Using Facebook Just Got More Dangerous

[Renato1]

This is worrisome.
It turns out that maybe one could be sued for what someone else writes on your Facebook page.
Regards,
Renato

Can you be sued for what other people write on your Facebook? Maybe

thenewdaily.com.au

 

[Isochronous]

Hope the judgment gets appealed - the consequences of such a principle exposes anyone with a Facebook page that has a moderate number following it.

 

[drron]

I think there are bigger problems than that like privacy.

A recent history of Facebook security and privacy issues | TechTarget

It feels like every week brings a new Facebook security issue, privacy scandal or data mishap. So, it is time to round up all of Facebook's troubles from the past year and a half.

searchsecurity.techtarget.com

And if you are silly enough to believe their apologies this is what one of their lawyers told the judge in the Cambridge Analytica case.
"There is no privacy interest, because by sharing with a hundred friends on a social media platform, which is an affirmative social act to publish, to disclose, to share ostensibly private information with a hundred people, you have just, under centuries of common law, under the judgment of Congress, under the SCA, negated any reasonable expectation of privacy. "

In Court, Facebook Blames Users for Destroying Their Own Right to Privacy

“The whole premise of Facebook is to render not private” your activity, said company lawyer, fighting off lawsuits over Cambridge Analytica data collection.

theintercept.com

Then there is their proposal to introduce their own currency though I think the feds might shoot that one down.

 

[RooFlyer]

It turns out that maybe one could be sued for what someone else writes on your Facebook page.

It seems to me that having a Facebook page(s) is like owning a personal billboard. If you let libellous comments be written and posted up by others on your billboard, then of course you accept the consequences of the 'content' of your billboard. Same if you let people post dodgy messages on signs on your front lawn.

A defence might be that you have a policy, demonstrated to be acted upon, of regularly reviewing the content of your billboard and taking down questionable content. (Like the supermarkets defence against being sued for someone slipping on their floor - they demonstrated a regular inspection and mopping regime, so were not found liable.)

 

[p--and--t]

On principle. I have never used Facebook because of my belief in the total lack of ethics of its owner/CEO.

There are always two sides to the equation. Looking at it from maybe where the judge saw it in this specific case.

• The media makes money from readership and selling content.
• Certain media are often in the business of creating controversy for the sake of increased readership. It's part of their business model. You just have to read some of the ridiculous headlines they generate.
• They are also in the business of creating, reviewing, editing and publishing content. Theoretically their prime area of expertise.
• They went out of their way to print one or more inflammatory articles in an attempt to deliberately invoke strong responses to their page(s)
• They had the power to moderate those responses both before and after they were published on those pages
• There were legal precedents. Not specifically for Facebook, but precedents none the less

On the basis of this one case, I'm not sure you could draw a long bow to a random post on a different Facebook page that was not related to an individual or company in the media business, had not gone out of their way to generate such responses and did not have the expertise or resources to monitor such responses.

 

[Renato1]

Hope the judgment gets appealed - the consequences of such a principle exposes anyone with a Facebook page that has a moderate number following it.

I think it does expose everyone in principle, though in practice it would be the moderately well-off or fairly rich with lots of Facebook friends who have the most to fear.
Cheers,
Renato

I think there are bigger problems than that like privacy.

A recent history of Facebook security and privacy issues | TechTarget

It feels like every week brings a new Facebook security issue, privacy scandal or data mishap. So, it is time to round up all of Facebook's troubles from the past year and a half.

searchsecurity.techtarget.com

And if you are silly enough to believe their apologies this is what one of their lawyers told the judge in the Cambridge Analytica case.
"There is no privacy interest, because by sharing with a hundred friends on a social media platform, which is an affirmative social act to publish, to disclose, to share ostensibly private information with a hundred people, you have just, under centuries of common law, under the judgment of Congress, under the SCA, negated any reasonable expectation of privacy. "

In Court, Facebook Blames Users for Destroying Their Own Right to Privacy

“The whole premise of Facebook is to render not private” your activity, said company lawyer, fighting off lawsuits over Cambridge Analytica data collection.

theintercept.com

Then there is their proposal to introduce their own currency though I think the feds might shoot that one down.

