Australian PM proposes defamation laws forcing social platforms to unmask trolls

[Lightwreather]

Summary

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison is introducing new defamation laws that would force online platforms to reveal the identities of trolls, or else pay the price of defamation

 

Quotes

Quote

As ABC News Australia explains, the laws would hold social platforms, like Facebook or Twitter, accountable for defamatory comments made against users.

Platforms will also have to create a complaint system that people can use if they feel that they’re a victim of defamation. As a part of this process, the person who posted the potentially defamatory content will be asked to take it down. But if they refuse, or if the victim is interested in pursuing legal action, the platform can then legally ask the poster for permission to reveal their contact information.

And if the platform can’t get the poster’s consent? The laws would introduce an “end-user information disclosure order,” giving tech giants the ability to reveal a user’s identity without permission. If the platforms can’t identify the troll for any reason — or if the platforms flat-out refuse — the company will have to pay for the troll’s defamatory comments. Since the law is specific to Australia, it appears that social networks wouldn’t have to identify trolls located in other countries.

Quote

“The online world should not be a wild west where bots and bigots and trolls and others are anonymously going around and can harm people,” Morrison said during a press conference. “That is not what can happen in the real world, and there is no case for it to be able to be happening in the digital world”

 

 

My thoughts

"This is a perfectly balanced system With NO Exploit" Yea no. Anyone with a noggin on their neck can see how this can very much possibly be abused, not only by people who don't know how to take a joke but also by people who just don't want to hear opposing opinions (cf. Sue for pressing F12). Ofc, such a thing can be used for good, there are cases where trolling can be harful (altho, I'm pretty sure it's called bullying then) but since there is a very loose definition as to what would be enough to constitute pressing that button and reveal someone's identity, I'm concerned to say the least. But, you could make a case that I'm biased in this regard since I prefer seperating my online and offline lives. Welp, we just have to see how this plays out. And as noted by the source articles, it seems unlikely that this will reach the australian parliament before the beginning of next year.

 

Sources

TheVerge

ABC News

[adarw]

everyone is a troll on the internet. we all going to get fined?

[LAwLz]

Not sure about everyone else, but I can't see a practical way of implementing this. Even if it wasn't an utterly stupid and privacy invasive, how are they even going to know which users are Australian? And even if they are going to hand over info like full name and email address, how are they going to know that it's the real information? 

 

It's not like Twitter should be held responsible just because I typed in a fake email address and fake full name when I signed up. Are they going to require a scanned copy of everyone's ID? 

[williamcll]

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Not sure about everyone else, but I can't see a practical way of implementing this. Even if it wasn't an utterly stupid and privacy invasive, how are they even going to know which users are Australian? And even if they are going to hand over info like full name and email address, how are they going to know that it's the real information? 

 

It's not like Twitter should be held responsible just because I typed in a fake email address and fake full name when I signed up. Are they going to require a scanned copy of everyone's ID? 

Maybe like how the NSA monitors the ISP exchange directly, which can give location information even if the user is behind a proxy/vpn?

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, williamcll said:

Maybe like how the NSA monitors the ISP exchange directly, which can give location information even if the user is behind a proxy/vpn?

Not really possible for the purposes of what they want to achieve here.

Having monitoring built into the ISP would allow them to see who browses Twitter, but not who postad what. Besides, it's the platforms like Twitter and Facebook who are responsible for collecting the info according to this guy, not the ISP.

So it would be up to Twitter to force the ISPs to implement the spying into their networks, which I doubt will happen since the ISPs aren't on the hook for anything here if they refuse.

[atxcyclist]

This would basically mean every major social media network would just block use in Australia, I cannot imagine they're going to take on the role of curating user information like this. 

[Spotty]

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It's not like Twitter should be held responsible just because I typed in a fake email address and fake full name when I signed up. Are they going to require a scanned copy of everyone's ID? 

There's very little information about this, no details have been given yet it has just been the press statement they did yesterday where they mentioned it. However, it seems the onus will be on social media companies to be able to provide the identity of its users if required to do so, and if they are unable to do so (or refuse) they will accept legal liability for any libel lawsuits as the publisher. This might mean that they will require users to prove their identity when creating an account, such as through an ID or something.

 

Without actually knowing what their plan is, I highly doubt it would work. Anyone looking to make troll accounts would just sign up outside of Australia (via VPN) where they wouldn't be required to prove their identity.

