rtsam

I literally copy and pasted both quotes in my messages from the websites also referenced.

I highly doubt you are a lawyer.

I added the quotes, it clearly was not taken directly word for word and it was written in plain English for clarity.

Perhaps spend less time picking apart comments and trolling on the internet if you do not know the definitions of words?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abet

1 : to actively second and encourage (something, such as an activity or plan) abet the commission of a crime 2 : to assist or support (someone) in the achievement of a purpose The singer was abetted by a skillful accompanist. especially : to assist, encourage, instigate, or support with criminal intent in attempting or carrying out a crime —often used in the phrase aid and abet accused of aiding and abetting a criminal

abet implies both assisting and encouraging.

And further,

https://nprobinson.com/blog/parties-to-an-offence-in-crimina...

Who Is Considered a Party to an Offence? Under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code, you may be considered a party to an offence if you:

Section 21(1)(a) Committed the crime yourself (the principal); Section 21(1)(b) Assisted someone else in committing it (aided); Section 21(1)(c) Encouraged or promoted its commission (abetted).

I won't put quotes around the words this time.

"Under the Criminal Code of Canada (Section 21), you can be charged as a "party" to an offence if you were involved in planning, "encouraging", or aiding in its commission" Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)

"21(1) Parties to Offence: Anyone who actually commits the offense, aids in committing it, or abets (encourages) someone in committing it is a party to the offense."

I work in a law firm but NAL. I could probably find some cases if I had time. Most of the responses from people saying defamation is not very successful and "good luck" in the us because of 1A seem strange to me also.

Not talking about 1A rights or public figures. We are talking about

Opinions (Protected) vs Facts (Not Protected)

Defamation cases where individuals say something are usually considered opinions and companies are usually considered facts in the eyes of the courts. I say "Usually"

Defamation also DOES NOT require intent, but it requires a minimum level of fault (negligence)

Google saying something is unsafe in the web search or browser would not be considered an opinion because of their position of authority. It would not even be a debate since Google has already said they make decisions based on facts and data presented to them.

The only question is are they negligent in their assessment or response to a false report. And what would be the damages. In the case of a phishing report that is false courts would already consider it defamation per se (damages presumed)

"When Google marks a site as "unsafe" or "dangerous" in Chrome or search results, it is a factual finding based on automated detection of specific, technical security threats, rather than a subjective opinion. These warnings are triggered by Google’s Safe Browsing technology, which scans billions of URLs daily to protect users from malicious content"

Opinions and facts in a legal context usually comes down to who is saying what. Someone personally says "this soup is bad" on a review site = opinion. A news site plastering it on their front page = fact.

A person saying something as an individual is usually considered an opinion. A company doesn't have that same protection.

"I believed it to be true" is a defense. But negligence isn't. In fact, that is usually what you want to prove, that they acted on things that a reasonable person (or a person that is supposed to be skilled in that field) can see is not true.

I am in Canada, but I think it is the same in the US? A newspaper can be responsible here. For example, if they say "people should riot" and a riot happens, the newspaper could be responsible for all actions that resulted the same as if they were the ones doing the crime.

Same with if they become aware of defamation and fail to retract and make a statement. But newspapers will generally also thoroughly investigate themselves to make sure what they are publishing is true.

I think that is the idea. They shouldn't exist without a prompt mitigation path.

In other words, if you can't deal with the false positives in a timely manner. You SHOULD be liable for the damages.

I can't build a budget car put together in an unsafe manner. Then complain I can't compete due to all the peoples cars crashing and blowing up and suing me.

I always wonder what the settlement and damages would be if google marked Amazon as a phishing site for even a few minutes.

The problem is that these gatekeepers of the internet respond to false statements of facts/opinions by so called professionals.

I had cloudflare mark a worker as phishing because a AI "security company" thought my 301 redirect to their clients website was somehow malicious. (url redirects are normal affiliate things)

If the professionals don't understand the difference and cloudflare and google blindly block things, this is scary.

I can confirm that. Got blocked due to a frivolous report. Cloudflare blocked me and categorized my site as phishing. (censoring me from anyone that uses their systems to browse)

No support. No responses to emails or requests for a review by a human

They also sent a notice to my hosting provider. My hosting provider promptly looked at my site and closed the ticket. It was pretty clear to anyone that the report was malicious.

So yes, Cloudflare censors (to quote Matthew Prince) with "No judicial oversight. No due process. No appeal. No transparency"

Granted this could be just due to lack of staff and support

This situation has had me talking to others, what I have found was:

1. Hate groups and very sketchy sites are welcome to use CF.

2. One report resulted in a legit site being taken down and the phishing site being left up. (maybe report had fields reversed) And the person has being trying for over a month to get resolved.

3. One person had someone steal their trademark and copy their site. They own the trademark and CF won't do anything with the reports.

4. One person had "some adult content" warning and that resulted in being misclassified as pornography and could not get it removed. (if that is all it takes why isn't reddit or amazon classified the same)

5. Then myself and a few others that have been flagged for bogus reasons. And can't get it reviewed.

These were all issues being talked about this week. So CF seems to be all over the place. The consistent part is that you can't get any support to resolve anything.