Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[SAY HER NAME]

IG the argument is that when is the algorithm just recommending based on your preferences and its when its incorporating certain biases. WRT tiktok its not that far off to claim they have a legal duty to fulfill the goals of the CPC and in this process, it tips the scales to certain types of content. Is that tipping enough to veer into editorializing? IDK but it seems interesting at least!

[Edge-]

The answer is: No, TikTok would not be protected. They are civilly liable for the actions of their employees. Agreed?

Ok so you were asking a rhetorical question because you already have an answer apparently.

An answer I don't think you're correct on or will find much support for in this thread.

A rogue employee going outside the rules and violating Tiktoks policies to share unlawful material would himself be civilly liable, but the company would generally not be outside of circumstances of extreme negligence etc. (which is a separate matter).

Please just create a fucking thread to discuss social media algorithms as they relate to politics.

[Rasulis]

Employees with the Pentagon's digital technology unit have decided to resign together rather than deal with changes being brought about by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency.

Not getting better anytime soon. In fact, it is getting worse.

[SAY HER NAME]

Also yeah this discussion has been going for pages and it doesnt touch on Trump. I get the connection but its like not related to what Trump is doing.

[Edge-]

Employees with the Pentagon's digital technology unit have decided to resign together rather than deal with changes being brought about by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency.

Not getting better anytime soon. In fact, it is getting worse.

Every day I'm more and more convinced we'll find all this data on an unsecured AWS server at some point.

I just pray if we have another administration they can undo all the damage that Elon, Donald, and Republicans are doing to this government.

[Endus]

The answer is: No, TikTok would not be protected. They are civilly liable for the actions of their employees. Agreed?

Absolutely not. If an employee defrauds their employer and their clients, the employer isn't somehow responsible for the crime their employee committed. Any civil suit would have to show some failure of policy or practice that led to the fraud being executed, some direct negligence on the party of the company itself. The most obvious example is a disgruntled bank employee robbing the bank at gunpoint. Unless they know the vault code is 1234 because the manager's a lazy idiot, or a security door is always left unlocked because Steve lost the key and management said "fuck it", if they just proceed as any "normal" bank robber would, there's no fault on the part of the bank. No grounds for any civil suit targeting the bank. The only party responsible for wrongdoing is the employee who robbed it.

Companies are only civilly liable for their employees' conduct if those employees are acting within oversight and bounds set by said company. You said "group of rogue employees", and "rogue" says they're not within bounds and oversight, and are acting against company policy. You're moving goalposts.

[Doomcookie]

Those are categories of actions, not entities. Entities act as platforms or act as publishers. For example, your feed in Facebook is currently considered Facebook acting as a platform, but if Facebook injects their own advertisements into that feed they are acting as a publisher. Every company that acts as a platform also acts as a publisher in some ways.

So, categorize them all, based on their current existence.

Are algorithms people? I swear, this is going somewhere.

[NineSpine]

Ok so you were asking a rhetorical question because you already have an answer apparently.

An answer I don't think you're correct on or will find much support for in this thread.

A rogue employee going outside the rules and violating Tiktoks policies to share unlawful material would himself be civilly liable, but the company would generally not be outside of circumstances of extreme negligence etc. (which is a separate matter).

Please just create a fucking thread to discuss social media algorithms as they relate to politics.

While employees can avoid liability for actions of the employee that stray very far from their job responsibilities, the employee performing their job extremely poorly (such as recommending dangerous videos to children) would absolutely fall under vicarious responsibility.

So why is it that a company is responsible for the actions of employees, but not the actions of an algorithm that they design, maintain, and direct?

[SAY HER NAME]

Employees with the Pentagon's digital technology unit have decided to resign together rather than deal with changes being brought about by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency.

Not getting better anytime soon. In fact, it is getting worse.

His idiot supporters cheer at the cost savings but literally everyone else that has ever held a job realizes that if you just smash things you reduce the ability of your organization to do stuff. And once something has been broken its much harder and expensive to rebuild it than it would have been to let it run as is.

