from the stay-focused-here dept
Let’s say I told you a harrowing story about a crime. Criminals from halfway around the world used fraudulent means and social engineering to scam a teenager, causing them to effectively destroy their lives (at least in the mind of the teen). The person whose life was destroyed then took an easily accessible gun from their parent and shot and killed themselves. Law enforcement investigated the crime, tracked down the people responsible, extradited them to the US and tried them. Eventually, they were sentenced to many years in prison.
Who would you blame for such a thing?
Apparently, for some people, the answer is Section 230. And it makes no sense at all.
That, at least, is the takeaway from an otherwise harrowing, distressing, and fascinating article in Bloomberg Businessweek about the very real and very serious problem of sextortion.
The article is well worth reading, as it not only details the real (and growing) problem of sextortion, but shows how a momentary youthful indiscretion — coaxed by a skillful social engineer — can destroy someone’s life.
The numbers on sextortion are eye-opening:
As the article details, there is something of a pattern in many of these sextortion cases. There are even “training” videos floating around that teach scammers how to effectively social engineer the result: get control over an Instagram or Snapchat account of a young girl and start friending/flirting with teen boys.
After getting flirty enough, send a fake nude and ask for one in return. Then, the scammer goes straight into extortion mode the second the teen boy does the teen boy thing and sends a compromising photo, focused on promising to ruin the boy’s life:
As the article notes, this is part of the “playbook” that is used to teach the scammers:
The article mostly focuses on the tragic case of one teen, DeMay, who shot himself very soon after getting hit with this scam. The article notes, just in passing, that DeMay had access to his father’s gun. Yet, somehow, guns and easy access to them are never mentioned as anything to be concerned about, even as the only two suicides mentioned in the article both involve teen boys who seemed to have unsupervised access to guns with which to shoot themselves.
Apparently, this is all the fault of Section 230 instead.
Hell, even as the article describes how this was a criminal case, and (somewhat amazingly!) the FBI tracked down the actual scammers in Nigeria, had them extradited to Michigan, and even got them to plead guilty to the crime (along with a mandatory minimum of 15 years in prison). Apparently, this is still… an internet problem?
The reality is that this is a criminal problem, and it’s appropriate to treat it as such, where law enforcement has to deal with it (as they did in this case).
It seems like there are many things to blame here: the criminals themselves (who are going to prison for many years), the easy access to guns, even the failure to teach kids to be careful with who they’re talking to or what to do if they got into trouble online. But, no, the article seems to think this is all Section 230’s fault.
DeMay’s family appears to have been suckered by a lawyer into suing Meta (the messages to him came via Instagram):
Except all of that is nonsense. Yes, sextortion is problematic, but what the fuck in the “design” of Instagram aids it? It’s a communication tool, like any other. In the past, people used phones and the mail service for extortion, and no one sued AT&T or the postal service because of it. It’s utter nonsense.
But Bloomberg runs with it and implies that Section 230 is somehow getting in the way here:
So here’s a kind of important question: how would this story have played out any differently in the absence of Section 230? What different thing would Mark Zuckerberg do? I mean, it’s possible that Facebook/Instagram wouldn’t really exist at all without such protections, but assuming they do, what legal liability would be on the platforms for this kind of thing happening?
The answer is nothing. For there to be any liability under the First Amendment, there would have to be evidence that Meta employees knew of the specific sextortion attempt against DeMay and did nothing to stop it. But that’s ridiculous.
Instagram has 2 billion users. What are the people bringing the lawsuit expecting Meta to do? To hire people to read every direct message going back and forth among users, spotting the ones that are sextortion, and magically stepping in to stop them? That’s not just silly, it’s impossible and ridiculously intrusive. Do you want Meta employees reading all your DMs?
Even more to the point, Section 230 is what allows Meta to experiment with better solutions to this kind of thing. For example, Meta has recently announced new tools to help fight sextortion by using nudity detectors to try to prevent kids from sending naked photos of themselves.
Developing such a tool and providing such help would be riskier without Section 230, as it would be an “admission” that people use their tools to send nudes. But here, the company can experiment with providing better tools because of 230. The focus on blaming Section 230 is so incredibly misplaced that it’s embarrassing.
The criminals are actually responsible for the sextortion scam and the end results, and possibly whoever made it so damn easy for the kid to get his father’s gun in the middle of the night to shoot himself. The “problem” here is not Section 230, and removing Section 230 wouldn’t change a damn thing. This lawsuit is nonsense, and sure, maybe it makes the family feel better to sue Meta, but just because a crime happened on Instagram, doesn’t magically make it Instagram’s fault.
And, for good reason. As noted above, this was always a law enforcement situation. We shouldn’t ever want to turn private companies into law enforcement. Because that would be an extremely dangerous result. Let Meta provide its communications tools. Let law enforcement investigate crimes and bring people to justice (as happened here). Maybe we should focus on better educating our kids to be aware of threats like sextortion and how to respond to it if they happen to make a mistake and get caught up in it.
