Moreover, as stated above, in response to question 8 of the questionnaire (P/1), the declarant on behalf of Meta confirmed that Meta generated revenues in the total amount of ILS 30,605 from promotions of 9 videos whose domain addresses were specified in the affidavit of responses to the questionnaire.
This is in fact an admission by a litigant that the aforementioned advertisements were published on Facebook, since otherwise, how could Meta have generated income from them?
- This, too. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs' prior application to Meta on June 28, 2020 (Appendix 6 to the plaintiffs' affidavit) referred only to the domain address of the "Judaism vs. Sects" web page (section 3), however, in the cross-examination of Mr. Benjamin Good (hereinafter: "Good") on behalf of Meta, the aforementioned confirmed that clicking on the aforementioned link brings up the aforementioned Facebook page in which all ten publications existed at the time (p. 242 of the minutes, and later on p. 243, s. 24 of the transcript).
Goode also confirmed that as of the date of the cross-examination, all ten of the publications were still present on the Facebook page in question (p. 243, 24 - p. 244, 3). This is enough to reach the conclusion that all the videos were published on Facebook.
Goode's testimony focused on the fact that, according to him, the early application should have included the domain address of the ten videos as well, and it was not enough to refer to the domain address of the Facebook page. This is enough to refute Meta's claim that the plaintiffs did not prove that the aforementioned posts were published on the Facebook platform, or at least on the "Judaism vs. Sects" Facebook page, or that they did not make an appropriate advance request.
Has it been proven that the plaintiffs know who the real advertisers of the advertisements are?
- As a preliminary remark, I will note that in my opinion, this question has implications regarding the question of Massadat's legal liability for not removing an offensive publication.
There is no dispute that Massadat is in the second circle of legal liability for wrongful publications published in it. The first circle of responsibility relates to the person who created, composed, published and distributed the publication in the institution. However, the first circle of responsibility does not exclude the second circle of responsibility of the institutions.