Would a repeal of 230 affect Wine Berserkers?

[David_Glasser]

Again, just because you aren’t liable doesn’t mean a suit isn’t costly and disruptive.

Whoopee, you won. After how many thousands of dollars and hours?

[J_Rock]

Again, just because you aren’t liable doesn’t mean a suit isn’t costly and disruptive.

Whoopee, you won. After how many thousands of dollars and hours?

More than with almost all other claims I can think of, it just doesn’t really make sense to file a frivolous or even weak defamation suit, especially against some random individual, so the scenario that some on this thread are contemplating is so unlikely. A company would bring a defamation suit to defend its reputation, but what kind of effect would suing a customer who posted a review have on their reputation? Not only that, but if, for example, an auction house sues someone for saying “These wines were so clearly fakes that these guys either have to be idiots or are knowingly selling fake wines at the consumer’s expense,” they open themselves up to a ton of discovery relating to their business practices (e.g., most emails, records Re inspecting wines, records of buying wines, their qualifications to evaluate wine, etc.) that itself can be very damaging (and burdensome) even if the statement is defamatory. On top of that, I believe about 50% of states (including the ones that likely have the most wine consumption and buying) have statutes that subject Plaintiffs who bring frivolous defamation suits to paying for the Defendants attorneys’ fees once the suit is dismissed.

Even without USC 230, speech is very protected in this country and 99.999% of people posting reviews have nothing to worry about.

[Chris_Crutchfield]

Sorry, I’m confused, isn’t the issue not about the person who wrote the review getting sued, but rather about the platform being sued by something that a user posts? Which, if Section 230 did not exist, would lead to a chilling effect on websites that host user-generated content.

The part about such suits being weak or unlikely to succeed is not really the point, the problem is that websites would be able to be sued for content that they host. Litigation could be used as a cudgel to cow websites into removing any content that could be even remotely risky.

I’m fine with reform if Section 230 needs some updating to bring it into the 21st century, but without it the internet would be a very different place right now.

[Mel_Hill]

Ask NED as far as I know he’s the only one who’s ever threatened to sue Todd.

There was a guy who had his GF get a LL for his wine business due to his criminal past.
This was covered in a thread on WB’ers and he threatened to sue a bunch of us who posted on
The thread. I got a huge envelope with the details of the case and had to remove posts or get sued.

[David_Glasser]

Again, just because you aren’t liable doesn’t mean a suit isn’t costly and disruptive.

Whoopee, you won. After how many thousands of dollars and hours?

More than with almost all other claims I can think of, it just doesn’t really make sense to file a frivolous or even weak defamation suit, especially against some random individual, so the scenario that some on this thread are contemplating is so unlikely. A company would bring a defamation suit to defend its reputation, but what kind of effect would suing a customer who posted a review have on their reputation? Not only that, but if, for example, an auction house sues someone for saying “These wines were so clearly fakes that these guys either have to be idiots or are knowingly selling fake wines at the consumer’s expense,” they open themselves up to a ton of discovery relating to their business practices (e.g., most emails, records Re inspecting wines, records of buying wines, their qualifications to evaluate wine, etc.) that itself can be very damaging (and burdensome) even if the statement is defamatory. On top of that, I believe about 50% of states (including the ones that likely have the most wine consumption and buying) have statutes that subject Plaintiffs who bring frivolous defamation suits to paying for the Defendants attorneys’ fees once the suit is dismissed.

Even without USC 230, speech is very protected in this country and 99.999% of people posting reviews have nothing to worry about.

Good point. Likely rare, but it has happened. Vinotemp and KlearGear have (maybe had?) infamous nondisparagement clauses in their sales contracts and a history of suing customers. Think there’s a thread or two here about Vinotemp.

[Markus_S]

Doesn’t this thread belong in the asylum?

Exactly. Nothing about wine in here.

[ybarselah]

Sorry, I’m confused,

indeed, as it’s clear you don’t understand how facebook works, how they make money, and why they’re really good at it. hint: it’s not by sorting timelines by new. facebook itself has argued in court that they’re a publisher, when it suits their interest.

also clear you don’t understand the impact of s230 on internet speech. you should read, at the very least, the Wikipedia entry: Section 230 - Wikipedia

[Howard_Cooper]

You won’t get in legal trouble for a bad wine review, at least not in the USA.

How about by a wine store if someone complains about dealings with the store? Or by a wine auction house where posters have said (in some cases in abundant detail) that they are auctioning off wine they should know or suspect is fraudulent?

