4 ms·
(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 abo
by 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 agoIt'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...
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoSocial media content isn't hosted on their property. If they can't comply with such laws they should delete these accounts rather than claim digital squatter's rights.
- arrosenberg 6y agoIsn't Facebook arguing that they have become a public square though? If we accept that argument, then they can't have it both ways - a merchant who has set up a booth on the public common is not a squatter. While subject to the rules of the common, they still retain full control over their booth and wares.
- chillfox 6y agoYes they are, but it’s not entirely up to them. The other side is arguing that they are just a publisher. It remains to be seen where they end up.
- sjy 6y agoThe text you quoted contains the carve-out: the comments must be “made on a part of the digital platform service that is set up and able to be edited by the registered news business.” If the text of a law is ambiguous or obscure, courts can consider extrinsic material, including the explanatory memorandum, in interpreting it: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/s15ab.html https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia190123...