rtsam

5 ms·

1.
by rtsam 7mo ago
I literally copy and pasted both quotes in my messages from the websites also referenced. I highly doubt you are a lawyer.
2.
by rtsam 7mo ago
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? h
3.
by rtsam 7mo ago
"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)
4.
by rtsam 7mo ago
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
5.
by rtsam 7mo ago
"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
6.
by rtsam 7mo ago
"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
7.
by rtsam 7mo ago
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
8.
by rtsam 7mo ago
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
9.
by rtsam 7mo ago
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 calle
10.
Cloudflare non existent Trust and Safety
2 points by rtsam 7mo ago|0 comments
11.
by rtsam 8mo ago
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 b
12.
by rtsam 8mo ago
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
13.
Tell HN: Cloudflare's broken abuse report system, lack of staff to review issues
3 points by rtsam 8mo ago|2 comments