The first article is entitled:
Facebook as a Military Weapon in Myanmar? Meta’s Legal Battle Could Draw a New Line
The article actually starts out by addressing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 which has shielded FaceBook from liability shielding them because they are an “information content provider” that serves as an information conduit and not a creator of information.
A key paragraph appears toward the end:
“It has been proven time and time again. Social media is a rapidly spreading platform that nation-states, terrorists, political parties, and other agenda-based groups use to incite fear, sway opinion, and garner support – often through disinformation (such as bots and deepfakes) and timely inflammatory commentary. This case may not involve Section 230 directly (depending on whether the court applies it or not), but it could very well sway policy and raise new legal issues in the near future.”
You can find it at: https://bit.ly/3fjQ95a
Another, more comprehensive article on the lawsuit trigger is in Reuters:
Analysis: Rohingya lawsuit against Facebook a 'wake-up call' for social media. It is also a photo source and you can find it at: https://reut.rs/3feZBXE
My colleagues of the California Bar, Edelson PC and Fields PLLC have filed a $150 billion class-action complaint here in Northern California. They argue “that Facebook's failure to police content and its platform's design contributed to violence against the Rohingya community.”
The article continues with a quote from an attorney pundit:
“It was a sign that the tech giant was rattled, said Debbie Stothard, founder of the Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (ALTSEAN), an advocacy group.
"The timing of these announcements shows the lawsuit is a wake-up call. The lawsuit itself is quite a bold move, but the Rohingya clearly felt there were sufficient grounds," she said.
"Strategic litigation like this - you never know where it can go. In recent times we have seen climate-change litigation becoming more commonplace and getting some wins," she added.
The article indicates that the Plaintiff wants to apply Myanmar law to the claims in the California Court if the Section 230 defense is raised. The Federal Court can decide which law to follow because of the legal concept of diversity of jurisdiction. The discretion is the court’s.
Internet giants such as Meta and Google have come under increasing attention and scrutiny. While Eric Goldman, a professor of law at Santa Clara University School of Law was quoated as saying “"Based on the precedents, this case should lose - - - But you've got so much antipathy towards Facebook nowadays - anything is possible."
The message for PSYOPers is that Social Media remains a cesspool of information and no matter what the courts decide, Social Media will remain an outsized influence.
