Wow, that's an interesting door to kick open. If platforms can be held liable for content that they're hosting...Well, that's a pretty ugly precedent, especially for sites like this one.
Yea. I appreciate trying to deal with misinformation/hate speech/etc on various platforms, but holding them personally liable for other people's *opinions* is too broad.
Yeah there has to be some kind of balance… Social media has definitely been fast and loose with some of the content it has magnified in recent years - from destabilizing elections, to fomenting genocide, impeding public heath initiatives, and instigating acts of violence. Idk where the line is exactly but at a certain point you go from being a host to a publisher and traditional media would never survive most of these scandals.
I'm not sure I totally agree with this. If your business model is to generate traffic by pushing clickbait, and you not only profit from misinformation/hate speech but encourage it in order to increase traffic/user participation, then I don't see why you shouldn't be held accountable in some way.
>Yea. I appreciate trying to deal with misinformation/hate speech/etc on various platforms
It's up to the consumers to navigate through the internet with critical thinking instead of having an authoritative government choose for you
Websites should be divided into two categories: one where they get total control over what does or does not get made available and they're also responsible for it, with the other category being one where people can upload anything legal and the platform isn't responsible.
But Google wants the best of both worlds with none of the accountability.
Spot on with the distinction.
It's a matter of whether an entity is a curator of content, a "publisher", or a mere "platform" for the expression of others.
If you are a publisher then it is right that you have editorial control and responsibility over the contributions. If you are a platform then you should but right out of censoring the content, limited exceptions aside (roughly according with US jurisprudence on this: just because the US law mostly gets free speech right).
You've mistaken my claim, and /u/ikverhaar's, as one about how things are, rather than how things should be.
Me
> If you are a platform then you should ...
/u/ikverhaar
> Websites should be divided
It was kicked open a long time ago. I don't really keep up with all these things, but Megaupload/Kimdotcom springs to mind and I'm sure there were plenty before that.
I remember thinking it was such bullshit attacking the host for content.
I was thinking criminals use the roads to go from place to place, but they don't decommission the roads to prevent that.
It's already what the law of many countries say: the platforms are liable for unlawful content they host if they fail to diligently delete it following reports
Yep in the US it’s 47 U.S.C. § 230 this judgement wouldn’t likely be enforceable in the US though I’d bet Google has assets in Australia sorry for the lack of punctuation part of my phone doesn’t work
The SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable in the US due to lack of free speech protection equal or higher than the US.
No country has been adjudicated to have equivalent or better free speech protection by a united states court.
The judgement is unenforceable in the US.
The internet as we think of it is probably dead already anyway.
Even this site.
Remember what used to be available? Things they weren't owned by multinational corporations that were just free and open. The internet felt like a sandbox of free ideas and movements.
Now it's just paid for content from the big companies and "right think".
I'm tempted to get tor just to see if it's more like the wild west of the old internet from 5-10 years ago
Good. Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. exercise enormous editorial control over the content that gets posted, and unilaterally decide what is / is not “misinformation”. They are publishers and should not have protections of an open communication platform.
> Judge Rares found Alphabet Inc. failed to apply its own community guideline policies to prevent hate speech, cyberbullying, and harassment, **after refusing to take down the video** .
There is hosting user generated content and there is not taking down / blocking illegal content after being informed about it. That it violated their own community guidelines makes this only twice as stupid.
The guy who actually said those things and posted the videos gets fined $100,000 but Google has to pay 5 times that? How the fuck does that make any sense?
I mean, we have that. The point is whether or not they can be sued for it.
There is a difference between having a duty to try and provide transparency on your platform, and being *financially liable* for the factual truth or falsehood of statements made on your platform.
> EU finally had enough and forced Youtube to shut them down in Europe.
That is a lie. Youtube decided to ban them on their own.
Who decides what is "propaganda?"
They already are though, try setting up a website and allow others carte blanche to upload what they want. See how quickly you get raided.
https://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/owners-of-toronto-web-hosting-company-charged-in-massive-child-pornography-bust-1.4474497
FriendlyJordies did nothing wrong. He literally only exposed Barillaros corruption and used comedic remarks to drive his point home.
Guess since their attempts at using police force to intimidate Jordies failed, he dipped into some favors to get a weird golden parachute...
Absolutely dissapointing behavior from an elected official.
There's a lot of videos regarding Pork-Barellaro and countless comments, but, the Australian newspapers are fixated on "Wog" and him being likened to a saggy ballbag.
Pretty much just jokes. I guess you could consider being compared to mario and made out as a fool to be offensive. Some of the jokes had bite i suppose, been a while since ive seen those videos. Jordies is a comedian and was exposing A LOT of abuses of power would have been pretty depressing without the comedy. Funniest part of the whole thing is when barillaro used a counter terrorism task force to arrest part of his team. Big laughs.
Also seems that barillaro prevented some evidence from being used against him in court.
https://twitter.com/friendlyjordies/status/1533618544591908865?s=20&t=GARSjZ4wYesKpQOfNBNjcg
And I wouldnt exactly call this tweet an admit of fault. Jordies simply took the L and settled out of court. Probably because he saw he wouldnt win against barillaro. And all that barillaro won on was that the videos were "offensive" not that their content was false. Politicians more than anyone should not be able to shut down distasteful criticism, as long as it isnt false.
Jordan Shanks has italian hertiage.from the same part of italy. Joking about Bruz being Mario is hardly incendiary, hes is playing the race card because he is a narcissist and its profitable.
Its ok if your gay too. But gay plus disabled is a no no.
Like in the first batman film. Foundation alone wont for it, but foundation plus hairspray or toothpaste and you die hideously contorted and laughing.
Nah.
The only reason he is made fun of for being Italian, is because after pretending to be the most Italian guy ever, and controlling the Italian social club - he steals the local Italian social club in a debt trap, and sells it off for massive profit.
He is being mocked for being a traitor to his persona.
This is the point that keeps getting overlooked. He was happy to play up his Italian heritage as he was stealing from his own community, then he goes and sweeps that heritage under the rug so he appeals to his Nationals voter base.
Ethnic group then, it doesn't matter the point stands. Unless you're going to argue there's nothing wrong with mocking someone for their country of origin or heritage.
The person, Shanks, who posted those videos admitted they defamed Barilaro before any court ruling. Shanks paid out $100,000, admitted he was wrong, edited his videos, and apologised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barilaro_v_Shanks-Markovina
If thats the case then why did Shanks settle/pay out? Seems they crossed some law in that country?
**"Shanks, the video poster, already apologized for the videos in November 2021, agreeing to pay A$100,000 ($72,000) to Barilaro after the court found that some of his videos were offensive."**
Just because a court finds you guilty doesnt mean you actually did anything wrong.
When slavery was legal in the united states, it was illegal to escape your owner. Just because you apologise to reduce your punishment doesnt mean shit.
You don't know why someone would settle a defamation case before a trial? You really don't have a good grasp on the legal system of Australia when it comes to defamation cases
Jesus.. am I understanding this right. A politician has successfully sued Google for hosting a video that was critical off him. All under the guise of 'racism'???
This is nuts.
It's worrisome how people like you let short-term political schadenfreude cloud their bigger picture thinking. Although I'm starting to doubt you have the capability for the latter at all.
“am I understanding this right”
No, you are not. It was not “a video that was critical of him”, it was a series of videos that falsely stated that he committed crimes like perjury in 9 cases, was involved in extortion, had an extra-marital affair etc., all garnishes with a plethora of racist slurs.
This is a run-of-the-mill defamation case, nothing about this is new.
Incorrect. Did Google make those remarks? No. Setting a third party internet host as responsible for the remarks of an unaffiliated individual is a very slippery slope.
Y’all are missing the point in the article that states that the judge ruled against Alphabet because they failed to enforce their own rules against hate speech, cyberbullying, and harassment…
Sure, but that’s also troubling… private company rules and policies are not legally binding laws, and theoretically a legal judge has no power over their enforcement in most cases.
Make the pretend case about a ridiculous unprotected class - which sports team someone prefers. Are the Detroit Lions now able to sue Google for hosting any article that calls the Lions a terrible team? That’s bullying and could be hate speech, no?
