
Australia Passes Law to Punish Social Media Companies for Violent Posts - jasonhansel
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/world/australia/social-media-law.html
======
RileyJames
The fact that both major parties have supported this legislation, and the
previous ‘anti encryption’ legislation is very concerning.

This isn’t just an issue for Australia, through the 5 eyes agreements, the
encryption legislation is likely being used to assist other 5 eyes nations.
And beyond that, other countries will be watching the results of this
legislation.

I feel the global tech community needs to condemn this. And I think they
should do so by raising concerns with employing of Australian tech workers, at
least until the laws co-opting Australians to implement backdoors for the
government are repealed or clarified.
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19505880](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19505880))

A federal election is about to be announced, which means there will be a vote
in approximately 3 months. Technology will never be an election issue, but
jobs & economy always are. If these laws can be shown to directly harm our
economy, and the prospects for Australian tech works (jobs), it might actually
get some traction.

The time is now. Keen to hear the community’s thoughts.

~~~
null0pointer
> And I think they should do so by raising concerns with employing of
> Australian tech workers

As an Australian tech worker... that would hurt. But I don't really see any
other way to get them to listen either.

~~~
xfitm3
My company has stopped doing business with Atlassian due to Australia's recent
legislature. I can't say we won't hire Australian citizens but they will be at
a serious disadvantage. I'm sorry.

~~~
techdragon
Has your company made this position in a public statement? Because I hear a
lot of talk but little proof, I need proof to show people if I have a hope or
swaying opinions when I talk with people about this kind of thing.

------
ajdlinux
While this legislation is not well-drafted, it's got some giant flaws, it was
passed without consultation, and (at least from my non-extremism-expert point
of view) it won't do a huge amount to stop the rise of extremists (whether of
the far-right, Islamist or other varieties) because they don't really need
this kind of content to build their movements...

In principle, I'm quite okay with the scope of the censorship that's imposed
by this legislation (which is quite narrow), and in general, I'm quite okay
with the idea of holding social media platforms to account with the threat of
massive penalties, when it comes to content that is obviously objectionable.

I think the fact that a pro-business Western government is willing to impose
penalties of up to 10% of global revenue says something about the way we're
beginning to view the place and the responsibilities of the big social media
platforms.

I don't think I support this particular piece of legislation as a whole, but I
am okay with much of the core idea behind it, and I wish they had done it
properly and thoughtfully rather than rushing it. It's also clear that they're
not going to do anything about improving regulation of problematic elements of
the mainstream media.

(edit: I should add - I have given the text of the bill a skim read, and read
some media commentary but not any serious expert or industry commentary on
this. This is only a mildly-informed set of opinions.)

~~~
tathougies
> threat of massive penalties, when it comes to content that is obviously
> objectionable.

Totally agree. Hacker news should be punished for providing a platform for
your obviously objectionable statements.

~~~
silvester23
That sounds a lot like a slippery slope fallacy.

~~~
jakeogh
Incrementalism is the most common route to totalitarianism.

------
webXL
I'm completely dumbfounded. It's as if the expressions _don 't shoot the
messenger_ and one abhorrent act _does not a trend make_ are completely
unknown to Australians and Kiwis. When will the nanny state realize that
violence as a whole is still on a downward trend [1] and that these bandaid
solutions are just that? _Something_ doesn't always need to be done. This law
only reduces culpability for would be terrorists.

[1] [https://slides.ourworldindata.org/war-and-
violence/#/6](https://slides.ourworldindata.org/war-and-violence/#/6)

~~~
Gatsky
Social media companies aren't messengers mate, nor are they a basic human
right, or a free speech platform. They are machines that optimise controlling
your attention to show you ads so they can make money.

Also it is clearly fallacious to assume that the downward trend in violence is
some kind of force of nature that won't be derailed by, for example,
connecting a whole bunch of crazy people together across the world and helping
them swallow their own perverse version of reality.

~~~
webXL
> Social media companies aren't messengers mate

They're closer to a messenger than an accomplice.

> They are machines that optimise controlling your attention to show you ads
> so they can make money.

