Australia rules Facebook page operators are legally liable for user comments under posts Australia's High Court has ruled that companies running Facebook pages can be held liable for user comments on them, a ruling with severe consequences for any business with a presence on the Mark Zuckerberg-owned platform. In a case brought against a handful of news media publishers Down Under, Dylan Voller convinced judges …
"Voller's case began after the Australian Broadcasting Corporation published pictures of him being hooded and shackled to a chair by police workers, highlighting the brutal treatment meted out to juvenile criminal suspects."
I have to say that I sympathise with anyone photographed in that circumstance. It must be very humiliating for Voller not only to have images of himself treated like that, but to have, presumably unsympathetic, comments made about him as well. No I don't know what he was / is accused of or whether he is guilty, but the general principal of fair trials is that the defendant should be treated as innocent until proven guilty (at least in most countries).
The other side of the story is that he's a victim of systemic abuse and a grade-A jerkoff because of it, and he's done stuff that warrants him being removed from the public. Doesn't really have a bearing on the comment above.
Though I'd add that any sympathy felt towards Voller doesn't justify the decision made by the courts.
"A victim of systemic abuse and an A grade jerkoff because of it."
How very fucking sensitive of you. Aboriginal people are way over-represented in jails in Australia, partly because of that systemic abuse. Heard of "Black Deaths in Custody", have we? The treatment given to him was absolutely outrageous, disgusting and over the top. I don't agree with the court's decision, but your comment barely hides your contempt for the vast number of Aboriginal people who have suffered appalling treatment at the hands of white man for over 200 years.
Buddy, you're sounding like you support the stuff Voller was convicted of. You don't get a pass for being abused your whole life, you get it for being rich.
I didn't put any commentary on treatment of aboriginal people, because it wasn't necessary. Indigenous people get treated like shit by white people everywhere in the world, it's not a secret or some clever commentary if you don't or do mention it. Jesus.
... Does Australia's High Court have facebook presence? Or any other so-called "social" media presence?
If not, it seems to me this is legislation without representation.
If so, I hope their censors editors have plenty of red pencils, and overtime has been authorized.
Just sayin' ...
This case was covered today in the Sydney Morning Herald. It is actually a straightforward extension of existing precedent in defamation law, and so is quite robust from a legal standing.
The High Court has determined that an organisation which publishes pages on Facebook are also publishers of associated comments, from a legal perspective. Note that the publisher is not the same as the author.
The judgement isn't about the defamation per se.
Personally I think it is time that social media platforms were required to identify the posters behind the vile comments that some seem to think are acceptable so that they can be sued directly. But that is a different issue.
And that straightforward precedent is based on the common-law principle stated in the article:
"...that every intentional participant in a process directed to making matter available for comprehension by a third party is a 'publisher' of the matter upon the matter becoming available to be comprehended by the third party."
So, why did it stop with the page admin? Certainly Facebook is itself an intentional participant in that process by providing the media on which the matter is made available, and so Facebook, too, is a 'publisher'.
This case could be a huge issue for Facebook in the US (which also has a common-law legal system). If ruled a publisher, they would lose their 'platform' status exemption under the Communications Decency Act and be treated like every other publisher. In other words, they could be sued based on content, including third-party content.
Personally, I think that perhaps this was the only decision the High Court could make, given the Australian laws, but it is a horrible decision for free speech. It will effectively force page admins to simply stop allowing comments in order to protect themselves.
I don't know about the Aussie legal system, is the High court actually the highest court, or can this be appealed further up the chain? As I suspect Zuckerburg would be happy to spend a few minutes of Facebooks profit to pay for lawyers to fight this one.
Plus what would be defined as a business, what about a charity or none profit would they also be liable for post from third parties on their Facebook page?
"As I suspect Zuckerburg would be happy to spend a few minutes of Facebooks profit to pay for lawyers to fight this one."
Why would be want to? The ruling is that third parties who sign up to Facebook can be held liable for things posted by other third parties. This is pretty much everything Facebook could ever have wanted; instead of Facebook potentially being on the hook for moderating posts, it's now officially someone else's problem.
Unfortunately comments will just get switched off as too much effort to moderate.
That allows the cretins to avoid being tracked down & prosecuted.
His treatment wasn't the minimum you'd expect anyone to receive.
