Are News Outlets Responsible For Comments Left On Their Facebook Pages? (afr.com) 122
Leading media outlets in Australia lost big in court when a judge ruled publishers can be sued for comments left on their Facebook pages.
They're now considering an appeal, reports the Financial Express: The court upheld an earlier ruling in the Supreme Court that the outlets were "first or primary distributors" of the comments about Dylan Voller, a former detainee at Northern Territory's Don Dale Youth Detention Centrethat were attached to news stories in December 2016 and January 2017... It said the outlets "encouraged and facilitated the making of comments by third parties which when posted on the page were made available to Facebook users generally and were therefore publishers of the comments".
The court also held that the outlets could not rely on a defence of innocent dissemination...
Justice John Basten said: "Perhaps with a degree of hyperbole, they submitted that they were more closely equivalent to the supplier of paper to a newspaper owner or the supplier of a computer to an author." He dismissed the suggestion the outlets played "no active" role in regard to the postings on their Facebook pages. "The point of distinction may be accepted; however, it does not follow that they were not publishers,'' Justice Basten said. "They facilitated the posting of comments on articles published in their newspapers and had sufficient control over the platform to be able to delete postings when they became aware that they were defamatory."
In a separate judgment, Justice Tony Meagher and Acting Justice Carolyn Simpson said that by inviting the public to comment, the outlets "accepted responsibility for the use of their Facebook facilities".
They're now considering an appeal, reports the Financial Express: The court upheld an earlier ruling in the Supreme Court that the outlets were "first or primary distributors" of the comments about Dylan Voller, a former detainee at Northern Territory's Don Dale Youth Detention Centrethat were attached to news stories in December 2016 and January 2017... It said the outlets "encouraged and facilitated the making of comments by third parties which when posted on the page were made available to Facebook users generally and were therefore publishers of the comments".
The court also held that the outlets could not rely on a defence of innocent dissemination...
Justice John Basten said: "Perhaps with a degree of hyperbole, they submitted that they were more closely equivalent to the supplier of paper to a newspaper owner or the supplier of a computer to an author." He dismissed the suggestion the outlets played "no active" role in regard to the postings on their Facebook pages. "The point of distinction may be accepted; however, it does not follow that they were not publishers,'' Justice Basten said. "They facilitated the posting of comments on articles published in their newspapers and had sufficient control over the platform to be able to delete postings when they became aware that they were defamatory."
In a separate judgment, Justice Tony Meagher and Acting Justice Carolyn Simpson said that by inviting the public to comment, the outlets "accepted responsibility for the use of their Facebook facilities".
Of course not (Score:1)
The readers are responsible for how they react
Re: Of course not (Score:2)
Facebook is responsible for offering a channel.
But the main problem here is the issues at stake here - freedom of speech. If people with fringe opinions feel that they are oppressed then it builds tensions.
So too much political correctness can be as bad as too saying whatever you like.
Re: Of course not (Score:5, Informative)
This is Australia, mate. There's no First Amendment or Section 230 of the CDA.
Newspapers are effectively required to moderate their comment sections online, they can't just side step that by suggesting people go comment on their Facebook page instead.
NB; the only real difference here is the ability to sue someone for defamation with deeper pockets, the stuff that was posted could have led to law suits for defamation against individuals, but it's not really worth it.
Re: Of course not (Score:1)
It's quite fascinating... All the Aussies I know are relaxed, freedom-loving, "live and let live" sort of people. Yet the Aussie government seems like it's constantly trying to out do North Korea as a humorless joyless hyper-conformist police state. What's up with that? Are the Australian elections rigged?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nah, "live and let live" does not give you carte blanche to be a c*nt, it's rather the antithesis. Also, the government has 3/4 of stuff all to do with the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, "live and let live" does not give you carte blanche to be a c*nt
Actually, it does.
You don't need freedom to be a nice person because no one will object to that.
The point of freedom is to protect assholes (or "cunts" in Australian) and let people say offensive stuff.
You have no right to not be offended. Defamation and libel should have high barriers to prosecution, and the burden of proof should be firmly on the plaintiff to show the statements were false and malicious.
Re: Of course not (Score:1)
Then you don't understand that phrase.
Re: (Score:1)
We all know you're a c*nt, Bill, but in this case it's about defamation which has an extremely high burden of proof so I'm not sure what you're on about there.
Oh, and we literally have obscenity laws and state based censorship here, so you might wanna check that out before you come over here being all c*nty.
