14 year old Irish girl is sueing Facebook because a naked picture of her was posted on the site?

[theninja35]

1 hour ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

So, if that's true, a child could take a nude, upload it themselves and then sue Facebook lawfully. That's like someone running up to someone else, giving them their wallet, shouting "HE STOLE MY WALLET" and calling the cops.

Perhaps I'm not elaborating enough. When Facebook knows that this image is circulating and has seen it several times, then that's when a lawsuit breaks out. Obviously if someone posted an image by themselves and it is only on their page, it's possible that they could have posted it in an attempt to earn a quick buck.

 

 

[Master Disaster]

3 hours ago, Mirdon said:

Let me stop you right there, kat is not the same as facebook and shouldn't be compared as such because:

1. They don't actively block malicious, illegal and copyrighted content.

2. They DON'T HOST the files, do you even know how torrent site works? They only link you to the actual host, they're NOT the host, how do think peering works?

3. I'm still baffled how you and theninja claim that facebook is responsible.

 

I suggest you read my posts again carefully, I've stated multiple times that Facebook have no blame in this, it's even in my OP. 

 

And FTR I said they host torrent files, not the download files, which they do. 

[ThinkWithPortals]

25 minutes ago, theninja35 said:

Perhaps I'm not elaborating enough. When Facebook knows that this image is circulating and has seen it several times, then that's when a lawsuit breaks out. Obviously if someone posted an image by themselves and it is only on their page, it's possible that they could have posted it in an attempt to earn a quick buck.

 

 

As soon as Facebook was notified of the image's existence, they deleted it. Presumably after someone finally reported it.

[Mirdon]

44 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I suggest you read my posts again carefully, I've stated multiple times that Facebook have no blame in this, it's even in my OP. 

 

And FTR I said they host torrent files, not the download files, which they do. 

Then why did you posted this? Well if you watch WAN you'll of heard Linus say many times, the owner of the website is responsible for anything that site contains, no matter who posted it. You just dug your own grave.

 

So? He was actively allowing people access illegal stuff. Is that what facebook's doing? No, so I don't know why you're comparing someone who's allowing them to someone's blocking them once they see it.

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, Mirdon said:

Then why did you posted this? Well if you watch WAN you'll of heard Linus say many times, the owner of the website is responsible for anything that site contains, no matter who posted it. You just dug your own grave.

 

So? He was actively allowing people access illegal stuff. Is that what facebook's doing? No, so I don't know why you're comparing someone who's allowing them to someone's blocking them once they see it.

Unless you carry on reading that specific post to the part that says

Quote

That said, Facebook only have blame in this if they failed to follow their policies & procedures and it can be proved they put her at risk and failed to protect her. As long as they did everything they should (and could) have done they're absolved. 

Don't try and put words in my mouth. 

 

And no he wasn't, that was the point. As you pointed out, he hosted a link to a download, not the actual download and the links were added by other people, not him yet he still hot arrested. Why? Because he owned the site and was responsible for its contents. 

[Belgarathian]

Lol... Lets sue the company hosting the image, not the person who took it or distributed it. Yeah okay. 

 

So now we expect everyone to have predictive algorithms, or for every bit of content to be vetted before being approved? Facebook would go to looking like G+ in a week. 

 

F*** off.

[Mirdon]

7 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Unless you carry on reading that specific post to the part that says

Don't try and put words in my mouth. 

 

And no he wasn't, that was the point. As you pointed out, he hosted a link to a download, not the actual download and the links were added by other people, not him yet he still hot arrested. Why? Because he owned the site and was responsible for its contents. 

I'm basically quoting your contradicting opinion and that makes me putting words in your mouth, that's cool.

Why even bring kat into this discussion? They operate differently, what are you trying to prove? That they're in trouble for actively allowing illegal content on their site? Big surprise. Get back to the topic on hand, facebook shouldn't be held accountable on the grounds that they have the ability to host images, that's just absurd, they've done their part in eliminating trouble as soon as they get reported. 

