

Content hosted on a site is under intellectually copyright of that site.  The users posting actually are giving their ideas to the site owner and granting them permission to display the content they create by simply clicking ok to post.

 

I know that this might not be a popular view, and I honestly don't like looking at it this way either, but a website does hold liability for the content that is displayed under their copyright.  While it can be argued as to if someone really has the right to hold a site liable for a material hosted on the site, it is the responsibility of the website to ensure that end user agreement, licensing, acceptable use policies, etc are being observed and enforced on their website.

 

Example:

LinusTechTips forum opens a download and sharing section.  They allow users to upload things in accordance to and EUA or AUP and hand the content over to the users.  Next thing you know, you hear on the news that some kid downloaded a blueprint for a device that could hurt them and when they blow themselves up the parent seek retribution.  What ends up happening here is that an entire legal team is going to figure out who posted the content and hold that person responsible.  At this point, when they seek damages, they sue LTT for not policing their forums in accordance with a EUA or AUP that forbids the uploading of such content.

 

This might not seem fair, but that's how liability works.  Now, a site can put up a claim about how they are not responsible and to read/consider content at the risk of the end user.  This disclaimer will, in most circumstances and depending on the country they are in, protect them against liability so long as they are not breaking any laws.

 

Anyway, I think it is up to the website to ultimately hold accountability and liability for content hosted on their site.  Whether they accept responsibility or shun it all together in a EUA or AUP, either way they are displaying a level of accountability.  Disclaimers are in fact a show of good faith in a level of accountability.  So it's important for a website to choose one, and then police it according to their very clearly posted policies.  This protects the liability of the site, allowing the poster to be liable for content not the site itself (so long as the site establishes that clearly).  Which, if you read youtube and facebook's AUP you will find these exact stipulations in there.  They make a "reasonable" attempt to police the site in accordance with their posted policies that you agree to when you sign up for an account.

[tom564]

I'm going to say yes for a specific reason.  Liability.

 

Content hosted on a site is under intellectually copyright of that site.  The users posting actually are giving their ideas to the site owner and granting them permission to display the content they create by simply clicking ok to post.

 

I know that this might not be a popular view, and I honestly don't like looking at it this way either, but a website does hold liability for the content that is displayed under their copyright.  While it can be argued as to if someone really has the right to hold a site liable for a material hosted on the site, it is the responsibility of the website to ensure that end user agreement, licensing, acceptable use policies, etc are being observed and enforced on their website.

 

Example:

LinusTechTips forum opens a download and sharing section.  They allow users to upload things in accordance to and EUA or AUP and hand the content over to the users.  Next thing you know, you hear on the news that some kid downloaded a blueprint for a device that could hurt them and when they blow themselves up the parent seek retribution.  What ends up happening here is that an entire legal team is going to figure out who posted the content and hold that person responsible.  At this point, when they seek damages, they sue LTT for not policing their forums in accordance with a EUA or AUP that forbids the uploading of such content.

 

This might not seem fair, but that's how liability works.  Now, a site can put up a claim about how they are not responsible and to read/consider content at the risk of the end user.  This disclaimer will, in most circumstances and depending on the country they are in, protect them against liability so long as they are not breaking any laws.

 

Anyway, I think it is up to the website to ultimately hold accountability and liability for content hosted on their site.  Whether they accept responsibility or shun it all together in a EUA or AUP, either way they are displaying a level of accountability.  Disclaimers are in fact a show of good faith in a level of accountability.  So it's important for a website to choose one, and then police it according to their very clearly posted policies.  This protects the liability of the site, allowing the poster to be liable for content not the site itself (so long as the site establishes that clearly).  Which, if you read youtube and facebook's AUP you will find these exact stipulations in there.  They make a "reasonable" attempt to police the site in accordance with their posted policies that you agree to when you sign up for an account.

IMO only after something that is brought to the attention of the site as being inappropriate should the site be liable if they take no action.

[Flynn]

IMO only after something that is brought to the attention of the site as being inappropriate should the site be liable if they take no action.

 

If you do not have a posted policy governing users, you are taking liability for what is posted.  But if you clearly pass the liability on to the user when they post, then when you hold a site accountable the site can say the liability is passed on according to the policies posted and there would be no argument.  

[ShiverMePenguins]

But it would cost a fortune for a site like YouTube/Facebook to mediate all their content. There are rules and filters and if a person chooses to go against these then they should be responsible not the website.

OH. MY. GOD.

 

does that not mean that youtube has made an attempt to mediate their content and ensure nothing abhorrent is taking place? So, since youtube has made the grounds to filter content and protect various users they should not be held accountable if one porno gets through. WHY? because they also integrated report features, so when their filtering processed is bypassed by someone (whether accidentally or otherwise) a user can report the feature, giving youtube the chance to ensure their policies are upheld to the highest letter of integrity.

 

 

basically, you affirmed to me that i'm correct and that people like youtube and facebook are doing what they can to maintain a healthy environment free of the proclivities of the dredges of the internet.

[fracking4oil]

roflcoptr. i'm glad to know you assume that i'm trying to shove any fallacy of my own upon you. let me know when you grow up and pay for your own life. or you could use that social welfare thing you americans have.

 

 

I don't like your post, maybe I should sue LTT?

 

P.S. You really need to stop being hypocritical and telling people to grow up with posts like that.

[LAwLz]

No I don't think websites should be responsible for what the users post. They should be responsible for blocking illegal content if they know it's on their site (for example if I were to upload a movie to this forum and Linus knew about it, he should delete it, and discourage such behavior).

If someone rents a car and robs a bank with it, then the rental company shouldn't be liable for the robbery.

If someone buys a crowbar and breaks into someone's house, then the hardware store shouldn't be liable for the damages caused by the people with the crowbar.

If someone rent an apartment and sets fire to it, then the owner of the house shouldn't be charged for starting the fire.

If someone uploads copyrighted material to a website, then the owner of the website shouldn't be punished for what the user uploaded.

 

Just imagine how misused that would be. If I didn't like some website (let's say Facebook) then I could just upload copyrighted images and then report Marck Zuckerberg and have him fined for millions of dollars. If I didn't like LinusTechTips forum I could simply upload some illegal files, report the files to the police and then have Linus in debt for the rest of his life. Do you see where I am going with this? It would be a really stupid law and very easily abused.