Worth reading:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-12/dylan-voller-evidence-nt-royal-commission-four-corners-don-dale/8112126
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-08/nt-government-fails-to-delay-witnesses-at-royal-commission/8103524
Unfortunately comments will just get switched off as too much effort to moderate.
I don't think such opportunity to control public opinion further would go to waste - that is getting PR houses to post tailored comments designed to produce certain outcomes. Currently they often disappear in the noise, but the new law means these firms would get their comments pre-approved.
Being cynical I think government couldn't just tell social media companies - look we don't like what your users post. Censor everything! But if they created an environment where user comments are a liability, then suddenly it is a different ballgame.
Now government can reject accusations of censorship and at the same time they will be able to "create the perception, whether it is true or not". Do you see the pattern unfolding around 5 eyes?
The news companies deliberately stoke controversy to increase views. To me, their behavior is equivalent to inciting an online riot to increase their profits.
Let them moderate the comments and take responsibility for what they publish. Too much work? Then disable comments. No loss for most of what I'm seeing posted on news sites.
I'll second that!
I have to severely limit what I read in news website comment sections, the level of animosity, stupidity and hypocrisy demonstrated by a lot of posters is breathtaking and seems to create, in me at least, some sort of animosity feedback loop.
After taking some major time off from looking at these posts, upon my return I noticed the little bursts of anger that would result from reading a particularly uncivilised, or just plain factually wrong post. I know from previous experience that (sort of like the terminator) a lot of these posters can't be reasoned with and absolutely will not stop, even in light of valid citation disproving their assertions.
I've come to the similar conclusion that the papers, and really by extension the government, are just in the business of provoking emotional responses these days rather than being interested in factual evidence based reporting. It's a truly sad and unnerving state of affairs.
Yes, I had someone call me a Russian Propagandist. After I linked to the articles with the information I cited, he said they didn't say what I said and I could continue to <vacuum> Putin's <male sexual organ>.
That is pretty much where you just walk away.
*I have never met Mr. Putin, performed the act described on anyone, or knowingly disseminated Russian propaganda. I may be an idiot, but not a particularly useful one.
An internet user was under fire today after likening Register readers to an "online riot."
In a wide-ranging attack on those who seek out information online and post comments, Imhotep suggested they were easily manipulated by the media. The answer? Censorship.
"Let them moderate the comments," said Imhotep.
DO YOU AGREE? ARE YOU A RIOTER? Like, subscribe, follow, share, click, unclick, retweet and comment below!!!11~
As my grandfather said "the truth hurts" - He was a judge in a state supreme court.
This is the least toxic forum out there - reporting truthful, and entertaining.
Another example of the woke losing a debate so they try censorship. Yep that is me - I am a rioter!
What the fuck does that have to do with my comment?
Or are you claiming that there are never any dissenting voices within the High Court of Australia? If so, that would be very, very scary.
Probably a bad case of Whataboutitis ... take two bop pills and call me in the morning.
"Woke losing a debate so they try censorship"
From my experience reading the comments in the daily rags in the UK I have to say that for the apparently "non-woke" commenters, "winning" quite often involves insulting someone who has raised a perfectly valid criticism/point/fact/perspective and various degrees on the spectrum above. You can almost hear them with their fingers in their ears going "La la la, I'm not listening to you, you are threatening my belief system!!! you dick - fuck off".
This type of behaviour obviously exists on the other side of the political divide but I feel I see it more keenly utilised on the right.
E.g. Since I'm Scottish (and have a lifetime interest in Scottish Politics) the Daily Mail is treasure trove of anti Scottish Government commenters and stories and I have noticed that, by and large, the biggest and most venomous opinions come from those who have next to no understanding of what they are talking about other than the snippets (and opinions) fed to them by the poisonous rag in question.
"Could that be the end of Facebook"
Don't be daft. Facebook could drop out of Oz completely and not see a blip in their profits. Nor their prophets, both the employed ones and the volunteers.
" and boom of self-hosted personal blogs in Australia?"
Of course not. That would be hard, and people would have to actually learn something.
I haven't read the full judgment, but from the article and the quotes in the article, there's a lot of references to commercial entities and Facebook. It makes me wonder how narrow or wide this judgment might be. Of course, if it's treated as precedent and case law, it might/could/will be applied to other platforms too.
(Sorry Australians....but read on and you'll see what I mean.....)