Re: (Score:3)
a) It's hardly "letting live" if I claim you're screwing your dog in the papers.
b) Yeah, nah.
Re: Of course not (Score:1)
Are we getting hung up on the definition of "government"? I'm using it in the American dialect, where it means "the whole state apparatus". In that sense the courts are surely part of the government. Perhaps you're using it in the British sense meaning "the elected administration"?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The Australian Attorney-General's office disagrees with you [ag.gov.au]:
Re: (Score:3)
Your statement points out a subtle difference between British/Australian/Kiwi English and American English. In the US, "the government" means the all three three branches of public office, the fabric, the structure, the civic scaffolding that holds our society together. In the Empire, "the government" means the current administration who runs the Parliament. In Britain, one speaks of scandals toppling a government, and there is no concern expressed about the structure for the election of a new one -- it'
Re: (Score:2)
In a Parliamentary system like most of the Commonwealth, the Government is the group (usually party based but 2 of Canada's Territories practice consensus government without parties) who controls Parliament (can pass a budget basically) and are responsible to Parliament, who in turn are responsible to the people. Sorta like Administration in the US system.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a colloquial usage, as in the phrase "form a government". It is true in a narrow sense, but the courts are absolutely part of either the Commonwealth or State/Territorial governments. That is why the AG's Office distinguishes between "other arms of government" and "the government of the day" in the quote I provided.
Or as Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] says, "the Australian Government is made up of three branches: the executive (the Prime Minister, the Ministers, and the departmens), the legislative (the Parliament of
Re: (Score:2)
It's the difference between Government and government. Another time the language falls short. In a broad term the government includes everything, including the ditch digger employed by the government. The Government is the cabinet, who exercise executive powers (the executive is actually the Crown, who usually acts as a rubber stamp) and govern in the Queens name and are responsible to Parliament, who pass laws and other bills such as spending and can be considered part of the Government.
Parliament can fire
Re: Of course not (Score:1)
No just you hung up on you being wrongl
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say "yes", because by your definition the guy that fills the pot holes in the roads is "the government" which makes absolutely no sense against "a humorless joyless hyper-conformist police state" which sounds like people that get to make policy.
Oh and yes, given this is 'straya, your high school civics class is fuck all use here.
Re: Of course not (Score:1)
Cool. So if not "government", what word do you folks use to indicate "the whole state apparatus"?
Re: (Score:2)
The public service? Governments are elected to set policy/make laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Informally, the government vs the Government. Just because someone works for the government does not make them part of the Government, which is the group of people (Cabinet) who actually govern and are responsible to Parliament, which in turn is responsible to the people.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In that sense the courts are surely part of the government.
Your constitution defines things the government can't do. Our constitution defines things the government is not. Courts are 100% completely independent of the government in Australia. None of this electing judges bullshit.
Re: Of course not (Score:2)
Wtf does election have to do with anything? Dictators are government leaders too.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes Judges have to worry about pleasing the people instead of following and ruling on the laws passed by the Legislature (and the Constitution where it matters).
Who wants a Judge worrying about whether to convict based on likely hood of reelection instead of guilt.
Re: (Score:2)
Wtf does election have to do with anything? Dictators are government leaders too.
What the hell does dictators and government leaders have to do with picking judges in a court? Did you see the word election and get massively triggered?
Re: Of course not (Score:2)
The discussion is over whether judges are part of the government. The argument was that they are not, because they don't get elected.
Keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
A) "Live and let live" absolutely does give you carte blanche to live the way you want.
Sure. If you live on some island on your own. Even then, there might be limits if you start polluting our ocean or our air. Maybe a different planet would suit you?
B) The courts ARE the government.
They are part of the government mechanism; they're not the whole thing.
Re: (Score:1)
It's quite fascinating... All the Aussies I know are relaxed, freedom-loving, "live and let live" sort of people. Yet the Aussie government seems like it's constantly trying to out do North Korea as a humorless joyless hyper-conformist police state. What's up with that? Are the Australian elections rigged?
The government doesn't really make this decision it is the courts which are heavily biased to the left and socialism particularly our judges who give very lenient sentences as the poor little snowflake claims they wee abused by parents teachers or anyone else who tried to help them. self responsibility is not even entertained. Same with this the commentator is not responsible for taking the time to compose and write the offensive paragraph it is the big bad company that supplied them with the tool.
they sh
Re: Of course not (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure freedom-loving is a way I'd describe us, we generally love some freedoms, but are also quote happy to live in a nanny state. Most Australians were quite happy with laws restricting access to firearms, hell with the Amnesty program the overwhelming majority of firearms were recovered and destroyed. The government has rules about everything, and culturally they seem to be generally followed.
