Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why is it that the defamation / libel rules which apply to Twitter and Facebook...
Options
-
03-01-2014 8:58pm#1...don't apply to Boards as well?
Is it because neither of those companies is registered in Ireland and therefore subject to Irish libel laws, or what?
Boards very often deletes, for fear of reprisal in the form of legal action, stories which are absolutely dominant on social media at the same time. Most recently there's a story about a nightclub bouncer allegedly being a dick - the video, posted by the bouncer himself, is repeatedly "snipped" and threads closed despite being plastered all over both Facebook and Twitter.
Last year there was the infamous incident of a drunken girl ranting about her father's employer, and that he was the highest earning partner thereof.
These too were removed on grounds of legal risk, while Facebook and Twitter allowed them to run rampant.
Now I'm not commenting on the tastefulness or ethics of the viral sharing of either of these two stories (or many others, the incident in Slane last year comes to mind as well) on social media, but I am curious as to why Boards is so terrified of being sued while the likes of Twitter and Facebook are not.
A few days ago an Irish court demanded that Twitter remove a defamatory profile, which it did, but at no stage did the question of being fined, or having to pay damages or anything like that, come up. With both Facebook and Twitter, the disclaimer that "The paltform provider is not directly liable for what its users post in real time" seems to hold up in court time and again.
I am merely wondering, why does the aforementioned not apply here? Are there genuine reasons for Boards to be treated differently by the legal system, or for want of a better expression do Facebook and Twitter just have bigger balls? Post edited by Shield on1
Comments
-
-
hatrickpatrick wrote: »I am merely wondering, why does the aforementioned not apply here? Are there genuine reasons for Boards to be treated differently by the legal system, or for want of a better expression do Facebook and Twitter just have bigger balls?
I suppose it would indeed take bigger balls to be a bigger dick, which is why I for one am glad that Boards as a community prides itself on the fact that it's guiding principle is one that other social media sites would do well to follow. That is -
Don't be a dick (regardless of the size of your balls).
Why the hell do some posters feel a need to import the shìte, drivel and vitriol that drives other social media sites onto Boards? If those posters want to discuss those types of posts, then as you quite rightly point out HP there are other social media sites that cater to this need to gossip.
I hope Boards will continue to uphold the standard "don't be a dick" rule and refuse to pander to posters who revel in the misery of other human beings.0 -
Right, but my point is that at no point has either of these companies been fined. The worst that seems to have happened to them is being told to delete stuff, I haven't heard of them actually having to pay out to anyone. Perhaps I've missed a story though? And no company was fined for allowing discussions of any of the above mentioned incidents which Boards was too afraid to let people talk about here.I suppose it would indeed take bigger balls to be a bigger dick, which is why I for one am glad that Boards as a community prides itself on the fact that it's guiding principle is one that other social media sites would do well to follow. That is -
Don't be a dick (regardless of the size of your balls).
Sharing a video posted by a bouncer himself of that bouncer being a dick and commenting on it is hardly being a dick. The only reason it was removed was presumably to avoid being sued, and I'm merely asking since this never happens to social media sites why Boards seems to be so worried about it.Why the hell do some posters feel a need to import the shìte, drivel and vitriol that drives other social media sites onto Boards? If those posters want to discuss those types of posts, then as you quite rightly point out HP there are other social media sites that cater to this need to gossip.
I saw a video posted on AH, I wrote what I thought was an interesting reply to it, and the thread was locked when I clicked post reply - the video wasn't defamatory or sexual or anything like that, so presumably the only reason for removing it was the threat of legal action. It wasn't about "being a dick".I hope Boards will continue to uphold the standard "don't be a dick" rule and refuse to pander to posters who revel in the misery of other human beings.
So commenting on an incident of potential misconduct by a bouncer which is all over the internet is "reveling in the misery of other human beings"?
0 -
-
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Right, but my point is that at no point has either of these companies been fined. The worst that seems to have happened to them is being told to delete stuff, I haven't heard of them actually having to pay out to anyone. Perhaps I've missed a story though? And no company was fined for allowing discussions of any of the above mentioned incidents which Boards was too afraid to let people talk about here.
Boards doesn't have the legal muscle that the likes of Facebook and Twitter have in all fairness, and when they are served with takedown notices, they have to act on them. This costs time and money to process, so presumably Boards will often take pre-emptive action to prevent further legal headaches for itself and it's members. When you set up your own site you can discuss whatever you like and deal with the costs of the legal rammifications of same.Sharing a video posted by a bouncer himself of that bouncer being a dick and commenting on it is hardly being a dick. The only reason it was removed was presumably to avoid being sued, and I'm merely asking since this never happens to social media sites why Boards seems to be so worried about it.