Who came up with that line? They definitely don't control my attention. Could
it be that they just optimize capturing the attention of those who would
otherwise consume other forms of digital media?

> Also it is clearly fallacious to assume that the downward trend in violence
> is some kind of force of nature that...

I never said it was, but a knee-jerk reaction to an anomalous event like this
is obviously ignorant of trends. "Crazy people" (deemed by whatever "sane"
minority) will always be connected/have the ability to connect provided they
haven't already committed acts of violence and are locked away. Sure you can
make it harder for them by enlisting private entities, but that undermines the
market and places undue liability on the participants.

This is all blame shifting anyway. Why isn't the government held accountable
here for allowing "crazy people" to be on the streets? Just think of all the
things that can be used as a weapon!

~~~
0xdeadb00f
> Who came up with that line? They definitely don't control my attention.

If you use them, your attention is on it. If your attention is on it, they can
show ads to you, and make a profit. "Controlling" may not have been the right
word for your case, and many others on this site, but it stands for the
majority of users. And the main point still stands.

------
endgame
And the opposition, who claimed to have "serious concerns" about this law,
have waved it through parliament anyway:
[https://www.smh.com.au/technology/labor-won-t-stand-in-
way-o...](https://www.smh.com.au/technology/labor-won-t-stand-in-way-of-
morrison-government-s-social-media-laws-20190402-p51a0z.html)

~~~
threeseed
It's all politics.

They can't be wedged on the national security issue weeks/months before an
election.

~~~
thundergolfer
Yes, if the Labor party was in power we wouldn't have this law. Boy do I hope
the Liberals get smashed at the coming election, but it's unfortunately not
looking likely.

~~~
hestefisk
Labor is just as fascist / totalitarian as Libs. Did you forget Senator
Conroy’s great Aussie firewall?

“Stop the bytes!”

------
gravelc
I don't have a problem with the vibe of law, though it might be terrible in
implementation and its drafting may have unforeseen consequences (haven't read
it, so don't know).

Don't really understand why people are conflating it with the encryption law
though, which is an absolute shocker for so many obvious reasons. It has clear
foreseen consequences for the Australian tech industry.

Australia isn't obsessed with free speech like the US. You would find very
very few people here comfortable with not removing ISIS videos
'expeditiously'.

Also don't see an issue with going after higher management in companies in
addition to the companies themselves. Should happen more often for corporate
malfeasance.

I guess the counter argument is the 'slippery slope' \- first they go after
ISIS/white supremacist videos, next it's someone who posted a video of police
brutality or something like that. I say - we managed to ban assault weapons
and bring in a gun licensing system over 20 years ago. It hasn't gone any
further since. There was no slippery slope in this case. Suspect this will be
much the same.

~~~
int_19h
The most basic objection is that this seems to criminalize the act without
mens rea, and with some very harsh punishments at that. It's one thing to
criminalize the deliberate posting of such material - then we could talk about
hate speech etc - but to criminalize not being fast enough at removing
material someone else posted?

On this:

> I say - we managed to ban assault weapons and bring in a gun licensing
> system over 20 years ago. It hasn't gone any further since.

This is not true, actually. Your government is currently obsessed with "rapid-
fire lever action guns" that are "almost as fast as semi-auto", and actively
trying to ban them. Which is exactly the kind of slippery slope that was
predicted with your original ban.

For another example, your police has recently banned a straight-pull bolt
action rifle from importation. Which also happens to be a good example of the
fact that your current system permits arbitrary reclassification of firearms
by the executive with no legislative oversight - i.e. it's _optimized_ for
slippery slope.

------
vermilingua
If I can doomsay for a moment:

Let’s assume that this is another step on the slippery slope that leads to a
totalitarian Australian government. What recourse do we (aus citizens) have? I
have tried the political route, and my calls and emails have simply _not been
answered_ by my representatives; I have tried to raise awareness in my peers,
and Australians are simply the most politically apathetic group in western
civilisation.

I could move to another country, but it seems that among all developed
countries we are or will be seeing the same trend. I could move to an
undeveloped country, but would be making a sacrifice in quality of life.

I genuinely cannot see a way out of this system, am I self-deluding?

