
News Outlets Are Liable for Others’ Facebook Comments, Australian Court Rules - joering2
https://www.wsj.com/articles/news-outlets-are-liable-for-others-facebook-comments-court-rules-11591007734
======
salawat
This will rapidly degenerate to "providing the capability to coordinate and
control will be criminalized". Which basically means every means of net-based
communication will become a potential minefield.

If I had to wager, an onerous law will be passed but simply unenforced in most
cases, but kept on the books in order to be utilized as a "boutique" charge to
allow prosecutors more leverage to try to cop a plea bargain Or compliance on
a case by case basis. Much like possession of a firearm is used to amplify a
crime even if the crime was committed without actively using or brandishing
the firearm.

The rationale will be to prevent riots or inflammatory material from being
able to propagate through communication channels; but even if the measure is
successful, it just means that people really interested in causing mayhem will
simply have the operational calculus shift toward "don't let them take me
alive", which will yield a counterproductive result in terms of decreasing the
appeal/frequency of violent extremist behavior. In fact, it'll make
radicalizing even easier, as there will be even less chance for rational
rebuttal, one, and two, it is far easier to look at a government clamping down
on your ability to talk to other people and arrive at the conclusion that
maybe they aren't the good guys.

Examples to support the measure will likely be the built In nature of delays
in broadcasting allowing for the dumping of objectionable content in the radio
and TV spheres.

Calling it now.

------
bedhesd
Does the solution to turn off commenting negatively impact sharing news
stories? Maybe another way: What is the business rational to allow commenting
on news stories?

