Except that the problem isn't the signature itself, it's the required infrastructure. Grandma doesn't know how to check The Donald's signature. And, of course, the infrastructure is hard (just check the unfixable problems with the PGP persistent DOS attacks that were discussed a year or 2 ago).
The land value should be taxed, but it isn't a simple answer. Large buildings imply more people which mean more use of city services. I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I am sure simple answers that would fit into a comment box here are wrong.
I have liquer store under my windows, it is open 24 hours and has outside benches. Basically loud nonstop pub with many junkies. I am going to move soon to get better sleep
Question: facebook as a platform is not liable for information it contains. However if Facebook would publish fact checking info, that is wrong or missleading, are they liable?
Could I sue facebook if their "facts" were proven wrong, and cause me damage?
The case was specifically about a full page ad that the New York Times had taken out that contained a number of factual inaccuracies, such as the number of times King had been arrested during the protests, what song the protesters had sung, and whether or not students had been expelled for participating.
GP asked:
> facebook as a platform is not liable for information it contains. However if Facebook would publish fact checking info, that is wrong or missleading, are they liable?
> Could I sue facebook if their "facts" were proven wrong, and cause me damage
NYTimes v Sullivan held that unless the "facts" proven wrong are specifically about a private individual, you can't sue for damages if a newspaper publishes information that are factually incorrect. If the NYTimes Editorial Board published an article that claimed that the sky is green, you can't sue them for that. More practically, if the NYTimes Editorial Board published an article that "climate change isn't real", you can't sue them for that either.
Likewise, if Facebook published fact checking info that's proven wrong or misleading, they won't be held liable unless the fact checking info directly defames a private individual.
Also note that this is US-centric. Outside of the US, this kind of publisher speech protection doesn't exist, and such nations can cause legal problems for Facebook. Either FB would have to hide the contents from citizens of those nations, or stop operating there altogether.
You can sue anyone for everything. Do you stand a chance? No.
The platform/publisher dichotomy is mostly just a right-wing talking point with absolutely no basis in law. As your example alludes to, a website can well be both at the same time.
For text that is Facebook’s own editorial content, the liability standard generally applied to any speaker, but historically tested in relation to news media and book publishers would apply, which is one of “malicious intend”: you need to prove that they wanted to cause the harm your suffered.
This is a rather high standard, but it follows from the US’s regard for free speech. You are likely to encounter additional difficulties trying to prove and quantify the specific damages you incurred.
But Facebook’s fact checking is set up somewhat differently, with third parties doing these checks. It seems almost impossible to make a case for intent against FB for a correction authored by any of these organizations.
Facebook is an international company and should comply with local laws, if it wants to do local advertising.
My country bans propagation of certain ideologies, due to our history. For example Heineken can not use its logo here. It would be criminal offense, not civil lawsuit.
Another possible problem is anti free Hong Kong propaganda and lattest presidential decree.
I dont really care about politics. Just showing it is incredibly thin ice.