~~~
externalreality
You could help to decrease the prevalence of the attitude whose extreme form
was responsible for the passage of the law in the first place. Ever give that
a thought? There is no totalitarianism here its Law & Order.

~~~
vermilingua
The “attitude” that allowed this law to pass, was an utter disregard for the
will of the people, and the drive to ignore established democratic process.

The A&A bill was rushed through parliament at breakneck speed, after the
examining committee ignored _over 300_ recommendations condemning the law; a
process that on the whole was kept extremely quiet, and had next to zero media
presence.

There is law and order yes, but whose?

------
logicchains
As an Australian I'm glad I no longer live there. Even Chinese internet
censorship laws look sane compared to this: at least they don't threaten to
jail employees for failing to do what's technologically impossible. This law
is basically the Australian government saying we don't want any social media
companies or video sharing platforms in Australia, ever (or at least until
some AGI is invented that's capable of identifying violent videos as
effectively as humans).

~~~
throwawaygx
To play devil’s advocate here: if social media companies were to desert a
particular country, (unlikely as it is)...would it harm society in any
significant way?

Facebook, in particular seems to be a cesspit...in fact I spoke to a colleague
who is mentally fragile, and gets worked up by looking at extremist Facebook
pages...

Add the other issues caused by social media, and it might be a blessing in
disguise if they shut down.

~~~
logicchains
>To play devil’s advocate here: if social media companies were to desert a
particular country, (unlikely as it is)...would it harm society in any
significant way?

Society is made up of people, and a significant number of these people use
Facebook. I imagine they wouldn't be particularly happy if it was taken away
from them. How do you feel when somebody suddenly decides to take away
something you like because they believe they know better than you about what's
good for you?

>Facebook, in particular seems to be a cesspit...

Your experiences of Facebook are not representative of everybody's. The people
in my circle of friends use Facebook to post jokes and memes, and keep in
touch with extended family. I can't see how you'd accidentally come across
extremist content unless either you're looking for it or your friends post it,
in which case shouldn't your friends be the one you take issue with for
sharing it?

>in fact I spoke to a colleague who is mentally fragile, and gets worked up by
looking at extremist Facebook pages...

Mental illness is a tragic thing, but taking away Facebook won't solve it.
Mentally ill people are distressed by many kinds of social interaction; would
you suggest banning them all?

>Add the other issues caused by social media, and it might be a blessing in
disguise if they shut down.

What other issues exactly? Trump being elected? Not everybody considers than
an issue, e.g. the people who voted for him, and it's certainly not settled
science that he wouldn't have been elected without it. Obama also made heavy
use of social media in his election campaign; maybe he wouldn't have been
elected without it.

Personally social media has improved my life immensely, making it possible to
keep in touch with people I'd otherwise have lost contact with completely. I
can't be the only one. But I imagine on a social network like Hackernews you
won't get a representative sample of the broader population, as engineers are
more introverted on average, and introverts may get less value out of large
social networks, digital or otherwise.

~~~
throwawaygx
_Mental illness is a tragic thing, but taking away Facebook won 't solve it.
Mentally ill people are distressed by many kinds of social interaction; would
you suggest banning them all?_

The person in question doesn't have many friends, and spends hours going down
rabbit holes on FB and YouTube. He expresses some extreme views for someone at
the stage of life he's in, that mirror the opinions he sees on Facebook, and
he repeatedly makes borderline violent threats. He lacks the nous to
understand the difference between trolling and genuine comment. He isn't
distressed by Facebook as much as he is emboldened by what he sees as a like-
minded community. If Facebook didn't exist, he wouldn't seek such information
out, since he isn't a particularly active consumer of information. It seems to
encourage craziness, as someone else here pointed out, by allowing people who
would otherwise be isolated from each other to congregate and reinforce
extreme views.