Is it technically possible to be found liable for tortuous conduct when writing a wine or store etc. review? Yes (e.g., “I was more offended by this wine than I was when I witnessed [specific broker-dealer] steal his clients’ money!”). However, the overwhelming majority of wine (or store) reviews are largely mere opinion, perhaps with some truthful facts sprinkled in, and this kind speech is protected and/or not actionable. Even if someone says “The labels on these bottles were so poorly faked that the auction house should have known the bottles were not authentic,” this is protected as it is an opinion. A statement like “The auction house knowingly/intentionally sells fake wine!” could get someone in trouble if it’s not true, but I don’t think you’ll find statements of fact like this in many reviews. Finally, even if a statement is defamatory, there are a lot of reasons why the potential victim would not want to file suit (cost vs reward, negative attention, horrible discovery/investigation, etc.), and that’s before you even consider some state laws that make it even riskier to bring defamation suits.

RUDY KURNIAWAN & GLOBAL WINE AUCTION FRAUD THREAD (MERGED) - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers I am really grateful for the thread I have linked to and those like it, but there are a lot of comments in that thread, which (if not true) would fit the bill. I have no personal knowledge of anything in that thread, but my guess is that the reason lawsuits have not commenced is because what is stated is true, but I don’t think it is correct that we don’t find statements of fact like this in many reviews.

[mmarcellus]

Re the potential for being harassed by meritless lawsuits, I think it’s worth noting that many states, including California, have anti-SLAPP statutes which are meant to prevent that sort of thing.

[Chris_Crutchfield]

indeed, as it’s clear you don’t understand how facebook works, how they make money, and why they’re really good at it. hint: it’s not by sorting timelines by new. facebook itself has argued in court that they’re a publisher, when it suits their interest.

also clear you don’t understand the impact of s230 on internet speech. you should read, at the very least, the Wikipedia entry: Section 230 - Wikipedia

Hi Yaacov, I work in tech so I am quite familiar with facebook’s business model. Please do not stoop to personal insults out of frustration, it’s not helpful for furthering the discussion here.

Just curious, what’s your background that makes you so confident in your understanding of this matter? If you’re an expert on this topic, surely you can put together a cogent argument instead of dismissively telling others to read a Wikipedia article.

[ybarselah]

indeed, as it’s clear you don’t understand how facebook works, how they make money, and why they’re really good at it. hint: it’s not by sorting timelines by new. facebook itself has argued in court that they’re a publisher, when it suits their interest.

also clear you don’t understand the impact of s230 on internet speech. you should read, at the very least, the Wikipedia entry: Section 230 - Wikipedia

Hi Yaacov, I work in tech so I am quite familiar with facebook’s business model. Please do not stoop to personal insults out of frustration, it’s not helpful for furthering the discussion here.

Just curious, what’s your background that makes you so confident in your understanding of this matter? If you’re an expert on this topic, surely you can put together a cogent argument instead of dismissively telling others to read a Wikipedia article.

apologies if you felt that being ignorant regarding the murky issues of how antiquated laws intersect with modern technology, that was not my intent.

my argument is that facebook is a publisher, not merely a distributor. my remark on (scary) algorithms goes to the heart of this - they don’t merely “sort by new”. my publisher argument is buttressed by facebook employee mark zuckerberg when he told congress that facebook is responsible for the content on its platform, sometimes. the reason is that zuck wants it both ways - he wants to benefit from the hands-off liability of being a distribution platform WHILE AT THE SAME TIME use his “scary” algorithms to programmatically curate content, ban certain things that he doesn’t like, so that he can make money.

I’ll freely acknowledge that this is a current and ongoing debate, section 230 does nothing to de-murkify the waters.

[Chris_Crutchfield]

my argument is that facebook is a publisher, not merely a distributor. my remark on (scary) algorithms goes to the heart of this - they don’t merely “sort by new”. my publisher argument is buttressed by facebook employee mark zuckerberg when he told congress that facebook is responsible for the content on its platform, sometimes. the reason is that zuck wants it both ways - he wants to benefit from the hands-off liability of being a distribution platform WHILE AT THE SAME TIME use his “scary” algorithms to programmatically curate content, ban certain things that he doesn’t like, so that he can make money.

I’ll freely acknowledge that this is a current and ongoing debate, section 230 does nothing to de-murkify the waters.

A number of points here:

1. This isn’t just about Facebook. Section 230 affects much more than a single website. If you can enumerate a specific criteria that you feel distinguishes a platform like Facebook from a platform like Yelp that also “programmatically curates content”, I would be interested to hear it. Or perhaps you feel that they should both be treated the same, as publishers?

2. Facebook IS responsible for the content on its platform… sometimes. If users post nudity, gore, calls for violence, or other illegal material, they have the responsibility to remove it. Do you feel otherwise? I believe there is an entire “good faith” clause in Section 230 devoted to this topic.

3. Regarding “ban certain things he doesn’t like”, I assume you are referring to recent high-profile “de-platforming” cases. Facebook has a Terms of Service that disallow users from posting certain types of content, for the most part equivalent to the items I enumerated in point 2 above. If users violate those terms of service, then they either have the content deleted or their account removed. Accounts that repeatedly call for violence or otherwise incite it should be subject to removal, that seems like a good thing. You are imputing a certain editorial intent to these actions that is simply not true.

[ybarselah]

my argument is that facebook is a publisher, not merely a distributor. my remark on (scary) algorithms goes to the heart of this - they don’t merely “sort by new”. my publisher argument is buttressed by facebook employee mark zuckerberg when he told congress that facebook is responsible for the content on its platform, sometimes. the reason is that zuck wants it both ways - he wants to benefit from the hands-off liability of being a distribution platform WHILE AT THE SAME TIME use his “scary” algorithms to programmatically curate content, ban certain things that he doesn’t like, so that he can make money.

I’ll freely acknowledge that this is a current and ongoing debate, section 230 does nothing to de-murkify the waters.

A number of points here:

1. This isn’t just about Facebook. Section 230 affects much more than a single website. If you can enumerate a specific criteria that you feel distinguishes a platform like Facebook from a platform like Yelp that also “programmatically curates content”, I would be interested to hear it. Or perhaps you feel that they should both be treated the same, as publishers?

2. Facebook IS responsible for the content on its platform… sometimes. If users post nudity, gore, calls for violence, or other illegal material, they have the responsibility to remove it. Do you feel otherwise? I believe there is an entire “good faith” clause in Section 230 devoted to this topic.

3. Regarding “ban certain things he doesn’t like”, I assume you are referring to recent high-profile “de-platforming” cases. Facebook has a Terms of Service that disallow users from posting certain types of content, for the most part equivalent to the items I enumerated in point 2 above. If users violate those terms of service, then they either have the content deleted or their account removed. Accounts that repeatedly call for violence or otherwise incite it should be subject to removal, that seems like a good thing. You are imputing a certain editorial intent to these actions that is simply not true.

now we’re getting somewhere!

1. no this isn’t about facebook per see, but it’s the best modern example because it plays in both sandboxes so well compared to say, the nytimes or a standalone ISP. i don’t know why you keep bringing up yelp, but it’s not a social network and doesn’t make its users data available for direct marketing across the entire internet. regardless, s230 doesn’t care about the distinction between being a distributor or a publisher - that’s the whole point.

2. illegal content is irrelevant here as it’s always … illegal. additionally, companies can have terms of service that prohibit certain content even though that content is not illegal (e.g., hate speech). there’s indeed a “good samaritan” element of s230 which is the reason it’s murky. it updates the prior, overly-rigid, paradigm of any moderation = liability (Prodigy case).

3. the current political implications are interesting, but irrelevant as far as the law goes. the fact remains that social networks - especially facebook - specifically design their platform for engagement. this isn’t a controversial statement, it’s fact. it’s also fact that certain types of content result in heightened engagement. whether you believe this rises to the level of editorial intent is either meaningless or irrelevant as the result is the same; curation for the desired result of engagement.

[Chris_Crutchfield]

now we’re getting somewhere!

1. no this isn’t about facebook per see, but it’s the best modern example because it plays in both sandboxes so well compared to say, the nytimes or a standalone ISP. i don’t know why you keep bringing up yelp, but it’s not a social network and doesn’t make its users data available for direct marketing across the entire internet. regardless, s230 doesn’t care about the distinction between being a distributor or a publisher - that’s the whole point.

2. illegal content is irrelevant here as it’s always … illegal. additionally, companies can have terms of service that prohibit certain content even though that content is not illegal (e.g., hate speech). there’s indeed a “good samaritan” element of s230 which is the reason it’s murky. it updates the prior, overly-rigid, paradigm of any moderation = liability (Prodigy case).

3. the current political implications are interesting, but irrelevant as far as the law goes. the fact remains that social networks - especially facebook - specifically design their platform for engagement. this isn’t a controversial statement, it’s fact. it’s also fact that certain types of content result in heightened engagement. whether you believe this rises to the level of editorial intent is either meaningless or irrelevant as the result is the same; curation for the desired result of engagement.

I am bringing up Yelp because it’s a platform that hosts user-generated content, like Facebook. It also has feeds of user-generated content, business reviews, that it orders programmatically based on engagement signals. I asked you to state a specific criteria that differentiates the two platforms, or else your objections to Facebook’s protections under Section 230 would seem to also apply to platforms like Yelp.