points by SideQuark 2 days ago | 0 comments
No other business is liable in this manner. Run a classified ad in a newspaper, use it to scam someone, newspaper not liable. Hack into router at Starbucks, use it for fraud, Starbucks not liable. Put ad in your front lawn, for fraud, you’re not liable.
Making each of these liable really makes it easy to destroy your competition or enemies - commit crime via such methods, they suffer.
[–] erentz 2 days ago
[–] SideQuark 2 days ago
It routinely is legal for certain networks to claim things are true that aren’t.
Why continue to simply not understand law then get upset when, well, you don’t understand law, or the claims you’re making?
[–] LargeWu 2 days ago
No other platform has the scale that Meta does. Any company making as much money as they do can't claim they can't spend an extra $20 million/year to even pretend to fight the issue.
The larger the company, the larger the obligation they have to be a good citizen.
[–] bdangubic 2 days ago
they have no obligation unless there is a law that says they have an obligation. otherwise every penny spent is penny less for shareholders.
talking about morality and obligation in the context of meta, one of the most vile and evil corporations ever is not going to get us anywhere
This is not true in the case where the newspaper knows it is a scam, right? So as soon as Facebook says "we've reviewed this scam ad you notified us of, but found it complies with our terms and conditions", they're pretty clearly knowingly participating.