As for comparing it to North Korea, that's hyperbole, but it's worth remembering that Australia does not have and has never had free speech. We have protected political speech, and we enjoy some freedoms that are granted via common law cases, but we don't have freedoms in our core constitution.
The problem is one of generalising. All Americans I know are kind, welcoming, and not the type to loot or riot. But here we are. It only takes 2 people to end up in court: someone who did something, and someone who is offended by it.
We may be a nation of criminals, but don't all think alike :-)
Re: (Score:2)
" but we don't have freedoms in our core constitution."
Chapter V Sec. 116. Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
Looks like freedom of religion to me...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of religion is only ONE very narrow freedom. One that I personally couldn't care less about. There are many freedoms which are a lot more important.
Yeah, it's so very narrow and unimportant that it appears to be the only individual freedom enumerated in the entire Australian constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like freedom of religion to me...
Indeed. But we're talking about speech, the right to publish and our general "love of freedom". People's imaginary friends are not only off topic, but don't in any way change my point which is that we are not "freedom loving" and that we actually have fuck all freedoms enumerated in the constitution.
Sidenote: That constitutional law was challenged many years ago, can't remember the case, but it additionally established that the government gets to decide if your religion is legitimately a religion or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
we actually have fuck all freedoms enumerated in the constitution.
As long as "fuck all" = 1, eh? You were the one who said "we don't have freedoms in our core constitution". All you've done is prove you don't know your constitution that well.
People's imaginary friends are not only off topic
Nobody's talking about "imaginary friends" but you. And you must've forgotten going on about gun laws in your post. Was that somehow "on-topic" to you?
Sidenote: That constitutional law was challenged many years ago, can't remember the case, but it additionally established that the government gets to decide if your religion is legitimately a religion or not.
Yes, used against Scientologists I believe. But hey, no need to stray off-topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Colloquially, the term "Fuck all" as a count or enumeration isn't specifically zero, it's more akin to "a vanishingly small number". If I were to say there's "fuck all fish today" while fishing, it doesn't mean there are no fish in the area; it means maybe I've caught a couple of tiny fish in the course of three hours. Possibly even one keeper (when you might expect half a dozen).
Re: (Score:2)
"What's up with that? Are the Australian elections rigged?"
You should watch the Aussie TV series 'Rake', which explains all this.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1... [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is Australia, mate.
It is weird that your word "publisher" is so different from ours, the language always seems as if it is actually the same. But then something like this happens and it turns out, no, I have no idea what they're saying at all. The grammar makes sense though. And it appears to mean something.
Re: (Score:2)
I've yet to see a western country that isn't the US and doesn't have people bragging about not having a First Amendment. Which just shows the wisdom of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Of course not (Score:4, Insightful)
This is Australia, mate. There's no First Amendment or Section 230 of the CDA.
Freedom of speech is a natural right, whether recognized in law or brutally suppressed. But it's never good for society to suppress speech, because humans only have two ways of resolving disputes: words and violence. Let people use their words, even if they offend you, because it beats the alternative.
Unnatural Right (Score:2)
it's never good for society to suppress speech, because humans only have two ways of resolving disputes: words and violence.
What about when words cause violence such as in incitement to violence, racial hatred etc. That's the problem with freedom of speech, almost nobody believes that it is a fundamental natural right that should not be limited which leads to a debate on what are appropriate limits. While I would tend to side more with the US position of very minimal limitations (despite being unamerican) that does not mean that there are not valid reasons for believing that stricter limits on speech might be better for society
Re: (Score:2)
This is Australia, mate. There's no First Amendment or Section 230 of the CDA.
I can't help wonder if that could be used to target obnoxious ads as well then.
Re: (Score:1)
The choice to follow is the issue
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is responsible for offering a channel.
What about the ISPs and computer manufacturers?
Shouldn't they accept their fair share of responsibility?
Re: (Score:3)
You're confusing the venue; Facebook, with the party being held accountable; Fairfax (the publisher).
Facebook's not being blamed for anything.
Re: Of course not (Score:1)
Freedom of speech only protects you from state censorship an retaliation. Fscebook is not the a state.
Moreover, the question being posed has nothing to do with the channel or forum.
The press are protected in many was. I would suggest that if actual journalists are doing their jobs, they should not be responsible as it is in the public interest.