Best case scenario is it might actually incentivize Twitter, Facebook, etc to actively seek out and remove troll accounts to avoid being responsible for anything they might post, but as soon as they shut down one account a troll would make 5 more.

 

Really all this would do is favour the people who are rich enough to have lawyers to go after people defaming them online through defamation lawsuits who would be able to force the social media companies to reveal their identity. It'll do absolutely nothing to stop the vast majority of abuse and harassment regular every day people (especially teens) experience on social media since they are very unlikely to launch defamation lawsuits even if they have the persons identity.

[mr moose]

Defamation for legal purposes has a very specific definition under Australian law.  I would be surprised if this is not attached to that definition which would mean the plaintiff would bare full legal responsibility if someone was ousted to them to be taken to court but were found innocent (or not even taken to court).   IF (yes that is an IF because we don't know yet) this is how it works then absolutely it is open to abuse, but not without serious consequences for the abuser.   Keep in mind we already have a system that does this for everything else. 

 

To illustrate, in Australia I can already call the police and demand they arrest a specific person for (enter whatever crime I make up), and they technically have to, however if they do and that person is found innocent (because I made it up) I can be charged with multiple crimes including wasting police resources, falsifying legal documents, obtaining benefit by deception and also taken to court for financial damages resulting from the arrest. I wouldn't have much of a hope in hell of defending that given my signature is on every complaint made to the police.  I imagine the same thing will happen here, person A claims some sort of defamation, signs all the paper work making those accusations then SM service releases details of the accused. Person A is now completely responsible for obtaining the accused's information, if they are abusing the system they are actually obtaining information for some sort of benefit by deception ( a criminal offense to obtain benefit by deception usually of money but not limited to, i.e disgracing or hampering a business or political opponent would be considered to have a financial value).

 

Honestly, I would be more worried about the secret courts and human rights commission who only seem interested in doing something when a minority is the victim.

 

<removed by staff>

 

[TheEggComputer]

Idea: everyone gets their identity released or the government will fine the platform due to trolling on the internet

 

Austrailia: SOUNDS AMAZING WHERE DO I SIGN UP!!!!!

 

in all honesty though, this is kinda a stupid idea because everyone trolls each other on the internet for at least 14 years now (or however long rickrolls exist as an example)

[WkdPaul]

- thread cleaned -

 

Please keep the discussion on-topic and avoid pointless political flamebait.

[Mark Kaine]

4 hours ago, danthe_only_man said:

Idea: everyone gets their identity released or the government will fine the platform due to trolling on the internet

 

Austrailia: SOUNDS AMAZING WHERE DO I SIGN UP!!!!!

 

in all honesty though, this is kinda a stupid idea because everyone trolls each other on the internet for at least 14 years now (or however long rickrolls exist as an example)

Try 20+ years... (but I agree)

 

 

10 hours ago, J-from-Nucleon said:

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison is introducing new defamation laws that would force online platforms to reveal the identities of trolls, or else pay the price of defamation

These kind of laws make no sense (and im not sure the wording/ news media or whatever are to blame but anyways at face value...) so any and all "social media" has to already give any information they may have to the authorities if requested,  "defamation" is already illegal/ a crime, so why the hell do they need a new law, can't they just enforce the old ones (literally wtf?!)

 

Edit: or, does this mean "trolling" is now illegal (in Australia) ? How are they going to enforce this, who decides what is "trolling"? The funny thing since the beginning,  while incredibly annoying and obnoxious,  "trolls" always had the advantage that what they're doing isn't usually illegal/ harmful  (thats when it turns into "stalking" or similar) ... might as well just shut the internet down lol.

 

[Sauron]

9 hours ago, J-from-Nucleon said:

it appears that social networks wouldn’t have to identify trolls located in other countries.

Spoiler

Jokes aside this is pretty dumb, rather than forcibly try to identify the troll they could just get the posts removed. If I'm not willing to share my identity then I'm probably also not willing to appeal the removal in court. I don't think doxxing people for alleged defamation is fair.

[Salv8 (sam)]

13 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Not sure about everyone else, but I can't see a practical way of implementing this. Even if it wasn't an utterly stupid and privacy invasive, how are they even going to know which users are Australian? And even if they are going to hand over info like full name and email address, how are they going to know that it's the real information? 

 

It's not like Twitter should be held responsible just because I typed in a fake email address and fake full name when I signed up. Are they going to require a scanned copy of everyone's ID? 

about a couple of months ago we passed a law that allows the police to gain access to private online accounts WITHOUT a warrant.

all they have to do? plop in your username and check to see if you are from Australia and thats it.

if you aren't, great, you can get off scott free, if you are...

you can see where i'm going with this.

we are slowly becoming a police state and that scares me, i do love my country but dear god i want out now.