[Doomcookie]

The answer is: No, TikTok would not be protected. They are civilly liable for the actions of their employees. Agreed?

Can you cite the court case this is most relevant to?

Otherwise, you have simply left too many variables.

[NineSpine]

So, categorize them all, based on their current existence.

Are algorithms people? I swear, this is going somewhere.

You want me to categorize every action taken by every company that operates in the United States, and you believe this proves something?

Do you think we can only regulate something if someone can offhand name everyone that is or is not doing it? What is this?

[Doomcookie]

While employees can avoid liability for actions of the employee that stray very far from their job responsibilities, the employee performing their job extremely poorly (such as recommending dangerous videos to children) would absolutely fall under vicarious responsibility.

So why is it that a company is responsible for the actions of employees, but not the actions of an algorithm that they design, maintain, and direct?

So, are algorithms people?

- - - Updated - - -

You want me to categorize every action taken by every company that operates in the United States, and you believe this proves something?

Do you think we can only regulate something if someone can offhand name everyone that is or is not doing it? What is this?

I believe it proves you have no means in which to justify your argument.

Maybe you could build an algorithm to do it for you.

[NineSpine]

Absolutely not. If an employee defrauds their employer and their clients, the employer isn't somehow responsible for the crime their employee committed. Any civil suit would have to show some failure of policy or practice that led to the fraud being executed, some direct negligence on the party of the company itself. The most obvious example is a disgruntled bank employee robbing the bank at gunpoint. Unless they know the vault code is 1234 because the manager's a lazy idiot, or a security door is always left unlocked because Steve lost the key and management said "fuck it", if they just proceed as any "normal" bank robber would, there's no fault on the part of the bank. No grounds for any civil suit targeting the bank. The only party responsible for wrongdoing is the employee who robbed it.

Companies are only civilly liable for their employees' conduct if those employees are acting within oversight and bounds set by said company. You said "group of rogue employees", and "rogue" says they're not within bounds and oversight, and are acting against company policy. You're moving goalposts.

Fair that "rogue" loads the term, so let me walk that back.

If TikTok hires people to distribute videos to users based on those user's preferences, and an employee sees that a kid is watching dangerous content and decides to send them more dangerous content, is TikTok liable?

- - - Updated - - -

So, are algorithms people?

- - - Updated - - -

I believe it proves you have no means in which to justify your argument.

Ok, if you think that we can't ban dumping shit in the river unless we can name offhand every company that has every dumped shit in a river, I don't really know how to talk to you.

[Doomcookie]

Fair that "rogue" loads the term, so let me walk that back.

If TikTok hires people to distribute videos to users based on those user's preferences, and an employee sees that a kid is watching dangerous content and decides to send them more dangerous content, is TikTok liable?

You keep moving goalposts.

Skip to the end, dude.

- - - Updated - - -

Fair that "rogue" loads the term, so let me walk that back.

If TikTok hires people to distribute videos to users based on those user's preferences, and an employee sees that a kid is watching dangerous content and decides to send them more dangerous content, is TikTok liable?

- - - Updated - - -



Ok, if you think that we can't ban dumping shit in the river unless we can name offhand every company that has every dumped shit in a river, I don't really know how to talk to you.

Answer the question.

[NineSpine]

You keep moving goalposts.

Skip to the end, dude.

How about you just make a coherent point like a grown adult, instead of weird shit like demanding that someone lists every action of every company in the country.

[Edge-]

While employees can avoid liability for actions of the employee that stray very far from their job responsibilities, the employee performing their job extremely poorly (such as recommending dangerous videos to children) would absolutely fall under vicarious responsibility.

So why is it that a company is responsible for the actions of employees, but not the actions of an algorithm that they design, maintain, and direct?

you literally wrote "going rogue" and are now changing that to "doing their job poorly" and my dude why are you even pretending you're doing anything but constantly moving goalposts while being unable to stick to the topic of this thread.

anyways, back to discussing the topic of this thread and not some weird misconceptions about social media and section 230 and moving goalposts -

https://www.wlbt.com/2025/04/15/immi...us-citizenship

An immigration attorney, who is a United States citizen, says she got an emailed letter from the Department of Homeland Security telling her to self-deport within seven days.

