Australia media can be sued for social media comments, court rules(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Australia media can be sued for social media comments, court rules
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-58484205
61 comments
I disagree that it's obvious. If I run a hosted WordPress blog, and someone comments on that blog, is WordPress the publisher of that comment?
Is the blog displayed on your domain or theirs? To what extent do they moderate content you have on the blog? Do they promote your blog to other users of WordPress?
I feel like if the answers to those questions change the outcome, then the problem is more nuanced than a single line quote followed by "that's just insane". Especially since I think it's more than possible to come up with a list of questions that justify the court's decision.
(Probably something like "does the news org initiate the discussion, do they have the ability to moderate the discussion, does their branding appear prominently on the page").
(Probably something like "does the news org initiate the discussion, do they have the ability to moderate the discussion, does their branding appear prominently on the page").
Although insane, I do want strict regulations for Facebook pages. A Facebook page can be sold to anyone, So obviously pages with large number of followers get lot of buy requests often from malicious actors.
After years of not using Facebook I found that I'm part of Facebook pages which I don't remember ever following. Which was one of the reasons I deleted the account, I do not want to be accused of following pages involved in criminal activities when I actually followed cute kittens pages 10 years ago.
After years of not using Facebook I found that I'm part of Facebook pages which I don't remember ever following. Which was one of the reasons I deleted the account, I do not want to be accused of following pages involved in criminal activities when I actually followed cute kittens pages 10 years ago.
Yeah, Facebook is clearly the Publisher.
Even obvious by the definition of "publisher" for the purposes of that law? I'd think if it was obvious, the courts wouldn't have the opposite opinion. The fact that the newspaper has the power to stop the publication of the comments proves they have a lot of power like a publisher.
Facebook has even more power to stop the publishing of those comments though.
ISPs also have the power to stop the publishing of those comments. In fact, ISPs are necessary to facilitate the publishing of any comments on the internet.
ISPs also have the power to stop the publishing of those comments. In fact, ISPs are necessary to facilitate the publishing of any comments on the internet.
How high up do we go though? Is it the news org that created the space for comments? The website owner who created the tools to create a space? The hosting platform who provided the space to host the website? Or the ISP who delivered those comments to the user?
If facebook is responsible, why not the ISP as well? Maybe we should accept that platforms like facebook and reddit are similar to VPS hosting companies where we delegate the legal responsibility down further to the one who used the software to create the space.
This might actually be a good thing as delegating down means a much larger group of people moderating and those people moderate as they see fit but become legally responsible for their actions.
If facebook is responsible, why not the ISP as well? Maybe we should accept that platforms like facebook and reddit are similar to VPS hosting companies where we delegate the legal responsibility down further to the one who used the software to create the space.
This might actually be a good thing as delegating down means a much larger group of people moderating and those people moderate as they see fit but become legally responsible for their actions.
I think you are heading in the right direction. I think it all comes down to moderation.
If Facebook was and unmoderated wild west with a linear timeline, then people would know they have to self moderate.
Facebook as made some decisions about what is acceptable, then actively promotes that content to other people, that is taking responsibility for the content, so they should be held responsible as well.
If Facebook was and unmoderated wild west with a linear timeline, then people would know they have to self moderate.
Facebook as made some decisions about what is acceptable, then actively promotes that content to other people, that is taking responsibility for the content, so they should be held responsible as well.
So if news corp moderates some comments out do they also get to sue the comment author?
Note that Facebook was a not a respondent in the original defamation case. In any case, multiple parties can be responsible for publication. From point 55 of the judgement:
> The Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the acts of the appellants in facilitating, encouraging and thereby assisting the posting of comments by the third-party Facebook users rendered them publishers of those comments.
> The Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the acts of the appellants in facilitating, encouraging and thereby assisting the posting of comments by the third-party Facebook users rendered them publishers of those comments.
That's because Facebook is not here in Australia, much deeper pockets, and we already have bullshit laws that consider Google and Facebook carriers (like a telephone company) not publishers.
But lets be clear, telephone and electricity companies don't moderate your content, or use algorithms that makes some content easier to find than others.
But lets be clear, telephone and electricity companies don't moderate your content, or use algorithms that makes some content easier to find than others.
What's bullshit is your suggestion that Facebook is not subject to Australian law!
For example see News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code - it requires platforms such as FB to enter into commercial arrangements with news media (https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat...)
