michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,714 
Likes: 2,986
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Dec 4, 2016 18:25:30 GMT
Why are the rules of this board so strict?
Twitter, for example, allows its members to write whatever the heck they like and if tweets are civilly or criminally unlawful, the person who wrote them is responsible - not the platform (Twitter in my example).
Wouldn't that be the same here?
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Dec 4, 2016 18:46:42 GMT
I suspect the mods have got this off pat by now
but anyway Because the platform doesn't have the funds to fight any legal battles, and because there would definitely be a case to make that someone sounding off might have done financial harm to a borrower or something.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Dec 4, 2016 18:56:45 GMT
Of course. And under the laws relevant to Great Britain the law even provides for a notice and take down process that absolves site operators from liability for defamation. For defamation the burden for a company claimant is particularly high since it's necessary to show substantial financial loss has happened as a result of something.
One problem with such things is that web site might be taken to be published wherever the reader is. Which means potentially the board operator could face legal action almost anywhere in the world, in whatever jurisdiction is most favourable to the claimant.
Costs of getting even a baseless claim thrown out can be non-trivial.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Dec 5, 2016 9:36:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 5, 2016 9:59:26 GMT
...and if tweets are civilly or criminally unlawful, the person who wrote them is responsible - not the platform (Twitter in my example). Wouldn't that be the same here? Yes posters are individually responsible and that is stated in the rules. However that does not de facto leave the board and its staff 'in the clear'. Forum members are anonymous and thus a claim cannot be brought by an outside party without recourse to the involvement of the board. In order for the "Operator" to seek protection under a Section 5 defence requires it to strictly adhere to a set of procedures. We would rather not be doing that on any sort of regular basis. Though be under no doubt: If we feel we need to we will. However we'd simply rather not be in that place. But equally importantly a plethora of posts which are essentially vexatious / libellous is not going to be good for the reputation of the board, nor for ensuring the continued involvement of p2p platforms, which is at at least part of our mission statement (or would be if we had such a formalised thing !). The board could quickly degenerate (and at times has) if it was left as a free for all. Most of our actions in this regard are therefore targeted at maintaining standards on the board; helping to ensure that individual forum members do not unthinkingly put themselves in a position of potentially being sued; provides an environment which encourages rational and civilised debate, and is somewhere where the platforms feel is OK to be engaged.
|
|