There’s lots of blame to go around here, but none of it belongs on Section 230.
from the best-pals dept
We’ve had several posts on the video game sensation that is Palworld in the past. Given that the game has been described by others as “Pokémon, but with guns”, we kicked things off both wondering if Nintendo was going to try to take some kind of misguided legal action on the game, while also pointing out that the game is an excellent case study in copyright’s idea/expression dichotomy. After all, the game does not do any direct copying of any Pokémon IP, but does draw obvious inspiration from some of the base ideas behind that IP. In fact, highlighting the dichotomy further was a mod that injected actual Pokémon IP into Palworld, which Nintendo then managed to get taken down.
One of the things writers of this sort of content like me tend to fret about, however, is how often rank hypocrisy suddenly shows up among subjects such as the creators behind Palworld. It’s not uncommon to see a content creator attempt to go after folks doing to them exactly what the creator did in drawing inspiration from others. If you were worried the people behind Palworld would fall into this category, however, it appears very much that you were worried for nothing.
With the success of the game, it was only a matter of time before someone, or many someones, tried to cash in on its success by making similar games, or “clones.” PocketPair CEO Takuro Mizobe noticed this was happening with Palworld and reacted thusly.
No going legal. No threats. Not even a hint of a complaint. Instead, Mizobe acknowledged what we all already know to be true: video games, like other forms of culture, are and have always been built on what came before it. If the success of Palworld spawns similar games after the fact, that’s not only not a problem, it’s a good thing for gaming culture. Hell, Mizobe even went so far as to praise some of these games’ quality.
Imagine Nintendo doing anything like this. You simply can’t. In fact, when Palworld was released, Nintendo made some vague comments about looking into the game to see if it wanted to pursue any legal action. You know, the exact opposite of the route Mizobe took.
And why should he? I imagine he’s far too busy counting all the money his company is making by focusing on making a successful game rather than wringing his hands over some clones that may or may not ever gain any traction.
from the things-you'll-never-see-in-the-US dept
Cops hate being watched, no matter where they’re located.
In the United States, we’ve seen several arrests and prosecutions of journalists and citizens for daring to record public officials performing their public duties. The case law isn’t completely settled in the United States, but in most parts of the country, it’s understood the First Amendment covers these activities.
That fact hasn’t stopped cops and prosecutors from pursuing everything from obstruction charges to alleged violations of state wiretapping laws against people who hold cops accountable simply by documenting the things they do.
There’s no First Amendment in the UK. But that doesn’t mean UK law enforcement officers are free to arrest people who do nothing more than document their actions. Given this lack of built-in protection, it’s extremely surprising to see UK prosecutors admit they’re in the wrong when it comes to shielding cops from accountability efforts that don’t involve government employees.
A journalist who did nothing more than try to document a criminal investigation taking place in full view of the public has received an apology of sorts from the UK government, as Steven Morris reports for The Guardian.
The journalist did nothing more than show up at the scene of a car fire last year. He attempted to document the police response, only to get arrested by UK police officers, apparently because he was the only one in the crowd operating a camera. That this later turned out to be a murder investigation (allegedly a man beat his wife to death with a hammer before setting fire to the car with her in it) doesn’t really matter. At that point, it was just a normal police response to a potentially dangerous situation.
At some point during the police response, an “altercation” between some members of the crowd began. For whatever reason, officers decided to single out the journalist as the problem. He was arrested “with considerable force” and detained for 15 hours, supposedly for assaulting a first responder and “obstructing” a police officer, despite the fact no obstruction or assault was captured by any cameras operated by responding officers. The lack of evidence was admitted by the prosecution prior to its dropping of the charges.
When faced with taking this case to trial, the CPS finally admitted it had no evidence. But it took a court calling this out as a bullshit “contempt of cop” prosecution for that to happen.
And while there’s a very rare apology here, it comes couched in exculpatory language that suggests the CPS was completely in the right until it was forced to admit it was completely in the wrong.
Maybe the CPS should divert some of its resources to investigating police officers who cook up bogus charges for the sole purpose of deterring public accountability. And, very definitely, the agency employing the officers who arrested the journalist and concocted a host of criminal charges should act quickly to punish the offices involved in this potential miscarriage of justice. It shouldn’t take 15 hours of detention and the run-up to a criminal case to finally have the truth come out. Because if that’s what it takes for the government to finally admit it’s in the wrong, the harm has already been done and the chilling effect on public accountability remains intact.
That being said, it’s still a step ahead of the status quo here in the United States. Even when governments pay out settlements to people whose rights have been violated, the payments are almost always attached to legal verbiage in which the government refuses to admit any wrongdoing. At least in the case above, the government acknowledged it was at fault. And that’s something, even if the lack of consequences means CPS and the cops that provide it with cases to prosecute are free to make the same “mistakes” over and over again.