Boards has every right to decide on what content they want on their website, and what content they don't want. You could presume it was to avoid being sued, or you could equally presume that Boards would choose to have no part in a social media witch hunt against a person. You could also presume that the unwitting participant in the video gave personally identifiable information and that could also leave them open to unforeseen consequences, much like the story of the Tesco employee in Limerick that was doing the rounds on social media last month which allowed for the identification of an innocent party who had no wish to be identified and involved in a social and print media witch hunt.I saw a video posted on AH, I wrote what I thought was an interesting reply to it, and the thread was locked when I clicked post reply - the video wasn't defamatory or sexual or anything like that, so presumably the only reason for removing it was the threat of legal action. It wasn't about "being a dick".
Whether it was the possible threat of legal action, or just the fact that Boards wanted no part in a witch hunt, or just the fact that the video identified an innocent member of the public who had no wish to have their business spread all over social media sites, I find the perpetrators of such behaviour, and those who give it the oxygen of publicity to be nothing but the height of dickish behaviour tbh, but that's more just my own personal opinion and I can't speak for Boards on that one.So commenting on an incident of potential misconduct by a bouncer which is all over the internet is "reveling in the misery of other human beings"?
Yes, yes it is, I really shouldn't have to point out to you Patrick at this stage the unforeseen consequences that incidents going viral on social media can have on the individuals involved.
If Boards doesn't want to be party to the witch hunt, I personally would applaud them for their actions. If you're that desperate to discuss such incidents, well then as you say yourself - they're all over other social media sites with lesser standards, bigger legal teams, and even bigger pockets.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 21207
FB and Twitter are billion dollar corporations, spending 20 grand on legal fees to avoid a $500 fine or uphold their 'good' name would be a pittance to them. Boards doesn't have that kind of loot so we need a different strategy.hatrickpatrick wrote: »Right, but my point is that at no point has either of these companies been fined. The worst that seems to have happened to them is being told to delete stuff, I haven't heard of them actually having to pay out to anyone. Perhaps I've missed a story though? And no company was fined for allowing discussions of any of the above mentioned incidents which Boards was too afraid to let people talk about here.
0 -
Failure to comply with a court order leads to the fines, they've already incurred solicitors fees.FB and Twitter are billion dollar corporations, spending 20 grand on legal fees to avoid a $500 fine or uphold their 'good' name would be a pittance to them. Boards doesn't have that kind of loot so we need a different strategy.
It doesn't really explain why certain threads aren't left active until Distilled Media (who are a reasonably sized group) receive a take down notice or a solicitors letter though wouldn't that approach incur no costs.Boards has every right to decide on what content they want on their website, and what content they don't want. You could presume it was to avoid being sued, or you could equally presume that Boards would choose to have no part in a social media witch hunt against a person. You could also presume that the unwitting participant in the video gave personally identifiable information and that could also leave them open to unforeseen consequences, much like the story of the Tesco employee in Limerick that was doing the rounds on social media last month which allowed for the identification of an innocent party who had no wish to be identified and involved in a social and print media witch hunt.
If Boards doesn't want to be party to the witch hunt, I personally would applaud them for their actions. If you're that desperate to discuss such incidents, well then as you say yourself - they're all over other social media sites with lesser standards, bigger legal teams, and even bigger pockets.
How does a thread like this fit which is allowed to stay open fit in with that attitude though.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057115242
Considering it contains contact details etc not saying the party referred to in that thread is "innocent" but neither is the bouncer (who uploaded the video himself) the threads keep getting locked about0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
A crime is committed in Ireland where the 1's and 0's are rendered into readable content. It doesn't matter where the 1's and 0's are stored or what path they've taken to get here, when they're transmitted to a device in Ireland and read here, they're subject to our law. People seem to have this fantasy belief that moving servers to a different country will somehow make you exempt from this and that's simply not true and to my knowledge, never has been. So, Facebook and Twitter and anyone else are just as subject to the law as us.
No one tries to sue them because they're gigantic and their massively funded and expert legal teams would probably take the average Irish law firm to school (unless it's a firm like Merrion Legal or Simon McGarr who we know are Ireland's leading internet experts). Given *we* have to constantly explain the absolute basics Data Protection act to solicitors, there's a part of my brain that finds the idea of one of these sorts of (either clueless or total chancer) solicitor's getting a serious public smack down from a giganto company hilarious
The sort of person who tries to sue us generally speaking is a small business who's suffering because of a couple of bad reviews. They can just about afford to come after us because we're small, broke and a simple target and they don't think that hiring someone to do better SEO for them would be a better way to spend their mony. Big businesses never do this, they understand that you're better off trying to fix a customer's problem and to be publicly seen to be doing so than trying to make history disappear.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement