Qantas sorry after boy exposed to cough

[simongr]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

It wasn't a link it was a profile pic.

 

[drewbles]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

Qantas hosts the FacePimple page

Qantas allows the free putting up of images and words on said FacePimple page

Qantas does this in spite of the long and sordid history of people posting offensive materials on this type of page and indeed Qantas' page previously

Qantas apparently does not actively moderate the FacePimple page - at least not out of Eastern Australia business times

.... Hence I think its pretty reasonable to say that Qantas is directly responsible for the images and words it allows to be posted on its FacePimple, and its other web sites.



... but .... back to the offal its said they serve their passengers ....

The image was a posters profile image, not uploaded to the QF FB page (afaik). QF could not do anything about the image; they could remove the post and/or report it, but it was not an image uploaded to a page they moderate/control.

The other issue is the person was underage that saw it. What were they doing on FB in the first place?

Some common sense here. It's the whole AFACT case vs iiNet. Don't shoot the messenger, go to the source.

 

[Ansett]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

I find this highly offensive - the guy in the picture makes me feel .... inadequate. :shock:

I'm off to counseling ... and to put in a claim for 3m QFF points.

Regards,



It was the yellow shorts wasnt it

 

[medhead]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

So if Qantas' web site has a normal URL link to a red-hot cough site, because that cough isn't hosted on QF's page, its OK?

Look, this isn't OT, and my apologies for that, but if accessing Qantas' Facebook (there, I said it) page allows one to access cough, than that's not OK and Qantas are responsible to the extent that adequate moderation can detect the 'bad' links and then remove them.

Simple, and incontestable, I would have thought.

The fact that Qantas does expunge the links when they finally become aware of it shows that they find it unacceptable too. Its just that they don't appear to put adequate resources into moderating what's posted.

Umm, there are no links involved. False analogy. Also they do remove the posts when finally aware.

 

[SeatBackForward]

Its actually a Facebook issue as that user is effectively publishing cough across any site they comment on.

 

[BAM1748]

Who bothers with Facebook anyway. :mrgreen:

 

[SeatBackForward]

Who bothers with Facebook anyway. :mrgreen:

OT, but my friends often ask why im not on facebook. My reply is "this way I have something to talk to you about because i don't know your everyday activities"...

 

[Fruitcake]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

Qantas hosts the FacePimple page

Qantas allows the free putting up of images and words on said FacePimple page

Qantas does this in spite of the long and sordid history of people posting offensive materials on this type of page and indeed Qantas' page previously

Qantas apparently does not actively moderate the FacePimple page - at least not out of Eastern Australia business times

.... Hence I think its pretty reasonable to say that Qantas is directly responsible for the images and words it allows to be posted on its FacePimple, and its other web sites.

Several gang members walk into a Qantas terminal. They start a brawl and someone is killed.

Qantas allows people to enter its terminals, in spite of the long and sordid history of people fighting and killing each other. Qantas apparently does not actively prevent potential murderers from entering its terminals.

.... Hence I think it's pretty reasonable to say that Qantas is directly responsible for the death.

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

Several gang members walk into a Qantas terminal. They start a brawl and someone is killed.

Qantas allows people to enter its terminals, in spite of the long and sordid history of people fighting and killing each other indeed including in Qantas' terminals previously. Qantas apparently does not actively prevent potential murderers from entering its terminals outside certain hours.

.... Hence I think it's pretty reasonable to say that Qantas is directly responsible for the circumstances where the death occurred.

Text added to complete analogy


I'll bite. If there was a history of thugs entering Qantas terminals and killing people, and Qantas only provided security say, 9-5, I think there would be culpability on Qantas for not providing security at other times if an incident occurred.

Case might be: OK, Qantas obviously considered there was a danger and a risk, based on previous incidents, so it provides guards. But only 9-5. Was it not obvious that killings could occur outside those hours, as they have before? Was there a cost or convenience factor in Qantas' decision not to provide security at all times when the risk might present itself?

[Best Rumpolian hanging judge's grave voice] Guilty! Take him down ..... [voice]

Never said Qantas could prevent what happened (and if people are OK with it happening and the stuff being available to kids over 13 - that's up to them); but they should actively moderate to lessen the risk.

 

[Fruitcake]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

I'll bite. If there was a history of thugs entering Qantas terminals and killing people, and Qantas only provided security say, 9-5, I think there would be culpability on Qantas for not providing security at other times if an incident occurred.

Qantas did and does provide security, for the entire time the terminal is open. In that incident they helped clear passengers out of the way to give the bikies better access to each other.

Government ministers commented that this was a reasonable outcome, because you can't guarantee these sorts of things won't ever happen.

 

[The Rok]

From FB profile pics to bikie murders.... That's a hell of a comparison. Why not talk about North Korea while we are at it?

 

[RooFlyer]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

Qantas did and does provide security, for the entire time the terminal is open. In that incident they helped clear passengers out of the way to give the bikies better access to each other.

Government ministers commented that this was a reasonable outcome, because you can't guarantee these sorts of things won't ever happen.

It was an analogy. Not referring to any actual incident.

 

[Archphoto]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

I'm no FB guru, but if you change your FB profile picture, all your postings will show the new one, correct? Does that now mean QF have to watch their FB 24/7 every second of the day on the off chance someone changes their profile pic at any given time (for even 1 minute?!).

It's not good, but seriously, whilst QF may have a responsibility to be aware of what is posted, they have absolutely no control over when someone changes their profile picture - that as I see it, falls squarely on the shoulders of FB. However, once it has been brought to their attention, action should be taken. (Of course time zone differences will make tricky. 7 hours during the day, is not acceptable, but 7 hours overnight isn't that surprising, if they aren't monitoring it 24/7. If they are though, it's pretty poor on the part of QF.)

As a side note - if you did report someone's profile picture as being offensive, how long does it take for FB to take action?

 

[drewbles]

Re: QF Offal in Red Wine Sauce

So if Qantas' web site has a normal URL link to a red-hot cough site, because that cough isn't hosted on QF's page, its OK?

QF do not own FB, nor do they manage links that FB posts (and, as has been comprehensively stated, it was a profile pic not a link nor anything uploaded to the FB Group).

If you're going to compare, make it apples with apples.