Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook The Courts Slashdot.org

Meta Sued For Alleged Role In Extremist-Linked Murder of Federal Guard (engadget.com) 34

Posted by BeauHD from the extreme-recommendations dept.
The surviving sister of Dave Patrick Underwood, a federal security guard who was killed in a drive-by shooting in 2020, has filed a lawsuit against Meta, the parent organization of Facebook. The suit seeks to hold the company accountable for connecting the two men charged in the murder plot and giving them a space online to plan the attack. Engadget reports: Underwood was shot outside a federal building in Oakland, California in May of 2020. The two men charged inn the case were later linked to so-called "boogaloo" anti-government movement, which Facebook banned from its platform in June of 2020 citing the group's history of "actively promoting violence against civilians, law enforcement and government officials and institutions."

"The shooting was not a random act of violence," the lawsuit states. "It was the culmination of an extremist plot hatched and planned on Facebook by two men who Meta connected through Facebook's groups infrastructure and its use of algorithms designed and intended to increase user engagement and, correspondingly, Meta's profits." The lawsuit alleges the two men would never have met if not for Facebook's recommendations, which pushed them both to join groups that "openly advocated for violence." A spokesperson for Meta said in a statement to The New York Times that the "claims are without legal basis," and pointed to the company's work to ban "militarized social movements."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Meta Sued For Alleged Role In Extremist-Linked Murder of Federal Guard More

Meta Sued For Alleged Role In Extremist-Linked Murder of Federal Guard

Comments Filter:

  • "Meta" stands for... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Friday January 07, 2022 @05:13PM (#62153491)

    "Metastasize"

  • The implicit demand here is that we will require all our means of communication to monitor everything we say and silence us if they perceive some risk in it.

    • Re:Troubling (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AleRunner ( 4556245 ) on Friday January 07, 2022 @05:23PM (#62153535)

      The implicit demand here is that we will require all our means of communication to monitor everything we say and silence us if they perceive some risk in it.

      Meta/Facebook already monitors all your communications. For advertising, social profiling and social manipulation aims. Most people on here will tell you "I only use it plant based basket weaving - I'm not manipulated" which is great until you see Meta/Facebook pushing data about how they can target plant basket weavers for to start smoking and vote for child porn decriminalisation.

      Meta/Facebook either needs to become a common carrier and get out of peoples comms or become discussion forum and take responsibility for moderating and protecting. Right now they want the convenience of both without the responsibilities of either.

      • Trying to persuade somebody is not the same as trying to limit their expression, yet by equating targeted advertising with blocking messages you are equating them.

        It's like deciding which books to remove from the public library, vs. which to put in a display showcasing suggested summer reading. These two things are not the same.

        • Trying to persuade somebody is not the same as trying to limit their expression, yet by equating targeted advertising with blocking messages you are equating them.

          It's like deciding which books to remove from the public library, vs. which to put in a display showcasing suggested summer reading. These two things are not the same.

          The thing is that it doesn't work that way. Sure, maybe the other message exists somewhere, but it never turns up on their screen because Facebook/Meta actually does block it from appearing to you. It's also worse in other ways - if you have a selection of "promoted" books in a library then you can see exactly what their titles are and you know that the library is suggesting you read these books. Facebook was built to allow them to promote and push stories from other people whilst hiding their own involv

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by yagmot ( 7519124 )

          Trying to persuade somebody is not the same as trying to limit their expression, yet by equating targeted advertising with blocking messages you are equating them.

          Wow! It's amazing how some people's brains work! How in the world did you manage to twist "Meta/Facebook already monitors all your communications" into "targeted advertising and censorship are the same thing"?

          Seriously, what drives that behavior? Why would you willingly and knowingly put words in someone's mouth like that? Or maybe it's a lack of insight, and you don't realize that's what you're doing?

          And had that person's reply been worded slightly differently, would it have prevented this nonsense? For ex

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Moryath ( 553296 )

      Fuckerberg bent over backwards [techdirt.com] to enable these terrorists for years.

      Damn right his company should be held accountable.

      • I tried to follow your link but I'm at work and the corporate filter blocked it for Hate and Intolerance.

        Welcome to the future LOL.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

        Of course right-wingers will just think that post is fake news, dis-info etc. The irony is that those that scream fake news the most tend to be the ones ingesting it and they can't handle actual reality even when their meme-verse is worse.

    • Re:Troubling (Score:4, Informative)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Friday January 07, 2022 @06:04PM (#62153695)

      The implicit demand here is that we will require all our means of communication to monitor everything we say and silence us if they perceive some risk in it.

      No, the plaintiff is not accusing Meta of failing to monitor users but the opposite: That Meta monitors users and actively links them together.

