Ouch. Remind me never to get on your bad side.
My coworker’s kids’ school caught some students trying to trash a bathroom (junior high, Maryland.) Now the students have to leave their phones with the teacher if they leave the room during class and the teachers and staff patrol the bathrooms between classes and during lunch and stuff.
I found that the only way to fix that is to “cancel” your reply and start over. Once you start a reply it sticks and you can’t undo it otherwise.
The administration of the school I work at just opened up the faculty restrooms to the kids. (Harumph.) I’m kinda hoping one of the kids vandalizes it just so they shut it down and give it back to us teachers.
We’ve been having a lot of school bomb threats around here lately. They just arrested a 17-year-old, so we’ll see if that puts a stop to it.
Isn’t there an exception for videos boasting of committing illegal acts? Seems like this is incitement to crime.
Click the reply button under the post. Even while writing your reply, doing that will change who the reply is directed at.
Nice trick, I never tried that. 
If that was true then gangsta rap would be illegal.
If they could just ban the misogynistic shit. Rapping about committing a crime, when it could all be bullshit seems a tad different to uploading live video of your law breaking. And AFAIK rappers aren’t deliberately and demonstrably inciting copycat crimes.
Thank Og my son’s classmates are only doing the milk crate challenge.
I get to hear about the ones who fall particularly hard during recess.
It doesn’t matter.
Tiktok can’t be held liable for videos that others post. They are protected.
There are exceptions, such as child pornography, but if you post a video of yourself vandalizing a paper towel dispenser in a high school bathroom, Tiktok isn’t going to be punished for not taking it down. They might do so if they fear a public backlash but the authorities won’t go after them. US law is designed to give some freedom to those providers. Section 320 of the Communications Decency Act explains general US policy on the subject:
Policy
It is the policy of the United States—
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
You can debate whether the policy is correct and whether the law should be changed, but as written the government is not supposed to get involved in forcing sites to remove that content.
Basically they’re saying that as long as what is uploaded doesn’t violate obscenity laws, and doesn’t involve stalking or harassment, then it’s your responsibility when viewing the site to filter out content you don’t want to view and/or to filter what your kids see. Tiktok isn’t responsible for kids seeing those videos and copying them, it’s the job of parents to keep their kids from being able to view them. That’s the current law.
Or worse yet, not punishing the athletes, regardless of skin color or socioeconomic status.
Jesus Christ. I’m glad they at least make an exception for child pornography. Is there no obligation for them to take down revenge porn, either? Or posts doxing someone?
That’s actually kind of a depressing reason for a decline in crime.
I think both doxing and revenge porn fall under “harassment” which is a crime, and there may be recourse to force them to remove that stuff. Because while vandalizing something is a crime, putting up a video of vandalism isn’t. But a video that harasses a person is a crime and if a provider knowingly allows that to be hosted they may be considered aiding in that crime if they refuse to take it down.
By the way, I’m not a lawyer, just a person with Google reading the law. So this is my potentially mistaken and absolutely unprofessional take on it.
We had camcorders when I was a teenager and I still possess quite a bit of incriminating evidence on myself and most of my friends. Of course, we weren’t so stupid as to broadcast it for the general public, or even show our other friends, we were really just filming ourselves being stupid for the purpose of filming ourselves being stupid.
20-ish years ago, the old Court TV had a show, which aired many times, about people who videotaped themselves engaged in criminal activity, and they showed the confiscated evidence. Keep in mind that YouTube did not launch until 2005.
One of them, that I’m ashamed to admit I found myself laughing at, and not just at 2:54, showed several young men shooting people with paintballs, and sure enough, Exhibit A was right there in the car.
Only 4 years in jail?
I’m not a lawyer, either. But I do remember that a huge problem with dealing with revenge porn initially was that it wasn’t against the law, and required laws to be passed to deal with it. There was also some celebs talking of copyrighting one’s body and then suing for copyright infringement.
From what I can tell, doxxing can be illegal, but it largely depends on the context. If it didn’t, the whole idea of identifying someone you recognize from a video of a crime wouldn’t occur. Doxxing is obviously bad if it’s a way to punish someone you don’t like, but it’s less obviously bad if it’s identifying someone committing a crime—though you still should consider the possibility ot mistaken identity, and that harassing the doxxed person would be illegal.
That said, harassment and doxxing tend to be against policy on sites. And the biggest issue that social media tends to face now is not direct legal threats, but issues with public opinion that result in governments and other big entities doing research. For example, I’ve pointed out that basically the only way to get Reddit to take something seriously is to get it into the news, which then affects their advertisers, and so they suddenly change. Though, recently, they were made by the government to release a report on the amount of COVID misinformation. No direct threat, but that puts it out for the public to see.
My point is, there are definitely avenues that are being pursued to deal with these sorts of things, even if the law is not directly involved.