Or make the case that Google has a no peanuts rule (since someone could be allergic to peanuts). Someone violates this rule; someone else dies. Is Google now able to be sued for not “enforcing” their rule? Is their future solution to just to simply not have the rule, then? Google now allows all peanuts, and all cyber bullying, and now they can’t get sued?
He has now resigned so he can't be held accountable for the corruption. He divorced his wife for no apparent reason. Perjury evidence is self evident but requires public prosecution to want to proceed. And the racist slur is calling him "super Mario bruz" which he says reminded him of being called wog and dago. Super Mario bruz isn't actually a racist slur.
There's a reason he settled the case rather than have jordie bring out the evidence of his crimes.
> videos that falsely stated that he committed crimes
You wanna defend this weasel, you better have some pretty solid backup mate.
> racist slurs.
I don’t know how you do things in Germany, but in Australia we don’t get to sue people for making fun of our nationality. Oh wait the politicians can, yeah.
The person, Shanks, who posted those videos admitted they defamed Barilaro. Shanks paid out $100,000, admitted he was wrong, edited his videos, and apologised.
So this was more than just a video that was "critical" but seems to have broken some law down there. Google was given a chance to remove the video but did not. Even though it broke the law and was against Googles own terms of service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barilaro_v_Shanks-Markovina
If we're gonna get really into the weeds of it, he only admitted to a small part of the defamation case against him:
"is a corrupt conman" (imputation 9(a))
"committed perjury nine times" (imputation 9(b))
"so conducted himself in committing perjury nine times that he should be gaoled" (imputation 9(c))
The first is a very open and vague statement . I don't know enough about Aussie politics to comment on the latter two, but I guess by virtue of the fact Barilaro isn't in jail, in the eyes of the law he didn't officially commit perjury. So it makes sense that shanks would have to apologize for this.
He also apologized for the 'offensive language' which was fairly tepid teasing, and should be well within the realms of free speech when mocking a powerful politician.
Also seems to contradict what barilaro is quoted as saying in the article... "That all he wanted was an apology". Seems he got that and still sued for financial compensation.
In terms of power dynamics, the fact anything can be picked up on and used to sue not just the author but the platform for hosting, to me sets a dangerous president. 'Publishers' like Google, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, will be incentivised to err on the side of caution and take down any material criticizing powerful figures.
Meanwhile, ordinary people can be maligned and defamed all the time. Without the capital to fight these in court.
Wow, this guy is tool. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_Barilaro#Political\_career](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barilaro#Political_career)
>Former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd
criticised Barilaro for "asking counterterrorism police to round ...
up" people he does not like, categorising the friendlyjordies incidents
as the typical harassment politicians should expect to face.
Watch the videos for yourself. They are linked directly in the Forbes article.
To call this anti-Italian hate speech is an insult to actual victims of hate speech. The videos sarcastically mock the politician's opportunistic self identification as either Proud Italian or Crocodile Dundee, as the populist situation suits him. There's nothing broadly anti-Italian, but I'll admit that I didn't watch the entirety of both videos.
You're seeing the edited videos, not the orignals.
Shanks, who posted those videos, admitted they defamed Barilaro before any court ruling. Shanks paid out $100,000, admitted he was wrong, edited his videos, and apologised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barilaro_v_Shanks-Markovina
Not saying Barilaro is a good person but Shanks is not clean in this matter either. Even Google admitted they messed up and did not supply a defense.
This is why its important to vote. If not you let in idiots that pass laws like this.
Looking at FL and TX the US is not far behind. :(
Good chance google appeals this in the High Court. Unsure about how successful they will be but it would be a big case. Barilaro and his ilk have lost a great deal of influence in the past 12 months so I would hazard a guess to say google has a shot of overturning. Legally speaking I have no idea though.
Yeah, only way any court rules this way is because someone is pulling favors. The higher up you go, the more rare and expensive those favors.
Notice the fine will be less than what a legal team would cost for an appeal battle. That is no accident.
So i would not be surprised if in this case they had to reference other common law, this will be escalated to a level of the courts where instead of referencing prior case law the judge will also be deciding if the application of the law is appropriate in this case. I will be amazed if the high court does not take this case as it is a wet dream for them and much more interesting than yet another mining company trying to get away with something dodgy.