However, how many actual nonpartisan, noncorporate real journalists do we have anymore?
Were the rights and protections given to independent public servants meant t
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech only protects you from state censorship an retaliation. Fscebook is not the a state.
Freedom of speech is a natural right, neither created by government nor owned by a corporation, however large. You seem to be confusing "freedom of speech" with "First Amendment", which doesn't apply to Australia in the first place.
I would suggest that if actual journalists are doing their jobs, they should not be responsible as it is in the public interest.
The press are not some aristocracy and deserve no privileged. They rights of people are the rights of people. Creating special groups of people who are "more equal than others" never ends well.
However, how many actual nonpartisan, noncorporate real journalists do we have anymore?
Such a thing never existed. There were only journalists who fooled you.
Strange to stop with the middleman (Score:1)
Wouldn't this also mean that the media outlets in turn can sue Facebook for the exact same thing? I've been invited to use Facebook over 100 times so the same argument would apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it *all* the same thing? If Facebook were simply a depository of user comments, sure, but Facebook also promotes content based on what it thinks will keep you engaged with the site. And it's constantly hankering for attention, especially if you're silly enough to install the mobile app.
Oh good, more government takes on the internet! (Score:1)
Re: Oh good, more government takes on the internet (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
last I checked in Australia the courts were NOT government officials.
Oh, good, nobody has to listen to them then.
Of course yes! (Score:1)
Pinnacle of corporatism (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's not forget that Facebook, like a newspaper, is disseminating comments to make a profit: Why should a faceless corporation be rewarded for defamation, misinformation and invasion of privacy? That is the pinnacle of corporatism.
Facebook comments are just like letters to the editor: The newspaper still has a responsibility of due diligence. The US model of social media being a cave wall in the wilderness, under the guise of free speech, has turned everyone into publisher and democratized stupidity.
The 'free speech' excuse carries much less weight in Australia. Unlike the USA, Australia has strict truth-in-advertising and defamation laws, limiting the 'he rapes dogs' propaganda so common to American public discussion.
Re: Pinnacle of corporatism (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
"Unlike the USA, Australia has strict truth-in-advertising and defamation laws,"
The USA does have crap advertising law. But the defamation laws are pretty solid, in particular that truth is an absolute defense.
We have laws against libel and slander. We just don't have laws against harming people's reputations with facts.
Re: (Score:3)
The US's laws for libel and slander are pretty weak compared to most commonwealth nations. And they're pretty weak even compared to the US itself, pre-1964.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Pinnacle of corporatism (Score:2)
Yup, we best not compare anything to anything else. Wouldn't want to trigger someone.
We can stop learning about each other, and just curl up in the fetal position.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that a newspaper can choose which comments to publish.
They don't get to choose who writes to them in the first place, or what those people might write.
With this decision, the only option in the relevant jurisdictions is for people or companies with facebook pages to not allow any public comments on their pages at all, lest they be held liable for something someone else says.
Re: Pinnacle of corporatism (Score:1)
Or to curate them (like letters to a newspaper), or to show due diligence with moderators intervention.
BTW it is Australia, RTFA.
Re: (Score:2)
If they choose to only allow that form of commenting, then people cannot post public comments on their facebook page, as I said.
I didn't once say it wasn't at all possible for them to assume responsibility for what appears, I only said it wasn't possible without taking away the ability for people to make public comments on their facebook page.
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook comments are nothing like letters to the editor. Letters to the editor are read and selected before publication, Facebook comments go live instantly and rely on user reports for moderation.
That's the fundamental reason for Section 230 to exist. The shear volume of user generated comments and material is so great that requiring human oversight before publication would destroy many websites.
Re: (Score:1)
Then you've already decided a comment has more 'rights' than a person being hounded, vilified, doxxed, defamed or threatened. The court decided such "innocent dissemination" is not an excuse: Facebook is in charge and thus responsible for the safety of others.
In this case, Facebook (or the users), didn't react to Voller's threats, which the court deemed irresponsible.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying it's ideal, but I don't think pre-approval is the solution.
Re: (Score:2)
>> human oversight before publication would destroy many websites.
> Then you've already decided a comment has more 'rights' than a person being hounded,
No, what's been decided is that free speech is more important than individuals' right to be free from harassment, because while no one involved is condoning harassment, everyone involved believed that free speech is critical to democracy.
