Episode #125 of the Stack Overflow podcast is here. We talk Tilde Club and mechanical keyboards. Listen now
9

Is this illegal? No, subject to some possible narrow exceptions discussed below. Do the social media companies have a duty under the First Amendment to not censor users? No. Indeed, usually, there is greater liability exposure for failing to censor content, for example, by failing to honor a "take down notice" under Title II of the Digital ...


6

GDPR compliance is a matter between every customer and the business, not between different customers. How did you get the other customer's contact details? If they were provided or leaked by the business, that might be a failure of the business's obligation as a data controller to protect the personal data they are processing, possibly even a data breach in ...


3

You can be fired in Canada for criticizing the employer, or even complaining about the weather. There is a distinction between Termination Without Cause and Termination With Cause. In the latter case, which requires a serious reason related to the employee's conduct, you can be fired without advance notice and with no severance pay. If the employees actions ...


3

Yes. Content not created by a user is not protected by Section 230, and if the platform agents or employees begin to substantively edit content, the platform becomes a co-author rather than merely a platform for that content.


3

Social media platforms are not publishers under UK law (at present), as such, they are not legally responsible for the content they host providing that there is a mechanism for alerting them to infringing material and that, when alerted, they remove it. As to "why", that is a political question.


3

You'll note that Maryland governor Larry Hogan was sued and ended up settling over Facebook deleted comments and blocks. And a judge ruled that Trump can't block comments on Twitter. So it seems there's an evolving consensus that politicians can't simply block or delete social media comments for differing viewpoints.


2

Twitter, as the owner of the site, can make rules for how users will conduct themselves. It has delegated extensive authority to account holders to moderate comments posted to their accounts, including the ability to delete comments for any reason or none. This effectively allows the account holder to make rules, within the very broad limits of the Twitter ...


2

Is this legal or violating the TOS of instagram? It’s violating the terms. But isn't it implied consent by using our hashtag? First, nobody owns a hashtag. Second, no.


2

Impersonating someone else on Facebook is against Facebook's TOS. It could also be a criminal offense, depending on local/national jurisdictions. Someone who is being impersonated on Facebook can file a complaint with Facebook; see How do I report an account or Page that’s pretending to be me or someone else? | Facebook Help Center | Facebook. If it is a ...


2

A fake post in the sense of one that appears to be a Twitter or Facebook post (or a post on some other well-known social media site) but is in fact nothing of the sort, might be an infringement of trademark rights. Presumably such amn imitation would display the logo and other trademarks of the site being imitated, without permission, and in a way likely to ...


1

Generally, a short quote from a published poem would constitute fair use (if in the US) or fair dealing (if in the UK or much of the EU). so would a parody or other altered version of a short quote. In any case, even if his is beyond fair use/fair dealing, any copyright issue could only be enforced by the copyright holder filing an infringement suit against ...


1

Can a platform curate the content on its site to the point where it is legally considered a publisher and loses protection under section 230? Curating the content, as in displaying it in a certain form or deleting it, is not what differentiates publishers and platforms. Two things can make a platform a publisher: Editing content in certain ways convey a ...


1

The answer is either "yes they can" or "no they can't", depending on the specifics of the school. The teacher answers to school policy, so if there is a policy forbidding such an requirement, then they can't, otherwise they can. Whether or not there is such a school policy depends in turn on specifics regarding the school, primarily (a) whether the policy-...


1

Under California law (Cal. Civ. §46), Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which...4. Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity You could hire an attorney to file a defamation lawsuit against the party. As part of the process, your attorney would file ...


1

It first depends on whether the author has granted permission to others to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). Hosting sites often include such licensing as a condition of using their service. Such a license eliminates ...


1

To be very clear, you can still be sued in civil court for what someone has posted on you platform; basically, anyone can sue anyone for virtually anything in civil court, and if sued, you will have to answer the lawsuit with the help of an attorney. But you can use The Communications Decency Act as a defense, and most likely prevail, in looking at many past ...


1

Under 47 U.S.C. § 230, a Provision of the Communication Decency Act, social media providers are not responsible for the content posted on their platforms. "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"


1

Yes In theory at least. Libel attaches to any publisher of the libellous statement and anyone who publishes an endorsement of that statement. So, for example, a person who retweets a libellous statement liable and there is case law to support this. Of course, if you republish without endorsement (e.g. "Look at the BS X said: ...") then you are not liable. ...


1

This is an interesting case, and an interesting issue. Note that the Trump case was at the federal District Court level, and the Hogan case was settled, so there was no court opinion at all. As far as I know, this issue has not been passed upon by any US Court of Appeals or Supreme Court decision, so we don't know how the courts will eventually rule. A key ...


1

In the US, there are no such laws which restrict what a person can see. You have no recourse against the sender. You might be (remotely) able to get the service to expel the friend whom you suspect of being instrumental in the sender seeing your material, if whatever the friend did was contrary to the terms of service. Read the section "How You Can't Use ...


1

In case 1, where the use who posts the image owns the rights to it, s/he has the right to share it with anyone that s/he wishes, and the right to create or publish a modified version, and the right to provide the image to any application that s/he wishes, including a third party application. Nothing in the Instagram Teems of Use purports to restrict these ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible