7 ms·

Somehow everyone misses this little gem in the draft bill [0]: > 52S.(1).(a) ensure that the registered news business corporation is provided with flexible co

Somehow everyone misses this little gem in the draft bill [0]: > 52S.(1).(a) ensure that the registered news business corporation is provided with flexible content moderation tools that allow the registered news business corporation to remove or filter comments on the registered news business covered news content that: > . . (i) are made using the digital platform service;and > . . (ii) are made on a part of the digital platform service that is set up and able to be edited by the registered news business; > (b) ensure that the registered news business corporation can disable the making of such comments; If I'm reading that correctly, if someone posts a news corporation to Facebook, the news corporation gets to delete / edit / moderate any Facebook replies. I think they (the legislators) have lost the plot. In another section the draft legislation requires Facebook / Google to notify the news organisation of changes to their page rank / feed algorithm, and also provide advice on how to mitigate the effects of those changes. Google's claim the bill grants news media business special privileges no other organisation on the planet has is not too far from the truth. [0] https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill%20-%20TREASURY%20LAWS%20AMENDENT%20%28NEWS%20MEDIA%20AND%20DIGITAL%20PLATFORMS%20MANDATORY%20BARGAINING%20CODE%29%20BILL%202020.pdf https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill...

ajdlinux 6y ago
To me that sounds like it's intended to cover comments made on posts on the news business's own Facebook page, rather than comments made on other pages or personal profiles, etc.
- chrismorgan 6y ago
  Agreed, that’s what the clause (ii) restriction is for.
  - justsee 6y ago
    When you consider the wider legal context, this also makes sense* . This is because Facebook requires page owners to assume all liability for comments. This has resulted in publishers losing defamation cases based on third-party comments made on their posts [1]. * (regardless of whether you feel, as I do, that the proposed legislation is a politically-motivated protection racket for a favoured media mogul) [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/01/australian-media-companies-face-defamation-liability-for-comments-on-facebook-after-court-dismisses-appeal https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/01/australian-med...
    - sukilot 6y ago
      1. That case isn't finished with appeals and there are already multiple laws in the pipeline to override it. 2. Facebook didn't require publishers to be liable. The court did.
      - justsee 6y ago
        1. Yes we haven't heard yet whether they will appeal, but the law as it currently stands creates a legal context where you can understand publishers wanting more information about Facebook users who comment on their posts. There are some perverse shakedown incentives created by the current situation. 2. Thanks - poor wording on my part. I meant to communicate that Facebook avoids liability in their terms, and of course the court determined the actual liability falls on publishers posting content.
harryf 6y ago
> In another section the draft legislation requires Facebook / Google to notify the news organisation of changes to their page rank / feed algorithm, and also provide advice on how to mitigate the effects of those changes. Interesting. On the one hand working in software the idea of having communicate changes to an algorithm like this to 3rd parties gives me nightmares, and opens the door to regulation of the algorithms design. On the other hand, given Facebook and Google's monopoly positions, why not? They're able to make of break businesses overnight by changing the stream of traffic, and there's basically no real competitors. Perhaps a weak analogy but if your local government was building a motorway that would bypass your town high street, effectively wiping out 90%+ of customers to your local shop, they would inform you months or years ahead so you have at least a chance to change your business strategy or close shop.
- vermilingua 6y ago
  > On the other hand... why not? You must be unfamiliar with NewsCorp. This is the cesspool that spawned Fox News, Sky News, and The Sun. That hacked the phones of journalists, celebrities, and royalty just to get a scoop. That routinely and as a core function of business interferes in democratic process. That effectively pioneered fake news, and has singlehandedly destroyed the credibility of the entire media industry. Why not? Hopefully because you give a single fuck about the rule of law.
  - harryf 6y ago
    I'm well aware of NewsCorp, having grown up in the UK and seen them basically decide every election since perhaps Thatcher. Despite that, this particular point in the draft legislation in an interesting idea, at least to discuss. "Why Not?" was short for "Why not require Google and Facebook to inform affected businesses when they're making changes to their ranking algorithms?" ... that's a discussion that can be had independently from NewsCorp
    - JoshTriplett 6y ago
      Because the ranking algorithms are likely changed regularly, in opaque ways. Because many of the changes will be things like "reran the training algorithm on a new data set". Because it's a foot in the door to making them justify such changes. Because the purpose of a good search algorithm is to serve the people searching and not the people writing sites. Because it's an inherently adversarial process between search engines and bad "SEO". Because no good can possibly come from sites having more insight into how to affect their ranking, other than "make content people want". And those are just the reasons off the top of my head.
ragona 6y ago
No, it’s to address “oh well we CAN’T moderate our platform we didn’t build those tools and we couldn’t find any engineers so I guess we’re just stuck then eh??”
lolinder 6y ago
Someone brought that up the last time this came up on HN. In the explanatory materials, they clarified that (ii) is indeed meant to restrict this to posts on their own Facebook page: > 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. 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...
- zentiggr 6y ago
  That still carves them out a protected niche in what otherwise was an independent service, that in no other case provides that level of autonomy. If I were in FAANG's place, I'd tell the AU government to get stuffed by turning every response page into a "Tell your government that this bill is ridiculous and we'll be back when it's repealed. So long and thanks for all the fish."
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    > that in no other case provides that level of autonomy. I, like all FB users, can delete comments to my own FB posts.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      So can media organizations. They just can't pre-moderate the comments.
      - burkaman 6y ago
        Where are you seeing a requirement to pre-moderate?
        6y ago
legel 6y ago
This is a long read from New York Times, but it's essential to understand how (a) "news media" and (b) Australian government are strongly influenced by (c) Rupert Murdoch: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/03/magazine/rupert-murdoch-fox-news-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/03/magazine/rupe... If the proxy vote here is between Larry & Sergey v. Murdochs, guess who I'm voting for.
chris1993 6y ago
A recent case established that Australian news organisations are legally liable and may sued for defamatory comments posted against their stories on social media platforms

