No, still probably not. People call each other liars all of the time both online and in real life. You still need to connect this to some kind of intent, you still need to show that the instance of "you're lying" demonstrates a reckless disregard for truth.
In American courts that is a very, very hard bar to clear -- particularly if the target is a public figure.
it's not random "people" , it would be ycombinator, an entity with considerable weight which they would use against me. Second, stossel's job is to generally be credible, as he's a journalist. Doesn't the attack on his credibility by a major news medium (FB; regardless if it's disguised as third party for which we have no guarantees that they re impartial) carry more weight than if some random person shouted at him on the street? What if he got fired by his employer because they consider his reputation to be tarnished now? Why is it OK that people have no recourse against such action with social media companies?
Anyway i understand the thing about the high bar of the US. But, if this comes to the point where facebook has to prove they did not have intent or that they were not stating false things, then stossel will still have "won", because from then on facebook will have to do that for all their future "labeling" of information
(i think that "misleading" can very well taken to mean false. and the fact that it's not applied automatically by an algorithm makes it carry more intent)
At the end of the day, if you don't believe me then you can watch the court case and see how it resolves.
Stossel can sue Facebook, and if Facebook gets dismissed for 230 reasons he can also sue the fact checker directly. You don't have to believe me, you can wait and see how that works out. I'm just saying, I wouldn't hold my breath.
its not that i dont believe u, i m just stating the things that seem odd to me from a common sense point of view [IANAL , obviously]
I 'm not expecting that he will win, but maybe facebook will be forced to prove something which will mean they will have to prove it again in the future
