It is currently in the news that there are accusations that the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) has been used to target individuals. As I understand it third parties, Only Fans in this case, told GIFCT that images from certain individuals were associated with terrorism and GIFCT publishes identifiers of images (hashes) that other third parties (Meta in this case) acted on to the detriment of those individuals (their images and/or accounts were removed by Meta because of the association with terrorism). For a statement to be defamatory it is required that:
- The statement was communicated to a third party;
- It caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimants reputation:
- It causes the regard in which the subject is held by right thinking or reasonable members to be lowered;
- It substantially affects in an adverse manner the attitude of others towards the claimant.
It seems this would apply in this case, as it consisted of one of the worse accusations possible in this day and age it could be considered extremely so. The same basic model is used by other organisations, such as credit reference agencies (X is a bad credit risk) and CIFAS (X is a fraudster or easy mark). These is the defence of honest opinion, but one could at least make the claim that the word of a competitor would not be considered sufficient proof of terrorism for a reasonable person to repeat said claims.
Are these sorts of determinations the sort of thing that could generate a valid claim of defamation? As they are usually transmitted in the form of a web service I do not know if it would could as libel or slander.