Australia is a continent sized country -- its bigger than the continental US -- but it has a relatively small population, 25 million or so, with an economy to match. By regional standards its "barely registering" compared to neighbors like Japan, Philippines or Indonesia. Despite this it's government keeps on pretending that this is the Imperial Era where the cultural and economic dominance of Britain was reflected in Commonwealth countries like Oz. These days are behind us, though, so now global companies like Facebook have to weigh the risks and costs of doing business in Oz against the potential reward. The country is not "too big to fail" so the government needs to modulate its approach accordingly. (UK also take note....)
Incidentally, I'm not a Facebook fan since its purpose is a form of mass traffic analysis -- its the ultimate spyware. It is what it is, though -- its widely used so just saying "It shouldn't be allowed' is a waste of breath. User comments are part of its business model and, yes, they're going to include a fair spread of abusive and unpleasant material. The solution to this is to remove the mask, to require comments to be treated like any other published material with users unable to hide behind a pseudoname and guarantees of anonymity.
Umm actually Australia's economy is one of the biggest in the World. According to the IMF, Australia's GDP ranks 12th in the World. Japan is the 3rd largest economy, Indonesia 16th, and the Phillipines 32nd. Not bad for a country of only ~25 million.
So yes, we're a small nation, but the wealth of the nation is quite high. That also means that Australians have relatively high disposable income (compared to Indonesians or Filipinos) which makes them much more attractive to the likes of Facebook and other international corporations.
So actually decisions taken in Australia can have an effect on multinationals, and other nations...
Not so far, because we have plenty of Uranium to sell to thei replacemernt nuclear power plants.
And I'm assuming you're talking about their coal power plants, because as a rule factories dont burn fossil fuels unless your talking about Diesel generators, and Australia doesnt produce any Diesel.
How far will the US fall, when China starts calling in your trillions of dollars of debt?
"UK also take note..." The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world, out of 213 listed. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)) What is it with people thinking that because we are no longer the worlds largest empire etc. we are suddenly insignificant?
England is just a tin-pot little country on the arse-end of Europe. Good for laundering/obfuscating money but offering very little else. Of course its inhabitants suffer from a grandiose notion that it has political or military clout under the guise of GB/UK . But it's little more than a paper tiger now. That can do little on its own without a nod from the US. It cannot even equip its own aircraft carriers without the help of the USMC.
@SundogUK
.. Expect that position to drop
Wait until next year when Brexit effects have even more impact as various transitionary agreements expire.
Still, COVID gave government a potential get out of jail free card as will blame everything on that & gamble that enough people will believe them
If Dylan James Dudley Voller is reading this, Please stop giving WAPOL officers my address.
In July 2020 I started receiving OHMS and other letters assigned to Dylan James Dudley Voller.
I sent them back RTS as per usual but by September 2020 I got sick of continually getting them, so I did a Facebook check on his name and found three pages for him.
One was his artists page, one his personal page that had not been updated in years and one about how he was going to get on with his life.
I then used Western Australia's eCourts page and using his Facebook details found that he had multiple court cases for no authority to drive, assaulting a Police Officer and driving an unregistered vehicle.
So I ended up going to Mandurah Police station and they stated they would stop them coming through.
Everything was fine for a few months, then they started up again.
Fast forward to three weeks ago and I was speaking to my next door neighbour who is Aboriginal - and a great bloke - and found out that Dylan is his ex-son in law, which is how he got my address in the first place. I also found out other things about him and why he is no longer the son in law.
This is the implementation of censorship on web 2.0 content through the threat of prosecution on the grounds of vicarious atonement - making you responsible for something someone else has done.
It uses pre-internet legislation to crack down on the net by not taking into account the fundamental shifts that have taken place in social norms following the development of online services. It effectively drags us back to a pre-internet age by criminalising an entire generation of tech.
This is why we need to migrate internet technologies from a centralised topology to a distributed one, and quickly. This shift has been prevented by GAFA using their dominance and patents, as they were happy with their lot. Now, the vulnerabilities of the centralised model are evident and present an existential threat to them and to all the web 2.0 services that we use online.
This is not about Facebook or Australia. Our technology is under attack and we need to design our way around the threat that this action poses, or we will lose a chunk of functionality fundamental to the future of the net.
At present, the UK does the sensible, honest thing and prosecutes people who break the law on social media. But new legislation on online 'harms' is in the offing and they may just decide to follow Australia.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