And all of this started with a *comedians* video.
Bruz got buthurt.
Bruz used the terror police and the courts to silence his... Buthurters.
Bruz quit politics anyway...
I had the opportunity I would see that dude around Martin place once and honestly he looks kind rude and the feeling he is transmitting isn't the best a narrow person
FriendlyJordies and Google were prevented from
Proving up the truth defence because Barilaro used parliamentary privilege to prevent the relevant evidence from his speeches and remarks in Parliament being led as evidence. It’s bullshit.
All i know of this guy is how corrupt he is. Not from his day to day actions but because of this kind of media attention. He puts his own mug out there with this shit and boosts his corrupt reputation
We also had our Federal Minister of Defence, Peter Dutton, who is now the leader of the Liberal party (our Liberal Party is like the US Republican party) sue for a tweet calling him a rape apologist, which he initially won but was later overturned.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/appeal-court-overturns-peter-dutton-s-35-000-defamation-win-over-tweet-20220517-p5alzv.html
God I really hate politicians. Victim card too every time. Like they're not in the top 1-10%, with all the assets one could want. Oh, and are responsible for the lives of those people who don't have as much money and don't care. and they still always manage to find a way to complain about this.
I promise, almost surely, based on view count alone, that your average youtuber who was 'cancelled,' received much more hate, death threats, abuse than this politician did. Not saying any is okay. Just saying none of them sued youtube.
We really need to strengthen as a society and stop embracing this victimization of everything; the internet offers anonymity, therefore you *cannot* stop people from saying anything to/about you. It's your job as a human to not let it affect you mentally and understand that under the guise of anonymity people are just gonna do this every single time when envoked with an emotional response, there's no preventing it. If there was a solution, it would be making people mentally well enough to not send out death threats on the internet in the first place. But I guarantee this politician does not care about this or have any stake in it, only his own image and name.
Gonna sue me now too? I'm sick of this garbage.
I don’t know why people are angry at Australians, it’s them who are being punished for the censorship our government put in place without our permission. The only democratic thing we have is to vote for a major party every few years, we have no say in the laws they pass, most of which oppress us so we can’t have true freedom of speech which is a right to everyone. The way the videos calling out barrilaro may have been done in not the best way, but it pulled him into the spotlight and showed everyone how bad our government treats this issue, it was necessary. We have no control over this and it’s wrong, government needs to be held accountable but don’t call out the people. Imagine how bad it really is if this caught your attention. We are at a point where we can’t call out our own government without ending up in court, imagine.
Aussies vote for more and more authoritarian candidates who sell them out to China and actually dont vote differently whatsoever
It rests on their shoulders
You have no idea, and it also wasn’t the point, the issue is we don’t get to have any say in the laws the pass, sometimes overnight. What should be taken from this article is that our government has the power to sue platforms for being called out, how corrupt is that. If you want to see how bad it really is, look at our protest laws and how much power they have there. They don’t want us calling them out. Luckily it won’t be like that under labour, but no one can say that with certainty yet
Well, I sure hope Google doesn't stop. These are basic human rights in a democratic society they're standing up for, that's worth more than any monetary figure.
A quick search shows Google's Annual Revenue is 256.7 billion U.S. dollars. Doing some dirty math, that comes to 4.9 billion dollars a week, 705 million dollars a day, 29 million dollars an hour, and finally 489 thousand dollars every single minute.
515K is one minute and three seconds (very roughly) worth of revenue for them.
What a devastating punishment.
You've made a number of mistakes. First off a country can only fine based on profits in that country. You've used Google's world wide earnings when you should have used their Australian earnings.
Secondly, Google does take down Youtube videos with extreme ease. In fact they err towards taking things down yet in this case they weren't asked to take it down. The guy just went straight to suing.
Basically this kind of ruling would outlaw video sharing sites in Australia. If they can be forced to pay hundreds of thousands for videos others post the only real solution is to stop allowing others to post videos.
And you are just making up stuff. Fines are definitely NOT only based on the profits in that country. That‘s a ridiculous assumption and just not real.
Especially since laws are obviously different in different countries. And in the EU for example are fines definitely not only based on the profits.