[Jeskspie]

14 hours ago, J-from-Nucleon said:

Summary

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison is introducing new defamation laws that would force online platforms to reveal the identities of trolls, or else pay the price of defamation

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

"This is a perfectly balanced system With NO Exploit" Yea no. Anyone with a noggin on their neck can see how this can very much possibly be abused, not only by people who don't know how to take a joke but also by people who just don't want to hear opposing opinions (cf. Sue for pressing F12). Ofc, such a thing can be used for good, there are cases where trolling can be harful (altho, I'm pretty sure it's called bullying then) but since there is a very loose definition as to what would be enough to constitute pressing that button and reveal someone's identity, I'm concerned to say the least. But, you could make a case that I'm biased in this regard since I prefer seperating my online and offline lives. Welp, we just have to see how this plays out. And as noted by the source articles, it seems unlikely that this will reach the australian parliament before the beginning of next year.

 

Sources

TheVerge

ABC News

Do these guys know anything about the internet or how it works?

[Monkey Dust]

Social media companies really need to get on top of online abuse, or they will have to deal with a different, complicated, set of rules for each jurisdiction they operate in.

 

I doubt they'd pull out of Australia, it's a prosperous nation of 25-ish million people. I imagine it would be a lucrative market for them. And if they did, would they also consider pulling out of the UK? Or the EU? Can't see them retreating to operating solely in the US.

 

I wonder if an opt-in system to ID verified accounts could be a solution. If you had a verified account, you could block all interaction from unverified accounts. Could really curtail the anonymous abuse that some suffer an absolute deluge of, while still leaving anonymous accounts an option for those that want it.

[Kisai]

19 hours ago, J-from-Nucleon said:

 

 

My thoughts

"This is a perfectly balanced system With NO Exploit" Yea no. Anyone with a noggin on their neck can see how this can very much possibly be abused, not only by people who don't know how to take a joke but also by people who just don't want to hear opposing opinions

Eh, nah.

 

Just look at how DMCA abuse is handled. The DMCA complaint has to attach their legal name, and the counter-notice needs to attach their legal name, but nobody is ever required to verify that identity. See the problem?

 

The "blue check mark" on twitter requires identity info. So does "verified" on other platforms like twitch.

 

Facebook, you're in theory supposed to use your legal name, in practice, this is stupid and you should probably not use your real name on the platform.

 

Hence unless Australia is going to require social media companies to verify people by tax-payer ID numbers or passports, there really is no way to unmask trolls.

 

And more to the point you have sites dedicated to trolling like *chan and *cow and *farm sites who aren't going to comply. Unless Australia goes after cloudflare, these sites can blissfully troll away like they've been doing before, driving people to suicide.

 

[xtroria]

As someone who lives in a country with defamation law, horrible idea.

 

It's just going to be used as ammo for politicians to protect themselves

[WhitetailAni]

[Quackers101]

so if I complained about X country that has a lot of censorship, they would allow to abuse this system or just if you live in said country?

I do wonder what they would do with future control of the digital space.

At some point it might become too much, with a lot of identity manipulation and trickery.

[fUnDaMeNtAl_knobhead]

I do think this is for a good cause of course every laws are supposedly for good cause but the practicality of this is questionable will they be able to censor if you are in other countries or use a vpn to be digitally in Australia. How would it apply?

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, linux fanboy said:

I do think this is for a good cause of course every laws are supposedly for good cause but the practicality of this is questionable will they be able to censor if you are in other countries or use a vpn to be digitally in Australia. How would it apply?

Contrary to what many people in this thread believe, so far it doesn't look like social media services have to do anything other than create a complaints process where people can report defaming content.   As for censorship, it would appear the extent to which,say, facebook would have to go would be to remove the defaming posts that are only about the complainant. Criticizing governments or corporations is not defamation under Australian law.  As far as handing over personal contact details it looks like the courts have to order that to happen, it doesn't seem like any joe blow can simply make an accusation and get personal information.  Which is contrary to my first impression of it.    If that's the case then I like it, I like the idea that Social media that hides behind the "we are not publishers" argument can be held accountable when they do nothing to stop an actual problem that has real world consequences for someone. 

