Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australian Agency Rules Facebook Pages Responsible For Comments

Posted by samzenpus on from the names-will-never-hurt-me dept.

jibjibjib writes "The Australian reports that brands in Australia could be forced to abandon their social media campaigns, after the Advertising Standards Bureau ruled that they were responsible for comments posted on their pages. According to the article, the ASB is poised to release a report attacking Carlton & United Breweries for derogatory comments posted on one of their official Facebook pages, despite CUB monitoring and removing those comments twice daily. Legal expert John Swinson commented on the decision, saying 'You simply can no longer have two-way conversations with your customers.'"

32 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am an advocate of organisations having a degree of responsibility for anything they intend to profit from - so I think Facebook should be party responsible for everything posted on Facebook, and organisations with Facebook pages should be partly responsible for anything posted on their pages.

    It is not as if they're going to spread the gains they receive to "the people" when commeting/behaviour goes in their favour.

    The laws of Western countries are very much set up to capitalise profit and socialise losses.

    1. Re:Good. by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why should anyone share responsibility for what you say? In the same vein, should the local government, the builder company and the maker of a cardboard box be responsible for anything I shout while standing on said box on a street corner? Is London responsible for whatever anyone says on Speakers' Corner?

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    2. Re:Good. by Eyeball97 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I am an advocate of organisations having a degree of responsibility for anything they intend to profit from - so I think Facebook should be party responsible for everything posted on Facebook, and organisations with Facebook pages should be partly responsible for anything posted on their pages.

      What kind of twisted reasoning could possibly lead you to that conclusion?

      I disagree wholeheartedly but I'm open minded enough to argue WHY you think anyone should be responsible for someone else's comments.

      By your logic, Slashdot is (partly?) responsible for THIS comment? And yours? Where do you draw the line? Why should the fact that Slashdot (presumably) makes one off running the site make a difference, why the distinction whether it's for-profit or non-profit?

    3. Re:Good. by bug1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "In the same vein, should the local government, the builder company and the maker of a cardboard box be responsible for anything I shout while standing on said box on a street corner?"

      Whilst lying on the ground as a result of trying to stand on the cardbox box, will you think someone other than yourself responsible for your fall ?

    4. Re:Good. by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why should anyone share responsibility for what you say?

      Why should anyone profit from what you say?

      I fail to see how the company profited from derogatory slurs...

      In the same vein, should the local government, the builder company and the maker of a cardboard box be responsible for anything I shout while standing on said box on a street corner?

      Yes, to the extent each party knowingly continues to benefit from it.

      The whole point in government, being a body representing the people, is that it holds a degree of responsibility for what the people do. Bad government implies bad citizenry, and vice versa.

      It doesn't, not in the slightest. The government holds responsibility for its actions towards its electors, but not for all the actions of its people. Otherwise, I could sue your state for any given thing, like trying to slander me. Bad government implies bad politicians, but it has nothing to do with the populace in general.

      Is London responsible for whatever anyone says on Speakers' Corner?

      Of course. Try spending a minute calling everyone around you to "kill dirty niggers and kikes, especially that Jamal Rosenberg guy at number 27" and see what happens.

      Most political speech is necessary, though - which is why the government is responsible for protecting rather than prohibiting it.

      That's simple hate speech, prosecutable under law. Connecting this to the article, someone targeted by the "hate speech" on the page could file a complaint and have the court investigate it, but certainly not Facebook or the company itself (who was not a target).

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    5. Re:Good. by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then please do quote the applicable clause from the Facebook terms and conditions.

      Social responsibility is not legally enforceable. Not following it may mean you're an asshole, and people may not use your services. This certainly doesn't seem to be the case with Facebook, so I think it's safe to say people do not give a shit about social responsibility.
      As for who takes responsibility? The commenter, naturally. Again, who takes responsibility for something you say on Speakers' Corner, who gets arrested for hate speech? You or Boris Johnson?

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    6. Re:Good. by dbIII · · Score: 2

      I see it as more like a drinking establishment getting shut down due to what the clients are doing.
      That doesn't mean I think it's fair, just that I think that's how the legal system sees it.