 _What other issues exactly? Trump being elected? Not everybody considers than
an issue, e.g. the people who voted for him, and it 's certainly not settled
science that he wouldn't have been elected without it. Obama also made heavy
use of social media in his election campaign; maybe he wouldn't have been
elected without it._

No, I was referring to the links between social media and depression. But you
can add to the list FB leaking personal information to political campaigns.

------
iscrewyou
The tech industry brought this on themselves. They acted like the Wild West,
and now the pendulum swings the other way. Because the legislators are
uneducated about technology and only read bad things in the press.

Software engineers are professionals and they should have ethics exams, a
board, and licenses like other professions. Since companies don’t have any
incentive to do it by themselves, a board for software engineers will help.
The board will be able to represent all software engineers at the legislature
level and not act as lobbyist for one particular company.

But for now, we reap what we sow.

~~~
ajdlinux
I'm unconvinced that software development should have the same level of
licensing as e.g. engineering. Software isn't the same as traditional
mechanical/structural/electrical etc engineering - it's a faster-moving area,
and _most of the time_ software is not safety-critical and has only limited
societal impact in case of failure. It's also a lot easier for newcomers to
get started in, and I don't want that to change.

But I definitely think there's _some_ role for professional bodies, with
ethical codes, certifications, PD and all that, which programmers have
traditionally resisted.

Unfortunately, the existing professional bodies are not that. The Australian
Computer Society, to give one example, is more representative of corporate IT
executives than of programmers, and I don't know anyone who is a member apart
from those whose employers pay for it.

~~~
logicchains
I have some friends who studied the Masters of Software Engineering at the
University of Melbourne (an Australian university), a course accredited by
EUR-Inf ([http://www.eqanie.eu/pages/quality-
label.php](http://www.eqanie.eu/pages/quality-label.php)) and the Washington
Accord
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Accord](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Accord)),
which allows graduates to more legitimately refer to themselves as "engineers"
in some countries. A huge portion of the course was dedicated to essentially
just teaching waterfall: giant UML diagrams (with mandatory 90s style OO) and
50-100 page reports. Given how disconnected this is from what's considered
modern software development best practices, I think in practice the spread of
licensing would only hold the field back (unless it's somehow completely
disconnected from the bodies responsible for traditional engineering
licensing).

~~~
ajdlinux
Yep, this is exactly my problem - I want higher standards across the industry,
but I want it to be about substance, not merely additional process and
bureaucracy, and I want training to not be so disconnected from real world
practice.

~~~
arvinsim
Same sentiment here. But technology moves too fast for any licensing body to
keep up.

------
tqi
I remember watching the North Tower collapse on September 11th, first Live on
the Today Show, then in numerous news segments over the years.

Would that have been considered "abhorrent violent material" under this law?

~~~
hiisukun
Under the law as I read it, this would not count, as it was not filmed by the
person committing the abhorrent violent conduct (or who
arranged/aided/counselled etc the act).

An example that might illustrate what you are considering could be a police
officer murdering a civilian. The footage captured by their body-cam would be
unable to be shown or shared. In this example, whether it was murder or not
would be (likely) up for debate, but perhaps during a protest you agreed with,
some people were killed. This would be a challenging situation for the law.

~~~
tqi
Thanks for the clarification.

I'm having a hard time understanding why the person filming it makes a
difference, if the goal is to gain attention and spread a message of hate /
fear. This legislation, and the recent media focus on the video rather than
the actual act itself, makes me uneasy.

------
Ceph62
This legislation is forcing tech company's to become "virtual deputies" of all
content and information. It will eventually force tech company consider more
invasive systems to analyze, scrutinize and evaluate every piece of content
you post online for appropriateness. This is about political control over the
internet.

------
harshreality
The gist of the legislation is that it bans audio or video of abhorrent
violent acts, which are defined roughly as: terrorist acts, murder, attempted
murder, torture, rape, or kidnapping.[1] It appears that there's an "esafety
commissioner" who would send notices identifying abhorrent violent material,
and then the hosting company must expeditiously remove it.

Tech companies that are against this want to have their cake and eat it too.

They're already doing the same thing voluntarily, and it would create a moat:
small competitors don't have the resources to have their own censorship
department. Big internet platforms should welcome this, for giving them legal
cover for some of their censorship. Instead, they complain because heaven
forbid anyone interfere with their internal operations and their profiting
from attention-capturing content.

The target is clearly things like the NZ shooter video, but it would also
apply to things like ISIS videos, which are academically important and
newsworthy. I would fully expect puritans to try to use this law against BDSM
porn; there's always the claim that pornstars in that either aren't
participating voluntarily, or the nature of the activity forecloses the
possibility of valid consent.

At least if a government mandates this social media censorship, there is
(theoretically) public accountability for the censorship criteria, and legal
recourse if it gets expanded out of control. Currently, social media bans
things whimsically based on whether they view the material as bad PR, or based
on how many reports/flags it's received.

One might hope that with this kind of law, anything not legally banned would
cease to be censored, and cease to be justification for being kicked off the
platform; but I know that's probably not going to happen. Social media
companies, even with this law, would keep up their extra-legal censorship.

[1] Direct link to the legislation (good stuff starts on pdf page 7):
[https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/s1201_first-
senate/toc_pdf/1908121.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf)

------
kakarot
Cool, guess I won't be starting my independently-owned Australian social
network SMB anytime soon thanks to this anti-SMB, pro-monopoly legislation.

Glad we continue to support the competitive free market with forward-thinking
legislation such as this. If Facebook wants to shut down my independent
Australian social network by secretly paying people to spread violent
propaganda on my platform until the government shuts me down in a war of
attrition, that's their God-given right.

------
theobeers
Has it been argued that Facebook didn't act quickly enough to shut down the
Christchurch stream and remove copies of the video posted that weekend? I
thought the consensus was that they responded as well as could reasonably be
expected.

~~~
watson_ian
On Australian radio - yes. 'It took Facebook 29 minutes to realise the content
was there' and then another 30 minutes to take it down after being reported.
It was first reported ~14 minutes in.

This hour lapse is why the video was so widely shared. In the Australian
publics mind, as the perp was our citizen, we have a lot to answer for.

The livestream was purely to broadcast to his own people (see how he had the
names of similar assaulters on the weapon), so the concept here is removing
the platform that provides an incentive - in this situation - to do the deed.

Since the guy thrives on being noticed, NZ has actually barered photographs of
him unpixalted from the 1st appearance in court. Today they announced total
bans on photos and videos until further notice of him at the trial.

Bit of a long winded answer, but this is the link that a lot of the foreign
commentary is missing. While the reach is wide of the legislation, there is no
'what about before the internet existed?' claims on how this tech makes things
better. It was also considered when people used facebook live for suicide
broadcasting.

~~~
easymodex
>see how he had the names of similar assaulters on the weapon

Those names were actually the names of terrorist victims in recent attacks. I
thought that was the case but I'm not 100% sure though, can't really check or
find any source.

~~~
theobeers
It was a mixture of things, including other killers like Alexandre
Bissonnette, victims like Ebba Åkerlund, historical events like the 1683
Battle of Vienna, memes like "Crab Rave," etc.

------
ImaCake
The comments here are striking in how unanimous they are. This site often
presents counterpoints to existing dogma which is why I keep coming back. But
it is interesting to see where the tech community (and associated) stand on
issues such as this kind of censorship (evidently against any censorship). The
broader conversation in Aust and NZ is far less unipolar on these laws.

------
sadris
Well that's one way to not have any Facebook servers or employees in your
country.

------
happppy
Are they being serious? Social Media companies should simply stop serving
Australia.

------
Despegar
Ad-tech monopoly margins going down

~~~
ajdlinux
Ad-tech monopolies finally being threatened with some accountability for their
impact on society. I mean, perhaps not in the right way, but I like the idea
of ad-tech monopolies actually having to do something to uphold reasonable
standards under threat of state involvement.

~~~
int_19h
Does the combination of "private monopoly" and "reasonable standards" not
bother you? With explicit laws, at least there are political checks and
balances on those standards. But with an indirect arrangement where businesses
self-censor under _threat_ of further regulation, the standards to which they
do so do not undergo the same review, nor can you challenge them in courts.