For example see News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code - it requires platforms such as FB to enter into commercial arrangements with news media (https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat...)
Ahh no sorry, I was suggesting that it would have been more expensive and more difficult for somebody to win a defamation suit against a US company.
Don't get me started about the mandatory bargaining code. I think the ISP should have held their ground and pulled out of Australia.
Don't get me started about the mandatory bargaining code. I think the ISP should have held their ground and pulled out of Australia.
I'm glad HN isn't hosted in Australia, or I'd have to find another hangout.
It seems like we're going to be saying farewell to any web sites hosted in Australia. If you can be sued for any random thing hosted on your servers, unless you've got a fire brigade of lawyers on tap, you're just waiting to be sued out of existence.
It seems like we're going to be saying farewell to any web sites hosted in Australia. If you can be sued for any random thing hosted on your servers, unless you've got a fire brigade of lawyers on tap, you're just waiting to be sued out of existence.
new_guy(2)
Seems similar to the Section 230 conversation in the USA.
The newspapers appear to be taking the logical response of switching off Facebook comments going forward.
The newspapers appear to be taking the logical response of switching off Facebook comments going forward.
> The newspapers appear to be taking the logical response of switching off Facebook comments going forward.
Which is very welcome in my opinion. Newspaper comments sections (whether on their sites or Facebook) are some most worthless comment sections in existence.
Which is very welcome in my opinion. Newspaper comments sections (whether on their sites or Facebook) are some most worthless comment sections in existence.
> The newspapers appear to be taking the logical response of switching off Facebook comments going forward.
Absolutely nothing of value will be lost.
Absolutely nothing of value will be lost.
>> The newspapers appear to be taking the logical response of switching off Facebook comments going forward.
> Absolutely nothing of value will be lost.
You are currently commenting in the comment section of a linked news story.
> Absolutely nothing of value will be lost.
You are currently commenting in the comment section of a linked news story.
Had I not been able to, nothing of value would have been lost. Actually, something might have been gained. I could have discovered the cure for cancer in that time or just stared blankly at the wall. Both of those would have had a better impact on the world.
I honestly understand where the courts are coming from.
If you can accept the fact that defamation laws are a valid limit on free speech (which Australians have), then it follows that news organisations shouldn't be able to absolve themselves of all blame after posting inflammatory content, encouragng readers to "share their opinions" and failing to provide any sort of moderation whatsoever.
If you can accept the fact that defamation laws are a valid limit on free speech (which Australians have), then it follows that news organisations shouldn't be able to absolve themselves of all blame after posting inflammatory content, encouragng readers to "share their opinions" and failing to provide any sort of moderation whatsoever.
As long as all social media companies allow news orgs to turn off comments. I think this is a great law. News comments have long since been the most toxic pool of crap on the internet.
Given that public gatherings are currently illegal in the majority of Australia and the government are passing draconian laws every week what do you think the average Australian who disagrees with them should do?
what do you think the average Australian who disagrees with them should do
I think the "them" in the GP comment is draconian laws generally, not specifically the lock down.
It is perfectly legal to disagree with them. You just can't say things already illegal and have been illegal for a very long time. Or publicly plan a mass illegal event.
This law just specifies who is responsible for the laws being broken.
This law just specifies who is responsible for the laws being broken.
so you can disagree with them, just not online or in public or in private with anyone not in your household?
Do you see any issues with this?
Do you see any issues with this?
> Do you see any issues with this?
Yes, in that you're just ignoring the comment you replied to and repeating the same incorrect nonsense.
Disagreeing with a law does not require breaking that law. You're perfectly welcome to disagree with the lockdowns in Victoria and NSW, and you can do that wherever you want. You're not welcome to break them.
Yes, in that you're just ignoring the comment you replied to and repeating the same incorrect nonsense.
Disagreeing with a law does not require breaking that law. You're perfectly welcome to disagree with the lockdowns in Victoria and NSW, and you can do that wherever you want. You're not welcome to break them.
Its just like Carrie Lam says, People who break the law cannot expect to be considered part of civil society.
You can disagree with them though. Disagreeing is not limited to posting an event with a time and location which is illegal. There are many ways to disagree.
How would commenting on a news article allow you to communicate your disagreement to the people in charge? Contact your local representative for instance. Do people really think anyone other than equally angry people read anything they wrote in those comments?
>News comments have long since been the most toxic pool of crap on the internet.