[Deibiddo]

I agree with everyone else more or less. She shouldn't be taking nude pics or even sending them to people for that matter. Pretty dumb. 

[MrDynamicMan]

On September 10, 2016 at 6:15 PM, VerticalDiscussions said:

Stop taking nudes, little girls!

.... Or not. 

 

 

 

 

• ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[VerticalDiscussions]

15 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

-snip-

Theyr probably looking for LinusSexTips then.

[Master Disaster]

16 hours ago, Mirdon said:

Ignore this, forum error

 

6 hours ago, Mirdon said:

I'm basically quoting your contradicting opinion and that makes me putting words in your mouth, that's cool.

Why even bring kat into this discussion? They operate differently, what are you trying to prove? That they're in trouble for actively allowing illegal content on their site? Big surprise. Get back to the topic on hand, facebook shouldn't be held accountable on the grounds that they have the ability to host images, that's just absurd, they've done their part in eliminating trouble as soon as they get reported. 

No your not, your selectively quoting the parts of my posts that suit your argument while ignoring the parts that directly contradict it. 

 

And as for KAT, you said Facebook aren't to blame because they didn't post the image so I pointed out the owner of KAT didn't post any of the torrent files yet they were still his responsibility. 

 

I really think you should read posts properly before responding to them because it seems to me like your reading the first few lines and not the rest then formulating your opinion based on that. 

[MrDynamicMan]

On September 10, 2016 at 6:44 PM, huilun02 said:

FB is into blackmailing young girls for pictures they don't want displayed on their site?

Blackmail is not a criminal case and not going after the blackmailer instead?

Ok...

 

Making her country proud I guess

Its simple. Her parents just want the settlement fees, and facebook has a lot more cash.

[spartaman64]

wtf why doesnt she sue the person that posted them. it would be like someone punching me in the face so I take the restaurant i was in to court for letting me get punched in the face and let the person that punched me go

[Master Disaster]

23 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

wtf why doesnt she sue the person that posted them. it would be like someone punching me in the face so I take the restaurant i was in to court for letting me get punched in the face and let the person that punched me go

Actually it would be like if you got punched in the face in the restaurant, they chucked the guy out but didn't notice that he snook back in and punched you in the face again, and again, and again...

 

As for your first question, I'm not sure about Northern Ireland but here in England (and I see no reason why it would be different) you can't be sued for an offence that you have been convicted of so I am guessing the guy has been arrested and convicted of the crime and has been served a punishment.

[Mirdon]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

 

No your not, your selectively quoting the parts of my posts that suit your argument while ignoring the parts that directly contradict it. 

 

And as for KAT, you said Facebook aren't to blame because they didn't post the image so I pointed out the owner of KAT didn't post any of the torrent files yet they were still his responsibility. 

 

I really think you should read posts properly before responding to them because it seems to me like your reading the first few lines and not the rest then formulating your opinion based on that. 

I like this, it's somehow my fault that I'm quoting your contradicting statement when it's your job not to contradict yourself in the first place. You don't want me quoting you? Then don't say things that contradict what you're trying to say, that's basic.

 

I've explained this so many times, KAT was actively helping, how can you not understand this? The owner was fully aware of what the site is doing, that's a whole different scenario compared to facebook wherein they're running a legitimate business that eliminates any illegal or inappropriate material as soon as they get informed on it. Honestly, your desperation on trying to make this comparison work is really sad.

[escape093]

The girl is suing for negligence...

 

T H E  I R O N Y

H

E

 

I

R

O

N

Y

 

Makes me ever-more ashamed to be Northern Irish. Apart from our education system, of course

[BashfulGiant]

Of course, this comes shortly after people accusing Facebook of being TOO restrictive, after taking down that naked Vietnam child photo. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/08/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-napalm-girl-photo-vietnam-war

 

And looks like the court have rejected Facebook's attempt to get it thrown out under existing EU laws regarding data management for large companies.

