Technology

59696 readers

2741 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

1013

Judge rules YouTube, Facebook and Reddit must face lawsuits claiming they helped radicalize a mass shooter | CNN Business (www.cnn.com)

submitted 8 months ago by btaf45@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

285 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Isnt the entire gun market indirectly responsible, what about the food the shooters ate? Cant we use the same logic to prssecute anyone of any religion cos most of the religiouse texts support the killing of some group of people.

Its convenient to ask what the argument is when u ignore 60% of it

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 3 points 8 months ago

Did you even read the article we're discussing, or are you just reading the comments and getting mad?

No decision has been made. This is simply a judge denying the companies' motion to have this thrown out before going to trial.
This is very much different than "the gun market" being indirectly responsible. This is the equivalent of "the gun market" constantly sending a person pamphlets, calling them, emailing them, whatever else, with propaganda until they ultimately decided to act on it. If that was happening, I think we'd be having the same conversation about that, and whether they should be held accountable.
Whether they're actually responsible or not (or whether any group is) can be determined in court following all the usual methods. A company getting to say "That's ridiculous, we're above scrutiny" is dangerous, and that's effectively what they were trying to do (which was denied by this judge.)