 

The best thing I can see happening is that all these crazy anti vaxxer dox's that send death threats to doctors and nurses and incite serious unrelenting harassment might actually be found and charged.   Been one to many innocent people who have had to move their whole family and basically go into witness protection levels of hiding because those crazy people doxed and ganged up on the wrong person.

 

[LAwLz]

39 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Contrary to what many people in this thread believe, so far it doesn't look like social media services have to do anything other than create a complaints process where people can report defaming content. 

Since it seems like the proposal isn't released yet I haven't been able to read it, but it seems like the proposal will state that social media platforms have to be able to provide personal information about users or else they will be sentenced for the content users posted.

That is far more than "just create a complaint process for reporting defaming content". According to the Prime Minster of Australia's website, the proposal states:

Quote

The reforms will ensure social media companies are considered publishers and can be held liable for defamatory comments posted on their platforms. They can avoid this liability if they provide information that ensures a victim can identify and commence defamation proceedings against the troll.

 

Being held responsible unless you can provide enough detailed information about a user so that they can be tracked down is not just "create a complain process". The suggestions as written in their PR statements would basically mean websites would require a photocopied government ID would need to be submitted when creating an account on a website. If a website already requires that then sure, they "just need to create a complaint process", but if they don't already do that then they need to implement a system for linking and tracking each user account to an individual person, in a verifable way.

 

 

 

I also haven't been able to find anything that indicates that this sentence is true:

39 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Criticizing governments or corporations is not defamation under Australian law.

Can you please link to the law you are referring to?

 

 

39 minutes ago, mr moose said:

As far as handing over personal contact details it looks like the courts have to order that to happen, it doesn't seem like any joe blow can simply make an accusation and get personal information. 

Which to me is the scary part. It basically ensures only rich and powerful people can use this law. You know, like politicians to go after people criticizing them.

It creates an unequal playing field where people in power gets even more tools and powers that are not accessible by the average Joe.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Since it seems like the proposal isn't released yet I haven't been able to read it, but it seems like the proposal will state that social media platforms have to be able to provide personal information about users or else they will be sentenced for the content users posted.

That is far more than "just create a complaint process for reporting defaming content". 

 

The article claims they don't have to hand over that information to an individual making a complaint, The accused is allowed to say no and social media are well within their legal rights to withhold that information.  However this new law would allow courts to force them to hand it over if the victim wants to take it them court, it seems to be akin to having a search warrant.   I would assume given they use the term defamation, the courts would want to see evidence of defamation before ordering the release of someones identity.

 

But yes, we don't have the draft yet, just the press release. 

[LAwLz]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The article claims they don't have to hand over that information to an individual making a complaint, The accused is allowed to say no and social media are well within their legal rights to withhold that information.  However this new law would allow courts to force them to hand it over if the victim wants to take it them court, it seems to be akin to having a search warrant.   I would assume given they use the term defamation, the courts would want to see evidence of defamation before ordering the release of someones identity.

 

But yes, we don't have the draft yet, just the press release. 

I added some parts to my post to further explain my reply to the "they just need to create a complaint process".

I think this law has far bigger implications for website owners than you seem to think. You're only refering to the first part of the proposal, but not the second part.

 

Here is the first part:

Quote

First, global social media platforms will be required to establish a quick, simple and standardised complaints system that ensures defamatory remarks can be removed and trolls identified with their consent. This recognises that Australians often just want harmful comments removed.

 

This is the second part:

Quote

Second, a new Federal Court order will be established that requires social media giants to disclose identifying details of trolls to victims, without consent, which will then enable a defamation case to be lodged.

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

I added some parts to my post to further explain my reply to the "they just need to create a complaint process".

I think this law has far bigger implications for website owners than you seem to think.

Yes, from my cursory reading it looks like a platform that refuses to hand over identifying information under a court order will be held responsible for the content.  Which is the crucial part of this law that makes it new,  under current law the only thing stopping a platform from identifying someone under court orders is a threat of a fine (being held in contempt).  Now they would have to face the plaintiff as if they posted the content themselves.  I think that is an awesome law if it is true and there aren't any further catches to it. Because that would mean anyone who does want to pursue damages from an actual defamation isn't stimy'd by facebook or twitter at the first hurdle.  They actually get to have their grievance heard in a court and if FB or twitter want to protect the accused then they can take their place instead. 

 

It's almost the answer to the whole publisher or service provider dilemma we have been facing, like youtube hiding behind the "we aren't publishers" argument so you can't hold us accountable for allowing the service to be used for X activity.