They sort of have a point - people have made a lot of stuff public - hard for them to say that information is private.

In the USA, such information could have been used by the Trump campaign to more effectively target their own supporters and encourage them to show up and actually vote, rather than trying the fairly hopeless task of changing the views of those opposed to Trump.
Regards,
Renato

It seems to me that having a Facebook page(s) is like owning a personal billboard. If you let libellous comments be written and posted up by others on your billboard, then of course you accept the consequences of the 'content' of your billboard. Same if you let people post dodgy messages on signs on your front lawn.

A defence might be that you have a policy, demonstrated to be acted upon, of regularly reviewing the content of your billboard and taking down questionable content. (Like the supermarkets defence against being sued for someone slipping on their floor - they demonstrated a regular inspection and mopping regime, so were not found liable.)

As I write in my comment at the bottom of that article, one solution would be for everyone who posts on your board, to automatically have "I opine" put in before whatever they write (or at least give you the option that such be the case).

The annoying part is the arbitrariness of it. If the defaming poster is rich, he or she would get sued. But if he or she is poor, and then the Facebook page's "owner" could get sued if he or she is rich.
Regards,
Renato

On principle. I have never used Facebook because of my belief in the total lack of ethics of its owner/CEO.

There are always two sides to the equation. Looking at it from maybe where the judge saw it in this specific case.

• The media makes money from readership and selling content.
• Certain media are often in the business of creating controversy for the sake of increased readership. It's part of their business model. You just have to read some of the ridiculous headlines they generate.
• They are also in the business of creating, reviewing, editing and publishing content. Theoretically their prime area of expertise.
• They went out of their way to print one or more inflammatory articles in an attempt to deliberately invoke strong responses to their page(s)
• They had the power to moderate those responses both before and after they were published on those pages
• There were legal precedents. Not specifically for Facebook, but precedents none the less

On the basis of this one case, I'm not sure you could draw a long bow to a random post on a different Facebook page that was not related to an individual or company in the media business, had not gone out of their way to generate such responses and did not have the expertise or resources to monitor such responses.

Thanks, but to me the problem is the previous legal precedent.

The Golf Club Notice Board precedent seems pretty much the same thing as anyone's Facebook page.
Is it really such a long bow to draw?
Regards,
Renato

 

[RooFlyer]

As I write in my comment at the bottom of that article, one solution would be for everyone who posts on your board, to automatically have "I opine" put in before whatever they write (or at least give you the option that such be the case).

Getting into legal stuff (shudder) but I think it turns on the law being framed in terms of the 'publisher' of the material. A newspaper journalist may wrote something horrible, but until the owner, or the 'publisher' of what he's written causes it to be exposed publicly, then it causes no offence. Same with posts on-line. I'm just typing away in the privacy of my home, into some text box on the screen. No harm there, but if I press 'return', the 'publisher' has set things up such that its automatically published to the world via the internet. I think the electronic publisher has some sort of defence if they can show that they actively monitor what's published and take down bad stuff promptly.

I believe in general yes, you can mitigate offence by couching a comment in weasel words such as 'it might be ...' and 'I believe ...' and having a statement on-line that the posts are the opinion of the poster, not the publisher, but in those cases, I think it ends up being what the judge or jury thinks about the situation.

 

[Hvr]

There are perils in publishing in Australia, here it was about the contents of emails.

Have a read of this case:

home | news.com.au — Australia’s #1 news site Sydney woman is $120,000 poorer after losing a defamation case brought by one of her neighbours over an email she sent to other residents of their apartment building accusing him of being “cowardly”.

