4 ms·

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 perso

• 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.