6 ms·

Thank you to the several people who have posted a link to the bill itself. I'll add to the pile to make it easier to see: https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/E

• profmonocle 6y ago
  Unless I'm misreading, "and are made on a part of the digital platform service that is set up and able to be edited by the registered news business" suggests this only applies to the news agency's own social media pages. I.E. they wouldn't be able to censor comments on links to their content posted by third parties.
  • dragonwriter 6y ago
    > suggests this only applies to the news agency's own social media pages 1.88 seems to indicate that pretty clearly, providing this example: “In the case of a social media service such as Facebook, this rule deals with the situation where the news business has posted its covered news content on the news business’ own social media page. Comments on the news business’ articles posted by somebody else on another Facebook page are not covered by this law ”
    • jerf 6y ago
      (For context, I'm not trying to be alarmist, merely observe something interesting that I acknowledge I may not fully understand that nobody else was talking about.) Even that is pretty amazing on its own terms, essentially carving out the new's site on those platforms. Interestingly, I don't see it taking away control from the host, either, so either of them ought to be able to censor. It would be interesting to see a vigorously anti-Facebook article get posted on Facebook, with Facebook nuking everyone supportive of the article and the news site nuking everyone arguing against it. (And both of the nuking the "where are all the comments?" comments.) Is there someone knowledgeable about Australian law that can explain how the "clarification" stands in relation to the actual law? In the US system, where AFAIK such clarifications would have low priority vs. the actual text of the law, I'd be nervous as a "digital platform provider" relying on the clarification to save me from the text of the law, which to my eyes do not contain that carveout, but under a different system these may be given higher priority. (& with all due respect to the many fine Internet Lawyers (TM) on HN, International Internet Lawyers (TM) even, I am asking for people who actually know. I can provide myself with all the knowledge-free speculation I need already.)
      • asdfaoeu 6y ago
        It's worthwhile noting that the courts have been holding media companies responsible for the comments on their pages which I imagine at least some part of the motivation for this. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/media-companies-liable-for-facebook-comments-made-by-others-court-finds-20190624-p520rf.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/media-companies-liable-f...
• jasode 6y ago
  >, this gives the news corporations the right to exert complete control over all "comments" on their news articles on these "digital platform services", meaning that, for instance, Hacker News or Reddit, if covered by this law, would no longer be independent sites to discuss news, but would be forcibly placed under the control of the news site. Using Google search, I don't know if I found the canonical draft but using this pdf[1] as the source, the excerpt says: >Which digital platforms must participate in the code? 1.29 A digital platform must participate in the code if the Treasurer has made a determination specifying a designated digital platform corporation. The Treasurer may also specify one or more designated digital platform services. [Schedule 1, item 1, section 52C] 1.30 The Government has announced that the code will apply to Facebook and Google. Accordingly, the Treasurer is expected to make an instrument specifying Facebook Inc. and Google LLC as designated digital platform corporations. 1.31 ‘Digital platform’ is not defined in the Bill, but is intended to capture platforms that deliver a wide variety of services such as social media services, search engines and other digital content aggregators. 1.32 A ‘digital platform service’ is a service that is provided by the designated digital platform corporation, either by itself or together with one or more related corporations. A given digital platform will normally provide multiple digital services, such as messaging, search, content curation and other content sharing services.[Schedule 1, item 1, section 52B] ------ The way I as a layman read it is... "the law is targeted at giants like Google & Facebook and not Hacker News". So, HN is spared not because it doesn't meet some strict criteria of what "digital platform is". Instead, HN won't be a target because it's too small to bother with. [1] https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20EM%20-%20NEWS%20MEDIA%20AND%20DIGITAL%20PLATFORMS%20MANDATORY%20BARGAINING%20CODE%20BILL%202020.pdf https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20EM%2...
  • jerf 6y ago
    Yes, I should clarify I was not intending to ring the alarm bell as if Hacker News is directly under attack. Most likely HN is completely not subject to Australian jurisdiction, and even if it was, there's no money to squeeze from HN anyhow. I just meant it as an exemplar of a type of site that could be affected.
    • 6y ago
• mmm_grayons 6y ago
  At least for HN, because it's not taking money from Australians, I don't think it's a concern. YC can tell the Australians to get bent and there's nothing they can do. Reddit might be more of a concern because it tries to convince people to buy stuff.
• grecy 6y ago
  > if the newspaper leans X, they can shut down all the comments from people who lean the other way, or people who disagree with the article And make no mistake about it - ALL the media in Australia owned by essentially one person, so there is a lot of leaning.
• chris1993 6y ago
  This is probably driven by a precedent set recently in Australia where media organisations were found to be legally responsible for any defamatory comments on their stories in Facebook. https://www.gtlaw.com.au/insights/nsw-court-appeal-confirms-media-companies-liable-publishers-defamatory-facebook-comments https://www.gtlaw.com.au/insights/nsw-court-appeal-confirms-...
• lolinder 6y ago
  Section 1.89 in the Exposure Draft clarifies this, I think: > 1.89 In the case of a social media service such as Facebook, this rule deals with the situation where the news business has posted its covered news content on the news business’ own social media page. Comments on the news business’ articles posted by somebody else on another Facebook page are not covered by this law. If I read this right, they don't need a way to filter comments on a link to their article that someone else posts, just comments underneath one of their own posts. Still not great, but less intrusive than that text you quoted seemed to imply (I couldn't find in that exact wording in your link).
• sukilot 6y ago
  It's talking about Twitter, where you post content and Twitter forces other people's comments (retweets/replies) onto the same page as it.
• chris_wot 6y ago
  Actually, recently there was a court cases where a news organisation (News Ltd) was sued for defamation because of comments about an article posted to Facebook. Which is nuts. And which this legislation is trying to, rather ham-handedly, fix. Also, it puts pressure on Facebook, which may actually be the secondary purpose.