The Zuckbook Becomes Cooperative?
August 10, 2023
The Internet empowers people to voice their opinions without fear of repercussions or so they think. While the Internet generally remains anonymous, social media companies must bow to the letter of the law or face fines or other reprisals. Ars Technnica shares how a European court forced Meta to share user information in a civil case: “Facebook To Unmask Anonymous Dutch User Accused Of Repeated Defamatory Posts.”
The Netherlands’ Court of the Hague determined that Meta Ireland must share the identity of a user who defamed the claimant, a male Facebook user. The anonymous user “defamed” the claimant by stating he secretly recorded women he dated. The anonymous user posted the negative statements in private Facebooks groups about dating experiences. The claimant could not access the groups but he did see screenshots. He claimed the posts have harmed his reputation.
After cooperating, executives at a big time technology firm celebrate with joy and enthusiasm. Thanks, MidJourney. You have happiness down pat.
The claimant asked Meta to remove the posts but the company refused based on the grounds of freedom of expression. Meta encouraged the claimant to contact the other user, instead the claimant decided to sue.
Initially, the claimant asked the court to order Meta to delete the posts, identify the anonymous user, and flag any posts in other private Facebook groups that could defame the claimant.
While arguing the case, Meta had defended the anonymous user’s right to freedom of expression, but the court decided that the claimant—whose name is redacted in court documents—deserved an opportunity to challenge the allegedly defamatory statements.
Partly for that reason, the court ordered Meta to provide “basic subscriber information” on the anonymous user, including their username, as well as any names, email addresses, or phone numbers associated with their Facebook account. The court did not order Meta to remove the posts or flag any others that may have been shared in private groups, though.”
The court decided that freedom of speech is not unlimited and the posts could be defamatory. The court also noted posts did not have to be deemed unlawful to de-anonymous a user.
This has the potential to be a landmark case in online user privacy and accountability on social media platforms. In the future, users might need to practice more restraint and think about consequences before posting online. They might want to read etiquette books from the pre-Internet days when constructive behavior was not an anomaly.
Whitney Grace, August 10, 2023
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