    7. Re:Good. by Bengie · · Score: 2

      Social web sites are a communication medium. Are you saying that the phone company is responsible for hate speech going over its lines? Are you saying ISPs are responsible for illegal communications over its lines? Are you saying that US citizens are responsible for people using their voices to say hateful things through the air because air is publicly owned?

      What if I say "I don't like politicians" and the company is so scared about "hate speech" that they remove my post out of fear to get fined. Suddenly a private company is behind held responsible to not only enforce removing hate speech, but defining what hate speech is as they must be conservative to make sure they don't lose any more money.

      The government has indirectly removed my right to free speech by aggressively enforcing vague rules.

    8. Re:Good. by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because that way everyone has to wait 12 hours to post a comment, rendering realtime conversation impossible, and facebook have to run a (maybe impossibly) massive moderation team to process every single post, whereas the other way they have a much smaller team that just responds to complaints/flags from other users.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    9. Re:Good. by grumbel · · Score: 2

      I am an advocate of organisations having a degree of responsibility for anything they intend to profit from

      Thinking like this leads straight to cooperation enforced censorship, as companies like to avoid risk and thus stuff like the Anonymous Coward function you used to post this, would very likely be the first things to go. Easy account creation as well, so welcome Facebook login everywhere. That's not even theoretically speaking, over here in Germany we have tons of shitty rules like this, one of the results of that is that free anonymous Wifi essentially does not exist over here, because it's simply to risky to offer it.

    10. Re:Good. by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

      You are a complete and total asshole. It would be right and proper for Slashdot to you release any information they have on you in order to allow us to hunt you down and torture you, your cats and your hamster.

      There. Go sue Slashdot for allowing such an abusive an incite-full comment.

    11. Re:Good. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that (in the US at least... and yes I know the article is talking about Australia) the "moderate first before posting" system would open them up to *MORE* liability. If Facebook just posts a comment that someone makes, gives tools to report inappropriate comments, and responds to these reports in a timely fashion (say, 1 business day), then they can claim they aren't responsible for what people say and they do their best to keep the inappropriate stuff offline. If they moderate first, though, then if anything slips through (and something *WILL* slip through) they are the ones who approved that comment. Alternatively, they might kill perfectly valid comments "just in case" and be accused of censorship. (Perhaps not something with legal repercussions, but people don't tend to like being censored.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    12. Re:Good. by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it's more like a drinking establishment getting shut down due to what some delinquent teenager spray paints on the front of their building. At least the bar would have an option to stop and prevent entry to troublemakers before hand. With Facebook particularly, there is no way to prevent someone from 'liking' and posting on a business wall until they have done something that lets you determine they are troublemakers, which is after-the-fact.

      If Facebook were to add a 'poster quality' feature by which business sites can add some sort of 'troll rating' to a person and use that to predetermine if they can just like and comment willy-nilly, then it could be more fair. That's totally just going to be abused and gamed somehow, though.

      But I digress, it is the responsibility of the prosecuting agency to manage what is and isn't objectionable content, not that of the people who are the victims of said content.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    13. Re:Good. by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 2

      Does slashdot do that? I have posted some pretty objectionable stuff in my days here, and I have never once seen that.

      Regardless, it is not the same thing to have an automatic filter. I can eloquently phrase and word in prose a threat to dismember you violently, using a rather dull cutting instrument, and a filter wouldn't remotely pick up on it. Expecting everyone with a facebook page to sit there and sift through their viewers' comments for things which random people may or may not find offensive is a ridiculous proposition.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    14. Re:Good. by jpapon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Social web sites are a communication medium.

      Actually, they're more of a publishing and advertising medium. You can use them for communication (ie sending private messages), but you can't compare hosting a public message on a social website to telephone communications. By that logic you could say television broadcasters are protected by the same common-carrier rules as telephone companies. That's just ridiculous.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    15. Re:Good. by jpapon · · Score: 2
      If I host a message board, I am responsible for policing its content. I must at least show that I have made a reasonable effort to ensure that illegal content isn't being posted. What constitutes a reasonable effort will vary by jurisdiction and court-room.