It may seem simple to us techno-elite nerds, but operating a website and getting content viewed by others comes w
Re: (Score:2)
That's what 230 is about. So you can edit comments without getting sued for doing a crappy or inconsistent job. The choices shouldn't be complete hands off wild west, so you can't be sued, or expensive and risky editing that opens you to lawsuits.
Right now both sides are fighting over how to alter 230 because the companies are not censoring in just the right way different political factions want. Which should not happen at all. The companies try different tactics to appease their political masters, who,
Re: (Score:3)
Yes (Score:2)
Of course you're responsible for the actions of another person. That's the system we voted for. Next are you're going to tell me that I'm responsible for my own actions?
Facebook (Score:1)
Facebook would clearly be the responsible part of responsibility follows the path of facilitator.
Think Facebook should get their lawyers in here. Er Jill all Australien politician accounts to stay safe.
If they act actually Journalists then yes. (Score:1)
If they read scripts from masters and corporations.
Push political agendas agendas, that are obviously screwed.
If they don't protect people by providing object news, as bland as that sounds.
And many more attributes, as to what journalism is.
Then yeah, they should be help responsible, as they are merely agitators, no matter which partisans claim them.
If something happens (like pizza-gate) and they legitimize a false perceptions, they aren't reporting, they're merely stirring the pot.
Not covered, under freedom
Who is Dylan Voller? (Score:3, Informative)
So the Slashdot story (naturally) leaves out the very important context of who the hell is Dylan Voller and why is he relevant? I looked it up and turns out he's a teenage psychopath who threatened to rape people, burn down their houses, and all the other usual warning signs that psychopaths show when they're young. Subsequently he was turned over to the justice system where he received poor treatment. When prisoners won't cooperate, they get strapped to this special kind of wheelchair that limits their movements and get a spit guard installed so that they can't spread diseases by spitting on the staff [youtu.be].
Well, footage was taken of him in the chair and it outraged a lot of people. Prison staff are poorly paid, hardly trained, and when they're faced with a non-cooperating psychopath, they tend to do what untrained, poorly paid people do in situations like that. Needless to say, all the usual societal factions had exactly the same reactions you'd expect them to have. Some people said, "we must protect our most vulnerable" while others said, "we must protect ourselves from dangerous sociopaths." The second faction evidently went overboard in dumping on Voller, and this is what set the judge off.
It's one of those situations where everyone behaved badly. It's just that out of all involved, nobody expected anything of them. The prison guards, the public...nobody expects them to be responsible. But journalists...we do expect them to act responsibly, because they're smart, ethical people who have a big position in our society. They had the job of preventing ugly reactions online, and they didn't do it. Thus the judge is setting things to rights. Of course, people will complain about Freedom of Speech - but this is Australia. They don't have the US-style extremist First Amendment. They have far more sensible laws. That's what this is all about.
Re:Who is Dylan Voller? (Score:4, Interesting)
They don't have the US-style extremist First Amendment. They have far more sensible laws.
You're entitled to your opinion but could you please explain what harm you think was caused by people expressing opinions about the handling of Dylan Voller and related cases that you personally consider to have crossed a line? In other words, can you please explain why you think those laws are "more sensible" than allowing [mostly] unrestricted freedom of expression?
The USA does have restrictions on things such as uttering threats, incitement to violence and fraud. But the people making those claims would typically be the ones charged, not the service they used as a delivery mechanism. Though I suppose if it was published in a traditional media, passing through an editorial process and being directly hand selected for print or broadcast, then the publisher could be liable to some extent depending on the circumstances. I think in practice they'd most likely be faced with an injunction rather than facing fines or imprisonment, though I'm sure there are extreme cases that people could point us to where they were more complicit and faced actual punishment.
Re: (Score:2)
I thinking you're jumping up and down in error. Setting aside the little snide "far more sensible" remark, the OP is merely explaining that the standpoint is incorrect from a legal point of view, not explaining in detail what is the practical differences.
Then perhaps OP could have stuck with nouns instead of adjectives and just left out the "extremist" and "sensible" parts.
Everyone is just trying to avoid another riot (Score:1)
Re: Everyone is just trying to avoid another riot (Score:2)
There are plenty of limits to free speech in the U.S. Libel, slander, fraud, threats, inciting panic, etc. are all things that would be OK if there were no limits on the freedom of speech. But they are all restricted.
Frankly, our domination of global culture through our media companies seems to suggest we're the ones with a model to emulate.
