“Monday’s lawsuit claims that the companies create unique content by combining ISIS postings with advertisements to target the viewer. It also says they share revenue with ISIS for its content and profit from ISIS postings through advertising revenue.”
Probably targeted ads. Similar to if you search for a couch online, or negative ads about Obama, and then have ads all over for those things for a while when you visit other pages. Google, et al would receive advertising money from those, and the same would happen with extremist websites that could effectually or directly lead to sites that support and encourage terror attacks
If you are a lawyer and you want to make a lot of money you do this sort of extortion to the people with deep pockets. Has not one thing to do with actual liability or negligence. Nothing. Deep pockets/extortion and taking advantage of a terrible and very public tragedy.
“Monday’s lawsuit claims that the companies create unique content by combining ISIS postings with advertisements to target the viewer. It also says they share revenue with ISIS for its content and profit from ISIS postings through advertising revenue.”
They should also sue the power company that provided power to the shooter’s computer, the manufacturer of the computer and the shooter’s internet provider because it is very obvious they were all at fault.
If the Plaintiffs are TAX PAYERS they SHOULD sue the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS FAILURE TO PROTECT ITS TAX PAYING CITIZENRY (the Fed’s FIRST and PRIMARY responsibility) The FED has been woefully negligent in protecting US against RADICAL ISLAMIST TERRORISTS… which to me is akin to TAXATION WITHOUT PROTECTION (against all enemies foreign and domestic)… We recently DID have a TAX PAYOR REVOLT of sort’s, with the Election of Pres. Trump, under the premise of BETTER PROTECTION for the AMERICAN TAX PAYER. We’ll see how well that TAXATION WITH REPRESENTATION may just work, I HOPE for the BETTER… of that I am OmniSure…
Unlike FB and GOOG, the power company does not make it a centerpiece of their business model to snoop into, gather and disseminate detailed information about the day to day dealings information, of their users.
You can post propaganda almost anywhere such as social media, TV, telephone and light poles, sides of trains and buses, tops of cars… Doesn’t mean you have to look.
If someone wants to find out about isis, they will find a way.
I’m kind of torn here. I don’t like many of the policies of the companies named here. But to blame them for the acts of terrorist is not right. Also not right is how easy they make it for terrorists to facilitate their actions. I wish they could do more to stop that. But then again there’s that First Amendment and Privacy issues. I can’t figure out how I want this to go. And I guess that’s why we have courts.
I would like more detail into this statement:
“Monday’s lawsuit claims that the companies create unique content by combining ISIS postings with advertisements to target the viewer. It also says they share revenue with ISIS for its content and profit from ISIS postings through advertising revenue.”
Probably targeted ads. Similar to if you search for a couch online, or negative ads about Obama, and then have ads all over for those things for a while when you visit other pages. Google, et al would receive advertising money from those, and the same would happen with extremist websites that could effectually or directly lead to sites that support and encourage terror attacks
If you are a lawyer and you want to make a lot of money you do this sort of extortion to the people with deep pockets. Has not one thing to do with actual liability or negligence. Nothing. Deep pockets/extortion and taking advantage of a terrible and very public tragedy.
I would like more detail into this statement:
“Monday’s lawsuit claims that the companies create unique content by combining ISIS postings with advertisements to target the viewer. It also says they share revenue with ISIS for its content and profit from ISIS postings through advertising revenue.”
They should also sue the power company that provided power to the shooter’s computer, the manufacturer of the computer and the shooter’s internet provider because it is very obvious they were all at fault.
If the Plaintiffs are TAX PAYERS they SHOULD sue the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS FAILURE TO PROTECT ITS TAX PAYING CITIZENRY (the Fed’s FIRST and PRIMARY responsibility) The FED has been woefully negligent in protecting US against RADICAL ISLAMIST TERRORISTS… which to me is akin to TAXATION WITHOUT PROTECTION (against all enemies foreign and domestic)… We recently DID have a TAX PAYOR REVOLT of sort’s, with the Election of Pres. Trump, under the premise of BETTER PROTECTION for the AMERICAN TAX PAYER. We’ll see how well that TAXATION WITH REPRESENTATION may just work, I HOPE for the BETTER… of that I am OmniSure…
Oooh. You said that nasty phrase: RADICAL ISLAMIST TERRORISTS
You can’t use those words as long as Obama is President, Shame on you.
…..and the manufacturer of the shooter’s shoes because without those……
Unlike FB and GOOG, the power company does not make it a centerpiece of their business model to snoop into, gather and disseminate detailed information about the day to day dealings information, of their users.
You can post propaganda almost anywhere such as social media, TV, telephone and light poles, sides of trains and buses, tops of cars… Doesn’t mean you have to look.
If someone wants to find out about isis, they will find a way.
I’m kind of torn here. I don’t like many of the policies of the companies named here. But to blame them for the acts of terrorist is not right. Also not right is how easy they make it for terrorists to facilitate their actions. I wish they could do more to stop that. But then again there’s that First Amendment and Privacy issues. I can’t figure out how I want this to go. And I guess that’s why we have courts.