So this could easily have come down the other way and we could have a precedent suggesting potential liability for literally anybody who links to anything.
So this could easily have come down the other way and we could have a precedent suggesting potential liability for literally anybody who links to anything.
Because the messages were from a political party, they were exempt from anti-spam rules, and despite the protests from people sick of getting the messages - there was no requirement for any ability to unsubscribe.
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/craig-kelly-uap...
Depending on your phone/dialling app, you can already do this.
For me on a Pixel 3a, using the default Google Dialler I go to the Dialler app (where you dial numbers from), tap the three dots, settings, Blocked Numbers and there's a toggle "Unknown - block calls from unidentified callers".
iPhone has something similar, and I think Samsung's dialler also does too.
From the Parent Commenter:
> my phone helpfully lists a lot of spam calls as "Scam Likely" but I've yet to figure out how to make it just send those calls straight to voicemail
Similar to my other reply, you may be able to do this with the right phone/dialling app.
Again, for the Pixel 3a with the default Google Dialler: tap the three dots, settings, Caller ID and Spam, and there are three toggles.
See Calller and Spam ID. This shows if a caller is suspected as spam.
Filter spam calls. This rejects calls from suspected spammers (your carrier's normal rejected call handling then applies - i.e if you normally reject a call and it goes to Voicemail, then this is what will happen)
Verified calls. This allows companies which participate in the Verified Caller program to send the business information/reason for calling to your phone when they ring.
The TL;DR of the case is that a lawyer involved in some criminal gang cases sued Google because the reports by newspapers about him were available in Google search results.
I don't think many Australian politicians would take the side of the lawyer in this case.
Someone else commented that this is a very 'thin' interpretation, and so there may be no implications to the above. Were there to be any implications, however, they would most certainly go against the above 'protection payments' being enforceable.*
*Personal opinion, do not misinterpret as fact, please do your own research to misinterpret in your own, personal way.
Sure, but that's a very different issue to this one.
The wacky "make big tech pay" thing is dumb populism but appears pretty unrelated.
There is no technical understanding of any of this in the minds of the people making these decisions. The distinction between republishing via AMP and linking takes longer than 5 seconds to explain, so will be ignored by everyone involved.
Google & Facebook were being attacked (at the behest of Murdoch) on multiple fronts. This was one of them, the news mess was another.
I think (again, personal opinion, ignore at will) that this is the last remnants of that broohaha being put to rest.
The were converting the links, using AMP for instance, and driving traffic away from the publisher
Basically no media outlet in Australia allows comments unless they have a moderator (they never do) since this little gem.
> High Court rules media liable for Facebook comments on their stories
In the whole West, people who call themselves liberals demand further and further restrictions on speech in the name of niceness (no hate!) and accuracy (no misinformation!)
It is a road to hell paved with good intentions as usual, but we will have to relive the anti-utopia again to understand why free speech is valuable.
Aren't we already in a privacy anti-utopia, with pervasive, nearly universal surveillance by the large tech companies and the info going to the US government and perhaps its "five eyes" allies?
> liberals demand further and further restrictions on speech in the name of niceness (no hate!) and accuracy (no misinformation!)
is this referring to privately owned services?if you cant control your own forums, wont your service quickly get overwhelmed by trolls and scammers?
> some other countries has already reached the level of "causing emotional distress is a crime".
really? whats the cause of that?Free speech shouldn't mean someone is free from the consequences of that speech.
Yes. So they don't have comment sections or they have expensively moderated comment sections. Both are preferable to unmoderated comment sections. I thought this had been the norm in many countries for years now?
Note that newspaper sites are very different from any random "forum". They typically enjoy very special legal protections and in return have legal responsibilities with a responsible publisher.
This meant that they review "letters to the editor" and take responsibility for them before publishing. And of course they can't do that with the comment section under an article online. And the simple solution is: for these specific types of publishers, just skip having comments or moderate the comments like the paper content is moderated.
The reader's letters editor reads the letter, and decides whether to publish it. The paper takes responsibility.
The comments editor reads the comment, and decides whether to publish it. The website takes responsibility.
I really can't see the difference.
Now, if by "comments editor" you mean the person that wrote the comment and hit "comment" on the site, that is perfectly equivalent to the person sending the letter to the editor, but has 0% equivalence to the person deciding whether the letter will be published.
When you comment on a site, the mechanism goes your computer -> server -> other users. There is no obligation for the server to make it available to other users just because it accepted your request. And indeed, the vast vast vast majority of sites on the internet that accept user content (far more than 99.9%) engage in moderation - some before the fact (moderator must approve content before it is published to other users), some after the fact (moderator sometimes deletes content that was previously published).
I know! I wanted to emphasize the equivalence between a print letters editor and a comments moderator.
Obviously it's hard to unpublish a letter to the editor in a print organ (you could leave it out of the second edition, I guess). So print editors are forced to pre-moderate.
I once had a "letter to the editor" published. They cut an important chunk of my prose, and added a misleading headline. That was 30 years ago, and I've never written to an editor since.
When I used to moderate the comments section on a political site, I would edit, but very cautiously. Mainly, I would remove addresses and phone numbers of people being criticized in a comment, and removed completely most kinds of bigotry and prejudice, and most exhortations to criminal acts. This was an "open posting" site - very strongly anti-censorship - but we still got attacked regularly for moderating at all.
Facebook wasn't found liable - they were seen as public forum.
But the newspaper by deciding to include comments on the article was found liable.
Contrast that to the following: I post a comment on Hacker News critical of some big megacorp. Megacorp can't credibly threaten to sue YCombinator over that because they are legally protected from being sued over the actions of their users. Megacorp sues me instead. I now have the ability to defend myself in court against Megacorp should I choose to.
So how could your second case occur?
If we were to apply US law, specifically the infamous "Section 230", then that would depend on whether Y Combinator actively engages in moderation (aka editorializing) of comments.
If Y Combinator only engages in moderation of comments merely to satisfy other legal requirements (eg: remove illegal materials), then Y Combinator is a platform and cannot be held liable for comments.
If Y Combinator engages in moderation of comments beyond any requirements mandated by law (eg: remove some comments because the moderators don't like them), then Y Combinator is a publisher editorializing its content and can be held liable for comments.
A simplification is if Y Combinator has anything to do with a comment other than blindly disseminating it, then Y Combinator can be held liable for the comment. If not, whoever wrote the comment is liable.
And yes, if you think social media is getting away with moderating and editorializing its contents (eg: "this is disinformation" notices) while evading any and all liability under the guise of being a platform, you are absolutely right.
Just because many people wish Section 230 says that, it doesn't. The the contrary it gives fairly broad protection to moderation efforts and does not say that moderation amounts to becoming a publisher. (hence various people calling for changes to this, restricting platforms ability to moderate)
This is what DMCA section 230 settled in the US.