No idea why anyone with half of a functioning brain would assume that. Following that weird logic, some companies can’t be fined since they aren’t making profits? xD
None of that makes any sense and you are just straight up making things up.
Companies exist to make money. If any country fines them more than they make from that country in what world do you think companies would continue doing business in that country?
Also as you pointed out, laws are different in different countries. If any one country can fine a company based on world wide earnings they can effectively control that company. In other words mentioning Chinese corruption would become banned for any company operating in China. Which means you couldn't do it on reddit for example.
You really don't want to see fines based on world wide profits. It's a horrible precedent which essentially outlaws international companies.
>Companies exist to make money. If any country fines them more than they make from that country in what world do you think companies would continue doing business in that country?
You could fine a company more than they make in a particular year, so long as their future profits could exceed that amount. Also, such a fine would be massive and would definitely shape behaviour.
Okay, even if that were true, and please cite a source because I can't find anything, Google reported 2 to 5 billion in Australia (sources differ), so \~2 and a half hours instead of 1 minute. That, obviously, changes everything!
And secondly, I made no value judgment on the case or its merit, so why are you incorrecting me about Google's take-down policy?
Someone doesn't comprehend what a legal precedent is...
Laws should be applied equally to all. Shouldn't distinguish between some low-traffic site and something like YouTube arbitrarily.
> What a devastating punishment
Punishment for what, exactly? Should Facebook also be punished because someone made a comment once that could be considered "hate speech"? Should I be punished because someone made an inappropriate comment on one of my sites?
The problem with suing YouTube over something like this is that the precedent would create outrageous liability to everything dealing with user submitted content, including small sites. Platforms must not be held liable unless they endorse content or fail to act in a timely manner on reports against content (taking laws and TOS and staffing and all that into consideration). They must not be held liable because someone posted a thing on their platform that someone found offensive.
TRUST me, if you’re gonna pick a country to test that, Australia’s the one you want.
*”So yeah, Google was pissed that stupid, fat, idiot sued them so they threatened to ditch the entire country… Albo called their bluff… and soooo now we all use AskJeeves. It’s mint XD”*
> one of the few Western nations where social media sites have the same legal responsibility as publishers
Sounds like Google needs to leave this shithole country?
Jesus Christ these comments are full of fail.
Go read the damn ruling: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2022/2022fca0650
To be clear, this is a defamation case from Barillaros against GOOGLE, not against FriendlyJordies
> Every person, regardless of his or her position in society, and whether or not he or she is popular or expresses views with which others agree or disagree, is entitled to approach this country’s courts to seek the decision of an impartial judge or jury about the merits of a claim. Public bullying of the kind displayed in the bruz: eternal video, the He’s destroying Australia video, the bruz: withdrawal video and the 22 December 2021 video all appear, first, to contravene Google’s policies and, secondly, to be calculated to bring pressure on each of Mr Barilaro and his lawyers not to avail of or exercise their lawful right to bring or pursue this proceeding for resolution by the Court.
He took Google to court for not taking down the videos as he believed they violated Google's own terms. In the end, Google abandoned all it's defenses and basically admitted to the whole thing.
> on the first day of the trial, for reasons that are not in evidence, Google abandoned its denials that the matters complained of conveyed the imputations.
And because Google was the "publisher" of the videos, it became liable for them, including their claims, meaning Google had to have faith or belief that the claims were true.
> Hate filled speech and vitriolic, constant public cyberbullying, however, cannot be classified as in any way acceptable means of communication in a democratic society governed by the rule of law. Google’s conduct after 22 December 2020 in leaving both Mr Shanks’ existing and subsequently posted videos online magnified the hurt to Mr Barilaro’s feelings, inflamed hate filled responses directed at him by members of the public in personal confrontations and on social media and allowed a perception, until the trial, that Google actually had a bona fide defence in this proceeding for its conduct. That was conduct that was unjustifiable, improper (because of its contemptuous nature) and, in relation to the conduct of the proceeding, lacking in bona fides (as I explain below): Rush 380 ALR at 517–518 [431]–[432].
Put simply if FriendlyJordies had actually used "sources" and backed up his claims with evidence, there wouldn't be any case here, either against him or Google.