Nicole Micheroni, a Boston-based immigration attorney, was born, raised and went to college in Massachusetts. So, she says was surprised by an emailed letter dated April 11 from DHS.

The first line in the letter tells Micheroni that “it’s time for [her] to leave the United States.” It goes on to say that DHS “paroled [her] into the United States for a limited period” and that it is now “exercising its discretion to terminate [her] parole.”

Micheroni was told to self-deport within seven days.

“Well, I think in my case, I’m lucky because I do have a passport. I have a birth certificate. Both show that I am a U.S. citizen, and I am not somebody that needs to leave,” the lawyer said.

She says she knows other immigration attorneys who have received the same email.

Many of Micheroni’s clients have deportation issues, but she says they are not the only ones calling her office. She’s gotten calls from U.S citizens afraid to travel, permanent residents and people on other types of visas.

“Everybody is just really worried the immigration crackdown is going to affect them,” the lawyer said. “There’s a lot of people that are perfectly within their rights to stay here and are being told to leave, and a lot of people don’t know the difference.”

A Customs and Border Protection spokesperson released a statement regarding the letter Micheroni received, which reads in part:

“CBP used the known email addresses of the alien to send notifications. If a non-personal email—such as an American citizen contact—was provided by the alien, notices may have been sent to unintended recipients. CBP is monitoring communications and will address any issues on a case-by-case basis.”

Yeah, I'm skeptical this was an "accident" given the everything else we've been seeing plus Donald openly discussing deporting Americans for wrongthink.

[tehdang]

There was a barrier to clear his deportation. The withhold of removal. Something the government could have appealed at the time and deport him right there and there to El Salvador.

Quoted it to you before:

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post54663894
He was deportable to any country but El Salvador, by the law. No further barriers.

Also for someone that chastizes the Biden Administration for abusing refugee rules, you seem very comfortable with the most obvious one.

The most obvious one was applying for asylum within one year of coming here, something that Garcia failed to do.

That withhold of removal prevented his deportation and that another country would need to accept him. The Trump admin cannot unilaterally deport him to another country unless that country accepted him. That is why there are still a ton of people with withhold of removal in the US that are considered deported but are now living their best lives in the US.

Quote me the INA on that. As to the feasibility, you already saw what Columbia did in the case of returning its own citizens.

The failure to pursue deportations for illegal aliens is a failure of past administrations, and could be a failure of the Trump administration (they do talk a big game on deportation, but you have seen massive screwups thus far). People who have no legal right to be in this country and have exhausted their court challenges are eminently deportable.

Like IDK where are you reading about this case. Or if you know what a withhold of removal is?

I quoted you the law on it. It sounded like you understood it then, did something change afterwards? The executive has shown the capacity to negotiate agreements with third countries in the past, just see the Remain in Mexico program. He was now out of the court's hands for deportation to a third country; only El Salvador was denied.

[NineSpine]

you literally wrote "going rogue" and are now changing that to "doing their job poorly" and my dude why are you even pretending you're doing anything but constantly moving goalposts while being unable to stick to the topic of this thread.

If you want to treat me admitting I was wrong as some kind of dishonest goalpost shift, it sounds like you are more interested in being confrontational than anything else.

[Doomcookie]

How about you just make a coherent point like a grown adult, instead of weird shit like demanding that someone lists every action of every company in the country.

I already did, when I laid out that you have conflicting arguments.

- - - Updated - - -

If you want to treat me admitting I was wrong as some kind of dishonest goalpost shift, it sounds like you are more interested in being confrontational than anything else.

You moved them so many times.

[NineSpine]

I already did, when I laid out that you have conflicting arguments.

You never laid anything out. You just declared victory.