      Disclaimer: I am clarifying what the plaintiff is claiming. I am not saying that her claim has merit. In fact, I think it does not.

    • But let's just say this company discovers that both you and some other person routinely search for "little boy bathing" pictures, "best nighttime sleep aids", books on "child psychology", and regions of the country with highest unsolved child abductions, then their algorithm concluded you shared common interests and arranged for you to cross paths... perhaps maybe THAT company should watch what you do on their platform?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      When someone goes out and kill someone, that is on them. God or the radicalizations did not make Eric Rudolph murder a single mom, it was that he was a murderer. These guys can sue Facebook, under California law they can now sue the gun manufacturer. But the challenge is that in so many cases the presumption is these people really did no mean to kill anyone. Even though they brought a gun and were clear they were there to kill people. It is like a couple guys I knew. One always had a loaded gun in the car.
  • Seems like the main prerequisite to being charged with a top-shelf felony is to be (a) poor, (b) minority, and (c) have a passing acquaintance with someone who commits a major crime within several weeks of encountering you.

    Meanwhile a "kill-ionaire" can basically go on a talk show and brag about his collection of severed heads and be charged with a misdemeanor parking violation. Assuming, of course, that none of the heads belong to a relative of as big of a Republican Party donor as himself.
  • I don't know of any way to create an organization I would trust to limit dangerous speech, but not protected political speech. Its not that I don't know the difference - I do, but the only person I trust to make that call is... me. I suspect many other people would agree - with a locally referenced "me".

  • First off, it's FACEBOOK, not Meta. Meta is the name of the fake company Facebook hides behind to pay less tax and make everybody believe they something more than a giant private data siphon.

    But I digress...

    Secondly, if Facebook is help accountable for the content on their network, then they'll start censoring content more and more to avoid future lawsuit.

    Facebook and other social media concerns have become de-factor public discourse spaces. I don't want private companies deciding what public speech is and

    • Your concerns are valid but if they content themselves with stopping to recommend stupid content to stupid people it is ok by my book. The content is not censored. Just not amplified. The lawsuit mentions specifically the algos to increase engagement and the claim is the terrorists wouldn't have met if facebook's algorithm had not recommended them to each other.

    • >I don't want private companies deciding what public speech is and isn't acceptable

      I think I might agree. Are you are against the fact they're promoting 'engaging' speech, or in other words are you against that they are actively promoting the speech they deem more acceptable, over and instead of, the speech they deem less 'acceptable' for their ends.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      this is a slippery slope towards even more fascism

      But wasn't it fascists that conspired and carried out the murder? So pushing Facebook toward more responsibility for their content may result in less fascism.

  • Facebook is protected by section 230 of the CDA. You'll notice the very low amount of money being asked for. The people involved aren't expecting a lawsuit to go anywhere, this is largely a performative lawsuit to get in the news.

    While I agree Facebook is morally at fault for actively encouraging extremism to make a quick buck on advertising impressions legally they don't have any liability. Nor sadly should they, because once we open those floodgates all that's going to happen is the extremists will co
  • One of the saddest stories I've ever heard

  • doubt it will be successful but if for some reason it is, then you would be able to sue the phone manufacturer for providing the phone, the pc maker for providing the computer, the car company for the get away vehicle, the service provider for selling the phone or internet service, the gas station for providing the gas and so on...]

    But then, maybe I would be able to sue the parents of the killer for providing the thug.

  • May as well sue their school for teaching them to read or write. Sure, Meta is, well, "not good", but they are not the root of all evil. That would be giving them far too much credit.

  • I don't know any meta. Did they mean Metastabook?

  • The problem is not caused by Free Speech, it is the Algorithms.

    Everyone has the right to say what they want (though not the right to force other people to distribute what they say).

    But Facebook does NOT have the right to connect people up as it sees fit.

    What if for example, I published a bunch of for sale, for hire, classified ads. Totally legal, correct? Also totally legal for me to have section called "GUNS FOR SALE", "SINGLES", "POISONS FOR VERMIN", "LAWN CARE", and "DIVORCE ATTORNEYS"

    But if I were st

    • The distinction of "allowed" content vs cultivated is I think very important and largely ignored. I think a more direct test of this is products which cause self-harm rather than harm to others, as that can behavior responsibility can less be shifted onto the buyer. It's clear with all the scams and questionable products being advertised to FB that there's little oversight into what's allowed there, and unlike things like "groups you may like" which are driving engagement, these ads are usually a cashing

Slashdot Top Deals

"Marriage is low down, but you spend the rest of your life paying for it." -- Baskins

Close