Looks to me like every other anti-free speech measure enacted in the last 5 years. Just remove comments so propaganda can't be countered by the people. Only the official proclamations can be allowed.
Quite often, I find comments many times more insightful than the news stories themselves. Losing them limits the value of news sites to me.
PS: You seem to hate comments and love limiting free speech yet here you are... commenting on news stories. Rules for thee, but not for me. How very hypocritical of you.
Looks to me like every other anti-free speech measure enacted in the last 5 years. Just remove comments so propaganda can't be countered by the people. Only the official proclamations can be allowed.
Quite often, I find comments many times more insightful than the news stories themselves. Losing them limits the value of news sites to me.
PS: You seem to hate comments and love limiting free speech yet here you are... commenting on news stories. Rules for thee, but not for me. How very hypocritical of you.
I don't hate comments. I disagree with unmoderated comment sections with no legal responsibility. On HN the comments are moderated and illegal content is removed. On FB news pages, it often is not.
Of course, if they use comments to increase page views to profit, they should be responsible for moderating the comments.
Well those same media companies pushed to get paid by Facebook for their own posts (they they post) on Facebook's platform -- so it seems right they should take responsibility for them.
Here is the judgement: https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2021/HCA/27
There seems to be, within the Australian users of HN a strong pro-censorship and anti free speech feeling. When the US users wake up, we should expect to see more push back on this story. I'm continually puzzled by the cultural reasons for such but it could be that these users are being honest and unfiltered with their own posts on social media. Perhaps americans are more filtered?
I suspect, politically, that it's because of two things:
Firstly, News Corp which has poisoned the well, it has made these users suspect and distrustful of all media now and welcoming of their governments censorship.
Secondly, it's due to the coronavirus lockdown implementations and associated anti-lockdown protests where the concept of free speech is now associated with harm and danger to themselves and their community.
Culturally, it could be that the users are members of the urban-living educated tech literate class. This class, and class issues generally is a new thing for Australia. Australia thinks of itself as generally classless and equal. I think we are seeing a kind of new tech class but without the informal rules (e.g. filtering, politeness) governing how more entrenched class based societies operate. But as I say, I'm puzzled and guessing here. It's certainly the only English speaking country where the users appear to be both champions of their government actions and anti news. Perhaps theres more nuance.
It could be that these users are actually just being honest and unfiltered in their posts here, which is sort of ironic given the nature of the featured article.
I suspect, politically, that it's because of two things:
Firstly, News Corp which has poisoned the well, it has made these users suspect and distrustful of all media now and welcoming of their governments censorship.
Secondly, it's due to the coronavirus lockdown implementations and associated anti-lockdown protests where the concept of free speech is now associated with harm and danger to themselves and their community.
Culturally, it could be that the users are members of the urban-living educated tech literate class. This class, and class issues generally is a new thing for Australia. Australia thinks of itself as generally classless and equal. I think we are seeing a kind of new tech class but without the informal rules (e.g. filtering, politeness) governing how more entrenched class based societies operate. But as I say, I'm puzzled and guessing here. It's certainly the only English speaking country where the users appear to be both champions of their government actions and anti news. Perhaps theres more nuance.
It could be that these users are actually just being honest and unfiltered in their posts here, which is sort of ironic given the nature of the featured article.
In general, there is no less of an anti-censorship stance among Australians than among those in the US.
What we do have in Australia - with its accompanying advantages and disadvantages - are strong protections against defamation, particularly from the media. And it's that machinery which is at work here.
Nothing is stopping the media continuing to allow comments on social media posts, if they accept the legal risks associated with defamation, or they enact a sufficient level of moderation for content which carries that risk. This is a purely commercial play, not a governmental censorship one.
None of this excuses our federal government, which continues to veer towards the authoritarian end of the spectrum. But that's another topic.
EDIT: fixed typo.
What we do have in Australia - with its accompanying advantages and disadvantages - are strong protections against defamation, particularly from the media. And it's that machinery which is at work here.
Nothing is stopping the media continuing to allow comments on social media posts, if they accept the legal risks associated with defamation, or they enact a sufficient level of moderation for content which carries that risk. This is a purely commercial play, not a governmental censorship one.
None of this excuses our federal government, which continues to veer towards the authoritarian end of the spectrum. But that's another topic.
EDIT: fixed typo.
^^ That's just insane.