Raynor v Murray - NSW Caselaw

www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au

 

[VPS]

Defamation extends to Facebook Comments - HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

The recent District Court of South Australia decision in Johnston v Aldridge (No 2) [2018] SADC 72 (Johnston v Aldridge) has extended responsibility for defamatory comments on Facebook. The ruling found that former political candidate Mark Aldridge (Defendant) was responsible not only for the...

hwlebsworth.com.au

 

[Renato1]

Getting into legal stuff (shudder) but I think it turns on the law being framed in terms of the 'publisher' of the material. A newspaper journalist may wrote something horrible, but until the owner, or the 'publisher' of what he's written causes it to be exposed publicly, then it causes no offence. Same with posts on-line. I'm just typing away in the privacy of my home, into some text box on the screen. No harm there, but if I press 'return', the 'publisher' has set things up such that its automatically published to the world via the internet. I think the electronic publisher has some sort of defence if they can show that they actively monitor what's published and take down bad stuff promptly.

I believe in general yes, you can mitigate offence by couching a comment in weasel words such as 'it might be ...' and 'I believe ...' and having a statement on-line that the posts are the opinion of the poster, not the publisher, but in those cases, I think it ends up being what the judge or jury thinks about the situation.

I opine that rather than weasel words it is best to use "I opine" or "In my opinion".
I'd have been fired or sued countless times at my old workplace for my extremely opinionated letters and emails, with info copies to numerous parties, had they been able to do it.

Note well how many politicians throw heaps of abuse in television interviews, and end the sentence with a hasty "in my opinion".
Cheers,
Renato

There are perils in publishing in Australia, here it was about the contents of emails.

Have a read of this case:

Raynor v Murray - NSW Caselaw

www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au

I click on the link, it sends me to the site, but the story doesn't come up.
I've tried several times.
Regards,
Renato

Defamation extends to Facebook Comments - HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

The recent District Court of South Australia decision in Johnston v Aldridge (No 2) [2018] SADC 72 (Johnston v Aldridge) has extended responsibility for defamatory comments on Facebook. The ruling found that former political candidate Mark Aldridge (Defendant) was responsible not only for the...

hwlebsworth.com.au

Very interesting. Plainly nothing to do with just media companies being at risk.
Regards,
Renato

 

[Happy Trails]

Drifting OT, but sharing the thoughts of comedian Billy Connelly can now be deemed gross misconduct and be cause for dismissal in the UK.

'I'm heartbroken at losing my job' for sharing Billy Connolly joke

Asda check out worker was sacked for gross misconduct for sharing comedian's post which mentions 'suicide bombers'

www.examinerlive.co.uk

 

[dajop]

A combination of the ease and permanency of Bragbook/Twitface/Instabrag along with the cotton wool in which many children are wrapped (lack of resilience) means this is only going to get worse.

 

[Hvr]

I click on the link, it sends me to the site, but the story doesn't come up.
I've tried several times.
Regards,
Renato

Let's try again:

Email spat between Manly residents leads to $120,000 defamation payout

The NSW District Court found the head of a strata committee in a Manly apartment complex was defamed in an email implying he was a "small-minded busybody".

www.smh.com.au

Man wins $120,000 for being called a ‘busybody’

A Sydney woman is $120,000 poorer after losing a defamation case brought by one of her neighbours over an email she sent to other residents of their apartment building accusing him of being “cowardly”.

www.news.com.au

 

[Renato1]

Let's try again:

Email spat between Manly residents leads to $120,000 defamation payout

The NSW District Court found the head of a strata committee in a Manly apartment complex was defamed in an email implying he was a "small-minded busybody".

www.smh.com.au

Man wins $120,000 for being called a ‘busybody’

A Sydney woman is $120,000 poorer after losing a defamation case brought by one of her neighbours over an email she sent to other residents of their apartment building accusing him of being “cowardly”.

www.news.com.au

Thanks very much for that. Very interesting.
Note well,
"..............Ms Murray had failed to establish a defence to any of them. This included defences of truth and honest opinion. "

I opine that it would have been better had she opined.
Cheers,
Renato