      If people are coordinating criminal activity on my message board, you can be damned sure the police are going to be mighty interested in talking to me.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    16. Re:Good. by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 2

      This comment has been held for moderation

    17. Re:Good. by KingMotley · · Score: 2

      I don't know. I'm totally with you on that one. It's also illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater, so we should pass a law that every movie goer needs to put on a special mask that has a microphone attached, with noise cancellation technology. Then stream whatever the user says over WIFI over to a network to a crack team of censorship specialists in the backroom of the theater (and the NSA) who will then approve or deny what was said with 12 hours. If it gets approved, then it can be went back wirelessly and played through a corresponding speaker.

      It's important to save us and should be inacted immediately. Maybe we should just implement that across the board and stop all offensive content.

      Next up: variably transparent clothing to prevent nudity in improper places!

    18. Re:Good. by dissy · · Score: 2

      so I think Facebook should be party responsible for everything posted on Facebook, and organisations with Facebook pages should be partly responsible for anything posted on their pages.

      So you agree that if I post a goatse URL in reply to your message, that you are responsible for that? Responsible as in it is your fault, and you agree you must accept the blame for it?

      Considering you are posting anonymous while attempting to claim liability and responsibility for anything posted in reply to you is the height of humor.

  2. Humour by quenda · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apparently the humour of some posts has gone right over the heads of the Advertising Standards Bureau.
    You see, the VB brand has a bit of a bogan image, ie redneck, lower socioeconomic. So when the posters mentioned sluts and poofs, they are not mocking women and homosexuals, but the brand and the stereotypical people perceived to drink it.

  3. Terrible, just awful by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is just the worst that comes out of courtrooms.

    Think about it - you start a business, it doesn't even have to be big or anything, maybe you are giving advice, maybe you are selling toy airplanes, hell, maybe you are giving away toy airplanes (I don't know why I chose airplanes here), and somebody posts comments on your forum that are 'derogatory'.

    Well those comments just may be derogatory, but how can the person hosting the forum be held responsible for derogatory comments made by other people?

    What about /.? It's a business, after all, people are getting paid to run it, there are ads here (I think), so what would happen if /. was held personally responsible for all the derogatory shit that people spill here?

    "Fuck nigger cocksucker dyke blow me." - so somebody leaves comments like that or whatever on a forum and all of a sudden a person or a business hosting it is responsible and is liable to all sorts of lawsuits.

    THAT stifles innovation. THAT prevents innovative people from starting businesses that rely on new ideas how to promote their business, it sure HELPS the monopolies (and that's how monopolies are created - with government interference in the market in the first place, and this IS government interference with the market, and this will prevent innovation and stifle competition and help monopolies).

    ALL basic freedoms are important to have a vibrant economy, freedom of speech, association, private property ownership, speedy trial, not being thrown in jail without a trial, not being harassed by the government, etc.

    Take one of those freedoms out and you stop the economy from innovating, and this is important. Think about the Mars mission with Curiosity. Is it important to have a vibrant economy to be able to freaking afford a mission like that? Is Zimbabwe running a mission like that?

    --
    You can't handle the truth.
    1. Re:Terrible, just awful by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 2

      The ruling was by the ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL. They have NO jurisdiction over normal websites. The facebook pages they are talking about were being used AS advertisements.

    2. Re:Terrible, just awful by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      So what?
      First: what's a 'normal' website? How is posting ads on /. different from FB or anywhere else where people can leave comments?

      Second: what's 'advertising'? How about you mention your product or service on /. (in Australia) and then what, why would it be different? If this is specifically about FB, then it's camel's nose under the tent, gov't just needs one instance of regulation that covers something specific and then it expands it to everything. Aren't we all 'terrorists' and guilty by some gov't definition already?

      Third: this is it - why is this branch of government now forcing moderation of people's comments on websites?

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
  4. Re:Good on them by million_monkeys · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am an Aussie and I am glad if this will get these companies off facebook and run their own services. I am sick and tired of companies blackmailing their customers for a "like" to get their advertising.

    Well now you've got a way to blackmail them back. If they force you to 'like' their page, just hop over and post a comment describing how their product is the perfect way to give people the energy needed to oppress minorities (or whatever it is that will get them in trouble). Then file a complaint with the appropriate government agency. Be sure to send a note to the company letting them know that you'll stop if they stop.

  5. Re:Good on them by sg_oneill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What you think "opressing minorities" would be considered a negative in australia. Boy do you have some things to learn about this messed up country.....