ajdlinux 6y ago

To me that sounds like it's intended to cover comments made on posts on the news business's own Facebook page, rather than comments made on other pages or personal profiles, etc.

chrismorgan 6y ago
Agreed, that’s what the clause (ii) restriction is for.
- justsee 6y ago
  When you consider the wider legal context, this also makes sense* . This is because Facebook requires page owners to assume all liability for comments. This has resulted in publishers losing defamation cases based on third-party comments made on their posts [1]. * (regardless of whether you feel, as I do, that the proposed legislation is a politically-motivated protection racket for a favoured media mogul) [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/01/australian-media-companies-face-defamation-liability-for-comments-on-facebook-after-court-dismisses-appeal https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/01/australian-med...
  - sukilot 6y ago
    1. That case isn't finished with appeals and there are already multiple laws in the pipeline to override it. 2. Facebook didn't require publishers to be liable. The court did.
    - justsee 6y ago
      1. Yes we haven't heard yet whether they will appeal, but the law as it currently stands creates a legal context where you can understand publishers wanting more information about Facebook users who comment on their posts. There are some perverse shakedown incentives created by the current situation. 2. Thanks - poor wording on my part. I meant to communicate that Facebook avoids liability in their terms, and of course the court determined the actual liability falls on publishers posting content.

harryf 6y ago

> In another section the draft legislation requires Facebook / Google to notify the news organisation of changes to their page rank / feed algorithm, and also provide advice on how to mitigate the effects of those changes. Interesting. On the one hand working in software the idea of having communicate changes to an algorithm like this to 3rd parties gives me nightmares, and opens the door to regulation of the algorithms design. On the other hand, given Facebook and Google's monopoly positions, why not? They're able to make of break businesses overnight by changing the stream of traffic, and there's basically no real competitors. Perhaps a weak analogy but if your local government was building a motorway that would bypass your town high street, effectively wiping out 90%+ of customers to your local shop, they would inform you months or years ahead so you have at least a chance to change your business strategy or close shop.

vermilingua 6y ago
> On the other hand... why not? You must be unfamiliar with NewsCorp. This is the cesspool that spawned Fox News, Sky News, and The Sun. That hacked the phones of journalists, celebrities, and royalty just to get a scoop. That routinely and as a core function of business interferes in democratic process. That effectively pioneered fake news, and has singlehandedly destroyed the credibility of the entire media industry. Why not? Hopefully because you give a single fuck about the rule of law.
- harryf 6y ago
  I'm well aware of NewsCorp, having grown up in the UK and seen them basically decide every election since perhaps Thatcher. Despite that, this particular point in the draft legislation in an interesting idea, at least to discuss. "Why Not?" was short for "Why not require Google and Facebook to inform affected businesses when they're making changes to their ranking algorithms?" ... that's a discussion that can be had independently from NewsCorp
  - JoshTriplett 6y ago
    Because the ranking algorithms are likely changed regularly, in opaque ways. Because many of the changes will be things like "reran the training algorithm on a new data set". Because it's a foot in the door to making them justify such changes. Because the purpose of a good search algorithm is to serve the people searching and not the people writing sites. Because it's an inherently adversarial process between search engines and bad "SEO". Because no good can possibly come from sites having more insight into how to affect their ranking, other than "make content people want". And those are just the reasons off the top of my head.

ragona 6y ago

No, it’s to address “oh well we CAN’T moderate our platform we didn’t build those tools and we couldn’t find any engineers so I guess we’re just stuck then eh??”

lolinder 6y ago

Someone brought that up the last time this came up on HN. In the explanatory materials, they clarified that (ii) is indeed meant to restrict this to posts on their own Facebook page: > 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. 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...

zentiggr 6y ago
That still carves them out a protected niche in what otherwise was an independent service, that in no other case provides that level of autonomy. If I were in FAANG's place, I'd tell the AU government to get stuffed by turning every response page into a "Tell your government that this bill is ridiculous and we'll be back when it's repealed. So long and thanks for all the fish."
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  > that in no other case provides that level of autonomy. I, like all FB users, can delete comments to my own FB posts.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    So can media organizations. They just can't pre-moderate the comments.
    - burkaman 6y ago
      Where are you seeing a requirement to pre-moderate?
      - 6y ago

legel 6y ago

This is a long read from New York Times, but it's essential to understand how (a) "news media" and (b) Australian government are strongly influenced by (c) Rupert Murdoch: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/03/magazine/rupert-murdoch-fox-news-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/03/magazine/rupe... If the proxy vote here is between Larry & Sergey v. Murdochs, guess who I'm voting for.

chris1993 6y ago

A recent case established that Australian news organisations are legally liable and may sued for defamatory comments posted against their stories on social media platforms