~~~
ajdlinux
This is a good point. Yeah, the combination of "private monopoly" and
"reasonable standards" does bother me. Though in this specific case, the list
of material to be censored is very explicit.

------
KiDD
I hate this so much

------
kmlx
so what about sites that only feature violent content?

------
microcolonel
It's a good thing that a post on social media is inherently incapable of being
violent, or this law could have some serious ramifications which are not on
the minds of its broad supporters.

~~~
everdev
> Australia passed sweeping legislation Thursday that threatens huge fines for
> social media companies and jail for their executives if they fail to rapidly
> remove “abhorrent violent material” from their platforms.

> The legislation criminalizes “abhorrent violent material,” which it defines
> as videos that show terrorist attacks, murders, rape or kidnapping.

The title isn't semantically accurate. They mean material that depicts
violence.

------
Gatsky
Well there a lot of posts here decrying the legislation, as expected.

This is pretty ironic given Zuckerberg's recent request for more government
involvement in regulating content on social media.

Anyway, I think this is a positive move. The government should start with an
extreme policy, anything less and nothing will change. Social media businesses
basically do whatever they like, and have monetised human attention and
outrage without any regards to the consequences. Brexit, kids getting measles,
what happened in Christchurch... it is pointless to run counterfactuals, but
the probability that social media contributed to these events significantly is
certainly not zero. Society needs to defend itself against these entities
which don't have our best interests at heart.

Is it a well thought out legislation? Sure doesn't look like it. But then we
aren't regulating schools or fresh air or hospitals, are we?

~~~
Ceph62
your rightfully angry about certain aspects of tech industry

worse thing you can do is have your anger misdirected in thinking this
legislation will serve to improve the situation. this is about control. this
is not about addressing root cause of problems like brexit, trump, brazil,
etc.

------
BLKNSLVR
The right- or wrong-ness of passing new laws based on a single incident
notwithstanding, there is an Australian Senator, an elected representative of
the Australian people, that said this in response to being censured by the
Senate:

 _" What blame did I attribute to the victims? I said nothing of the sort," he
told the Senate.

"I issued a media statement condemning the shooting and the shooter in the
strongest possible terms.

"However, after putting the immediate blame where it belonged, I looked for
contributing causes. I identified that immigration program that allowed Muslim
fanatics to migrate to New Zealand was a key enabler of community violence.

"The claim that this somehow blames the victims is absurd, Mr President._

The hypocrisy and blind discrimination on display by an elected politician at
the highest levels of Australian Government is a far more scary and far-
reaching issue as far as I'm concerned. If a politician says those kinds of
things it makes it OK for the communities that they represent to normalise
that attitude.

In this instance the terrorist was an Australian. Allowing an Australian
fanatic into New Zealand was the cause. If New Zealand was to have a knee-jerk
reaction to this incident it should be to put greater restrictions and tighter
background checks on Australians coming into the country, not muslims.

Good on the Senate for censuring his comments, but if laws need to be changed
for social media responsibility then laws are well overdue for the
responsibility of what politicians say in public and the anti-social attitudes
they encourage.

~~~
Tarq0n
This is a very good point. The few acts of terrorism in my country's recent
history were inspired by mainstream political discourse, I which certain
groups were demonized and vilified. It doesn't take violent content to
radicalize someone, our polarized political discourse is sufficient to do that
in vulnerable people already.

------
veryworried
I think it’s clear we will inevitably need those floating ocean cities that
Peter Thiel talked about, where tech companies can be free to operate outside
of irrational and ill-drafted geopolitical laws, and any country that doesn’t
want citizens to access their content must simply block them off with a
country wide firewall, and make criminals out of those who go around it. It is
unlikely they will differentiate between child pornographers and unauthorized
social media perusers in that case.

~~~
pojzon
Then nations would unite to create "international waters" laws to fuck over
those cities too.

You really cant run from human ignorance.