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  6. Does the ASB have facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    No reason, just curious...

  7. Re:Good on them by Trepidity · · Score: 2

    Why should they be less liable on their own services? If companies are responsible for comments posted on their Facebook page, I don't see why they shouldn't also be responsible for comments posted on their blog.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  8. Re:New proof... by dbIII · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's funny how you smug insulting Americans know so little of your own history. Australia only became a penal colony because England could no longer use America for that purpose.

  9. Something similar on Twitter by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 2

    People are using the anonymous cover of Twitter to hide behind and post abusive and hateful, even threatening messages. This was highlighted last week by the arrest of a young man in England who posted about Olympic diver Tom Daley. There are increasingly louder calls for Twitter to censor the messages. Excellent article examining recent problem related to the Olympics; http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/pressure-grows-on-twitter-to-curb-abusive-trolls-8007756.html

    --
    Chaos maximizes locally around me.
  10. ASB trying to scare their customers off Facebook? by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 2

    What's strange about this is that the ASB are a self-regulated *COUGH* *COUGH* group from the advertisers which are infamous for dismissing complaints by the public. The scuttlebutt with self-regulation of advertisers, medical professionals, lawyers, anybody, is the hope that if you pretend to do the job yourself the government won't do it for you. Their investigations inevitably end with: "Further finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on any other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint."

    But don't take my word for it. Their determinations are online here:
    http://www.adstandards.com.au/casereports/determinations/standards?browse

    There have been many stories published accusing the ASB of being biased towards advertisers:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-29/advertisers-blamed-for-increasing-child/2701322
    http://vimeo.com/2788853
    http://mumbrella.com.au/asb-investigates-lynx-dry-ads-featuring-women-who-look-hot-wet-27383
    http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2287201.htm
    http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3029145.htm
    http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2598826.htm
    https://www.google.com/search?q="media+watch"+"advertising+standards"&site:abc.net.au

    The crazy thing is the standards are voluntary so there is no penalty even if they do catch you out. Here they did catch Subway for passing off manufactured meat as fillet, but the penalty was, ummm... nothing. Subway said they would change the menus. That was it. (This article says it could be referred to the ACCC, but they are a statutory body and can do that anyway without the ASB. You can complain directly to the ACCC anyway. The ASB has the same legal status that you and your footie mates head out to a game.) http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2012/06/27/food-companies-asked-to-apply-for-government-money-2.html

    Advertisers take advantage of the weak penalties by doing such bad taste ads they're bound to get reported and get a 6:30PM news story asking "Has XYZ gone too far with this sexy ad? stay tuned and we'll show you after the break." Most infamous was the blow jobs for shoes ads: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/240602_s4.htm

    So why on Earth has the ASB come down hard on Facebook? For a fervently pro-advertiser organisation this is quite weird. I doubt it's because they're suddenly "siding with the consumer". I think there is something more going on here. Perhaps it's because advertisers hate losing ad revenue while firms start advertising directly on the Internet? Perhaps this is an chance to scare wayward customers back into their arms?

    And there is the punchline: The ASB has no power anyway, so despite the buzz this news story has created Carlton Breweries can flip them the bird and keep using Facebook. Must suck when Self-regulation comes back to bite you, eh, ASB? ;-)

  11. Where to draw the line by Kergan · · Score: 2

    By your logic, Slashdot is (partly?) responsible for THIS comment? And yours? Where do you draw the line? Why should the fact that Slashdot (presumably) makes one off running the site make a difference, why the distinction whether it's for-profit or non-profit?

    Can't speak for the OP, but I like the way the line is drawn in Franch law.

    Websites are responsible for what gets published on them. Much like written print publications, they're expected to excercise editorial control. They distinguish between pre- vs post- moderation, however. If you pre-moderate comments, your ass is on the line -- always, and in full. If you post-moderate comments, your ass is on the line too, but the law is such that the author becomes responsible if you can identify him and proactively remove the offending material.

  12. Not humour - doublethink. by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

    You've got some mighty twisted logic there... if they're mocking the stereotypes, and those stereotypes are "sluts and poofs"... How are they *not* mocking women and homosexuals? That's like painting a target on a window and claiming that it's OK to heave rocks at it because "you were aiming at the target, not the window".