The Power of a Few Billion Dollar Lawsuits

[MineralMan]

This past week or so has been interesting. Manufacturers of voting machines and vote-tabulating software have sued some MAGA-boosting news publishers and broadcasters for putting out and constantly repeating blatantly false stories that claimed that those companies deliberately flipped the 2020 Presidential election.

Major news figures on right-wing news outlets have taken up the false accusations and given them more weight. Those and other lies have been on the news on those channels, networks, and websites for months.

So, those companies filed Billion dollar lawsuits against Fox, NewsMax and other outlets. And guess what happened. NewsMax published a long retraction notice that basically said that they lied about it and wouldn't do it again. Fox News responded by firing Lou Dobbs, one of the chief offenders. MAGANews is scared right now, and it should be.

Will their actions following the filing of those lawsuits be enough? Probably not. They did it. They lied about those companies, over and over again. They lied about a lot of things, over and over again. Will there be more big lawsuits? That seems very likely to me. Those suits are going to have a huge impact on right-wing news.

Fox will be firing others. NewsMax is going to have to rethink seriously, because it doesn't have a billion dollars. Same for OAN. There's a lawsuit or two heading in OAN's direction soon. Civil lawsuits could bankrupt some fake news vendors.

In the United States, the government can't keep news organizations from publishing whatever they wish. However, that does not mean that there cannot be severe civil legal actions against those organizations by those who their lies harmed. Lawsuits have nothing to do with freedom of speech or the 1st Amendment. They have to do with torts.

Expect to see more lawsuits in the near future. That is how those MAGANews outlets can be punished for their lies and misinformation.

Just watch!

[DonaldsRump]

1. I started an OP on a related vein

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215064773.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is, IMO, a real issue. These defamation actions sure tamped down the lies for broadcast media. The question posted in my OP is how do you stop the lies for social media, blogs etc in light of Section 230?

[MineralMan]

3. Yes, I saw that.

But Section 230 is a different matter, really. It's a very complicated thing for social media outlets, big and small. DU is a small outlet, really. However, DU does have rules, and it also has a very active membership that stomps on nonsense right away. Posts that are really egregiously wrong either get juried out of view or refuted by replies.

For much larger social media venues, it is far more complicated. There are not enough people to view every post made on them. That would be literally impossible. So, they use algorithms, etc. to try to deal with it. But, that's unsuccessful, too.

Frankly, I don't see any solution for the larger venues at all. Many newspapers and other news outlets have stopped allowing online comments altogether. Others require sign-ups with real names to comment. Or, they force you to sign up with your Facebook or Google account, for the same reason.

Will Section 230 be done away with? I don't know. I'm sure the major social media venues are very, very worried about that, because it will be impossible for them to deal with if it does get taken away. It is simply impossible to moderate millions of posts a day, or even an hour. That can't be done.

[DonaldsRump]

5. I take your point

But there has to be SOMETHING that can be done. And the tech companies do have content moderators and they use algorithms. So, to a large degree, the problem can be solved with a combination of humanity (in every sense of that word!) and technology. These tech companies are stepping up to the plate. It's not going to solve everything, but it's a start.

What I most concerned about are the Parlers or Telegrams or Gabs that are the next forum the liars will use to spread their garbage. These alt-tech websites are going to continue to rapidly spread the messages. And then we have QAnon 2, 3, 4 etc.

My singular point is that there has to be a way to control that. I am not sure what that way is (e.g., defamation, etc).

[MineralMan]

6. I'm not sure anything can or will be done about social media.

The Internet is a global thing. There's no way to control a web venue that is hosted somewhere outside of the US. Our laws don't apply. Some countries block access to sites they don't like, denying their citizens free access.

The sites you mention, like Parler and Gab, are really difficult to control, no matter how you try to do it. Others have closed areas, with access that is limited to just a certain group of users. Even Facebook offers private groups that can only be seen by members. I'm in several of those. Why close a group? Well, because many groups are special interest groups and leaving them open just means a constant barrage of spam, etc. Other Facebook closed groups are political in nature. Some are right-wing. Others are something else. I don't know what goes on in those groups, because they are closed.

Despite what you say, it truly is impossible to control what is posted on huge social media venues. It simply can't be done. Pre-censoring won't work, so Facebook and others rely on people reporting offensive materials, but even then, it can take hours or even days before some human being looks at a post. Countless millions of posts are made daily.

The answer isn't to shut down those venues, either. The vast majority of users on, say, Facebook, have private news feeds. Only those who they designate as friends can even see them. Most Facebook users use the venue to follow friends and family. Shutting the whole thing down would harm those users.

On the other end of the spectrum are venues like 4chan, reddit, and many others like them. They're much smaller, but also have public and private areas. Some do not even allow real-name logons. How does one control those smaller venues, which also have millions of posts over short periods of time? There is no way to do that, and the owners of those venues are not cooperative with such things at all.

The Internet is uncontrolled, and will remain so, unless draconian measure are taken that will affect all of us who use the Internet as our main means of communication. The only possible control would require throwing the virtual baby out with the bath water.

Holding owners of Internet venues responsible for the actions of the members of those venues will not work. Why? Because they cannot even control their own venues without basically shutting them down, and that's an unlikely course of action.

So, it's up to us, as individuals, to choose where we go and what we do on the Internet. The Internet is beyond the control of anyone, unless the control is to shut the whole thing down. None of us wants that.

[JHB]

2. Well, when you're used to slandering public figures with impunity, lying becomes habit

Except corporations are not "public figures," so that shield falls away.

Besides, if you just hand them a case, isn't it in the interest of the shareholders that they take it?

Oops!

[MineralMan]

4. Exactly!

The chickens are coming home to roost. MAGANews is going to have to start building much larger coops really quickly.

[Wellstone ruled]

7. Sure looking like that is the direction.

Interesting how one single mean ass White Guy whom was kicked out of Australia and asked to leave England,seems to have put our Nation on this slippery slope.

Fun watching how he is circling his Propaganda Machines in a effort to protect his crumbling Empire of Hate News Outlets.

[Gothmog]

8. These lawsuits will be fun to watch

I am still amused by the OAN lawsuit filed against Rachel

Link to tweet

Link to tweet