 

Never thought I'd say this, but.... I actually feel sorry for Facebook.

[Lynx]

I though facebook has some algorithm engine to automatically delete this kind of thing, or maybe not.

 

[Master Disaster]

5 hours ago, Mirdon said:

I like this, it's somehow my fault that I'm quoting your contradicting statement when it's your job not to contradict yourself in the first place. You don't want me quoting you? Then don't say things that contradict what you're trying to say, that's basic.

Or you just don't understand the difference between a technicality and an actuality. 

 

Honestly if you can't understand what is meant when someone says technically they're guilty but actually they're not then that's not my problem. 

[Misanthrope]

On ‎11‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 9:26 AM, Malcritch said:

  The solution to this for these big data systems, will eventually be checking any data being posted to their systems. If it fails and is flagged as against terms and agreements temp ban the user with a message for why and let them know their account is under review,  and send a request to an overview group to look into the post and ban the account that is being used to upload this stuff to their servers.

Facebook already does this and I've experienced this first hand: a friend got her account perma-banned from Facebook for posting nudity, except the last picture was not of any known celebrity or known picture that could be found on the web but of herself taken on a phone and immediately uploaded (Luckily, their system picked up her tits but not my face so my account remains in good standing). The picture was up for less than 1 minute before the removal and ban and this was posted on a secret group with strict moderation so there's no way there was any human being checking.

 

It's just not a perfect automatic system yet and this picture obviously slipped through, but they are doing exactly that.

[Mirdon]

5 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Or you just don't understand the difference between a technicality and an actuality. 

 

Honestly if you can't understand what is meant when someone says technically they're guilty but actually they're not then that's not my problem. 

Then what's the point of your technicality? Imagine putting drugs on someone on the airport and saying "technically he's holding the drugs!". That's what "technically" you sound right now. Technicality means nothing if you're opposed to what happened so I don't know why you're saying technically this technically that because it just sounds so ignorant. Btw I'm still shaking my head over your kat comparison, it's just gold.

[Misanthrope]

5 minutes ago, Mirdon said:

Then what's the point of your technicality? Imagine putting drugs on someone on the airport and saying "technically he's holding the drugs!". That's what "technically" you sound right now. Technicality means nothing if you're opposed to what happened so I don't know why you're saying technically this technically that because it just sounds so ignorant. Btw I'm still shaking my head over your kat comparison, it's just gold.

You're not incorrect, the child porn laws are just fucking stupid like that. I.E. Kids have been charged and sentenced (Thus forever labeled as sex offenders btw) for child pornography for sending pictures of themselves to other people. Like teen kids sending nudes and such.

 

Yeah...that's right...let the stupid sink into you....it hurts ain't it?

[Mirdon]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

You're not incorrect, the child porn laws are just fucking stupid like that. I.E. Kids have been charged and sentenced (Thus forever labeled as sex offenders btw) for child pornography for sending pictures of themselves to other people. Like teen kids sending nudes and such.

 

Yeah...that's right...let the stupid sink into you....it hurts ain't it?

It's crippling me inside!

[PhoenixBlaster42]

On 9/10/2016 at 10:02 AM, Master Disaster said:

 

1) Why does a naked image of a 14yo girl even exist? No I'm not stupid and I was that age once but why are kids not being educated on this very topic by parents and schools? 

2) Are Facebook responsible for images posted on their site by other people? 

 

Thoughts? 

1) It does say it was blackmailed out of her. Also, teenagers and people close to that age do stupid things. You'll have 15 year old's drinking and smoking. Some might even be doing drugs. Bullying also occurs, some to the point of the victims committing or contemplating suicide. Its not really surprising that nudes of teens circulate in schools.

2)For some images its not that they're responsible its just that its against the law. It does say that they removed the images as soon as it was reported to them. The original poster might have been perma-banned already. Other people could have been posting this image multiple times and some of it getting caught before it was posted. But one or two probably slipped past.