YouTube and Reddit are sued for allegedly enabling the racist mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 dead::The complementary lawsuits claim that the massacre in 2022 was made possible by tech giants, a local gun shop, and the gunman’s parents.

  • Brownian Motion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    FTFY.

    "YouTube, Reddit and a body armour manufacturer were among the businesses that helped enable the gunman who killed 10 Black people in an racist attack at a Buffalo, New York, supermarket, according to a pair of lawsuits announced Wednesday.

  • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s bizarre looking at this from the outside and seeing Americans trying to blame everything but the availablity of guns for shootings happening.

  • mister_monster@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’re just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks hoping to get some money. Suing google for delivering search results? It shows how ridiculous blaming tools is. The only person liable here is the shooter.

    • dublet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The only person liable here is the shooter.

      On the very specific point of liability, while the shooter is the specific person that pulled the trigger, is there no liability for those that radicalised the person into turning into a shooter? If I was selling foodstuffs that poisoned people I’d be held to account by various regulatory bodies, yet pushing out material to poison people’s minds goes for the most part unpunished. If a preacher at a local religious centre was advocating terrorism, they’d face charges.

      The UK government has a whole ream of context about this: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97976/prevent-strategy-review.pdf

      Google’s “common carrier” type of defence takes you only so far, as it’s not a purely neutral party in terms, as it “recommends”, not merely “delivers results”, as @joe points out. That recommendation should come with some editorial responsibility.

      • Kinglink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is more akin to if you sold a fatty food in a supermarket and someone died from being overweight.

        Radicalizing someone to do this isn’t a crime. Freedom of speech isn’t absolute but unless someone gives them actual orders it would still be protected.

        Don’t apply UK’s lack of freedom of speech in American courts.

        • trite_kitten@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is more akin to if you sold a fatty food in a supermarket and someone died from being overweight.

          No. It’s actually more akin to someone designing a supermarket that made it near impossible for a fat person to find healthy food and heavily discounted fatty foods and someone died from being overweight.

    • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      He was treated like a joke candidate by the Democrats at the time. Facebook didn’t get him elected, Hillary ran a weak campaign and didn’t take the threat seriously. He used FB for fundraising and she could’ve done the same thing if she wanted to.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The lawsuit claims Mean LLC manufactured an easily removable gun lock, offering a way to circumvent New York laws prohibiting assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

    This seems like the only part of the suits that might have traction. All the other bits seem easy to dismiss. That’s not a statement on whether others share responsibility, only on what seems legally actionable in the US.