News outlets should be responsible for more (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, goodbye to Fox news? :)
"Disseminating" vs "creating" (Score:2)
First, FaceBook is not disseminating anything. They are a website you can choose to go view or not. They don't send you content unless you create an account, and set up 'notifications'. The judge is an idiot.
Second, FaceBook is not a publisher. They're more of that cornerstore bookstand you choose to visit in your trenchcoat and top hat and either view rags, mags, or porn. That's your choice.
FaceBook neither created the content, curated the content, distributed the content, or forced anyone to view it.
Re: "Disseminating" vs "creating" (Score:2)
Check the TOS. It explicitly grants FB the right to publish. If it didn't, then FB couldn't reproduce your copyrighted comments and distribute them to other users. They are a publisher, no matter how hard you try to misuse the word.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except they're not.
"Letters to the editor" are read, considered, and approved for publication by the paper. Facebook does not review and approve each posting - if it did, they would cease being a platform and enjoying certain legal privileges (Section 230).
This why the Twitter case is so interesting - they are taking it upon themselves to review SOME tweets, and in some cases they are choosing to comment/flag tweets they take issue with. Twitter
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook does not review and approve each posting - if it did, they would cease being a platform and enjoying certain legal privileges (Section 230).
This is oft-repeated, but entirely FALSE.
Section 230 specifically grants the ability to publish user-generated content without assuming any liability for what the content says.
(47 USC 230 c 1) Treatment of publisher or speaker- No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
It further grants the freedom to censor without liability.
(47 USC 230 c 2 A) Civil liability- No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected
There is no provision in the code for them to lose these protections. In order for them to lose these protections, the law would have to be amended.
Nobody seems to mention the writer of the comments (Score:2)
They are suing the media, not whoever wrote the defamatory comments. Surely this/these individual/s should have been the first to be approached ? However: as individuals they are hard to find and have small pockets and so not worth paying a lawyer to sue.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the whole problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Back before there was an internet and antisocial media, people with strong opinions sent letters to newspaper editors in hopes of getting published on an opinion page. The newspaper editors didn't allow profanity, poor grammar, or nutty stuff to bring down the world's opinion of their esteemed newspaper. Stupid people had no voice and they didn't deserve one. There was no question about whether a published article was opinion or news (based on facts, not "alternative facts") because it was put on an editori
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is, as you have shown, people just can't help themselves - and everything degrades into politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Newspapers do not publish anything and everything sent to them, they selectively publish a sampling of viewpoints/opinions from the letters received. Being on the editorial page doesn't somehow avoid responsibility for what you choose to
Re: (Score:2)
Antisocial media caters to the lowest of the low and gives them a voice they do not deserve.
The next time I feel like posting anything to a forum, social media platform, slashdot article or other I will be sure to send you a message to see if my opinions deserve to have a voice. I'll also be sure to inform everyone I know that you've really stepped up, took one for the team and are the self appointed authority on who does and does not deserve to speak. /Extreme Sarcasm
Many would argue that one of the wonderful things about the Internet is that it gives people who would have been otherwise ignored
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't say that I am the arbiter of all things good and bad. I merely pointed out that when there was something to lose by publishing nonsense or worse, there was a lot less of it around. Now there's nothing to lose, so people say whatever dumb or malicious thing comes to mind.
Yes, each of us has to decide which posts are good and which are bad, but the problem is that too many stupid people are unable to do so accurately, hence pizza-gate, etc. Antisocial media is inherently anticivilization. It caters t
Re: This is the whole problem (Score:1)
This is dangerous for the powers to be. You can't have people question authority for they are god and know best /s
Of course "Won't somebody pleeeeeeeezzzzee think of the chyldrun", Terrorism! Riots! Blah blah blah......
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In what way did I exempt myself or my interests?
Indeed, many of the discussions and comments here could stand some moderation. Sometimes, even my own...
Re: (Score:2)
I do think you are overestimating the capabilities of modern and past media, however. For example, Fox News, Tabloid, and 'yellow journalism,' generally.
Re: (Score:2)
Odd. It does not sound to me like his distaste for the current president is based on the color of said individual's fake tan. Instead he called him a "crass, hateful, incompetent, racist, grifter". All claims that can be supported quite soundly by reason.
Just shut it down (Score:2)
Re: Just shut it down (Score:1)
A lot of sites have done just that. Try finding a comments section on any lamestream media site these days. Or try to comment on a Youtube video marked "It's made for KIDZ!"
Of course, the usual excuses apply for them doing that.
Short answer (Score:1)
No.
Re: (Score:2)