> That's a naive take. It's like saying roads enabled accidents and thus must be demolished.
No, it's like saying that roads which are found to be repeatedly causing accidents should be fixed in order to allow everyone to drive safely. Which is what happens in real life.
And you seemed to have turned a blind eye to the fact that ISPs have been for decades complying with court orders to remove access to illegal content hosted and made available by them. You don't need to resort to convoluted apples-to-oranges comparisons to understand the problem and it's solution.
Wrong. ISPs comply at their service level. They provide a service, thus they are barred from providing it to their customers if their service violates the law.
Facebook's service is breaking the law, thus the court determined it should not. That's the point.
Given I've quoted the article before on this thread, I can only assume you're acting in bad faith when insinuating I haven't read the article.
With that said, as the article states, Facebook temporarily complied only after the judge increased the sentence with a threat of imprisioning staff.
Facebook is paying lawyers out their own pockets to appeal as per article:
> "Given the threat of criminal liability to a local employee, at this point we see no other alternative than complying with the decision by blocking the accounts globally, while we appeal to the Supreme Court," it said.
That's a naive take. It's like saying roads enabled accidents and thus must be demolished.
On most countries, usually the specific infriging content is ordered to be taken down, not the entire account.
Read about DMCA for example. Youtube channels have specific content taken down, not the entire channel.