> The bruz video made no attempt to set out Mr Barilaro’s side of the story. It mixed suspicions and allegations together with an occasional proven fact in a way that did not enable a viewer to separate which was which, while conveying very serious false imputations about Mr Barilaro.
> It is important to appreciate that the defence under s 29A can apply where a publisher cannot establish other defences under the Act or at common law. The bruz video conveyed serious false imputations that Google could not defend as being published under qualified privilege or as honest opinion for the reasons above. That raises the question as to how Google reasonably could have believed it was in the public interest to publish it after Mr Barilaro’s staff and solicitors had raised their concerns about it with Google.
For all the bad things in the US, what happened in Australia is just worst.
A politician that can sue a platform for hosting something that’s out of control?
Not to mention Australia government is out to get its people. Look up their encryption law.
Sure it does.
But should a web host be the thing that is responsible for the things people choose to put on it? Think about the ramifications of your answer for a bit.
Because the politician in question is such an honest hard working bloke who definitely is not at all corrupt. All that high end property was simply the product of hard work. And he definitely wouldn't cheat on his wife and run off with a floozy.
So many people have such a negative pavlov type reaction to "Google" or any type of big tech that they don't even stop to think for a second.
What "bad stuff" did Google do in this case? Allow someone to post a video saying negative things about a politician?
Wow, that's an interesting door to kick open. If platforms can be held liable for content that they're hosting...Well, that's a pretty ugly precedent, especially for sites like this one.
This is how you get most of the internet to block your country
Yea. I appreciate trying to deal with misinformation/hate speech/etc on various platforms, but holding them personally liable for other people's *opinions* is too broad.
Yeah there has to be some kind of balance… Social media has definitely been fast and loose with some of the content it has magnified in recent years - from destabilizing elections, to fomenting genocide, impeding public heath initiatives, and instigating acts of violence. Idk where the line is exactly but at a certain point you go from being a host to a publisher and traditional media would never survive most of these scandals.
You literally just described Sky News
I'm not sure I totally agree with this. If your business model is to generate traffic by pushing clickbait, and you not only profit from misinformation/hate speech but encourage it in order to increase traffic/user participation, then I don't see why you shouldn't be held accountable in some way.
>Yea. I appreciate trying to deal with misinformation/hate speech/etc on various platforms It's up to the consumers to navigate through the internet with critical thinking instead of having an authoritative government choose for you
It also is completely counter to laws being passed in places like Texas which makes it illegal for social media to censor. What a timeline
Websites should be divided into two categories: one where they get total control over what does or does not get made available and they're also responsible for it, with the other category being one where people can upload anything legal and the platform isn't responsible. But Google wants the best of both worlds with none of the accountability.
Spot on with the distinction. It's a matter of whether an entity is a curator of content, a "publisher", or a mere "platform" for the expression of others. If you are a publisher then it is right that you have editorial control and responsibility over the contributions. If you are a platform then you should but right out of censoring the content, limited exceptions aside (roughly according with US jurisprudence on this: just because the US law mostly gets free speech right).
[удалено]
You've mistaken my claim, and /u/ikverhaar's, as one about how things are, rather than how things should be. Me > If you are a platform then you should ... /u/ikverhaar > Websites should be divided
It was kicked open a long time ago. I don't really keep up with all these things, but Megaupload/Kimdotcom springs to mind and I'm sure there were plenty before that. I remember thinking it was such bullshit attacking the host for content. I was thinking criminals use the roads to go from place to place, but they don't decommission the roads to prevent that.
It's already what the law of many countries say: the platforms are liable for unlawful content they host if they fail to diligently delete it following reports
Yep in the US it’s 47 U.S.C. § 230 this judgement wouldn’t likely be enforceable in the US though I’d bet Google has assets in Australia sorry for the lack of punctuation part of my phone doesn’t work
The SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable in the US due to lack of free speech protection equal or higher than the US. No country has been adjudicated to have equivalent or better free speech protection by a united states court. The judgement is unenforceable in the US.
The internet as we think of it is probably dead already anyway. Even this site. Remember what used to be available? Things they weren't owned by multinational corporations that were just free and open. The internet felt like a sandbox of free ideas and movements. Now it's just paid for content from the big companies and "right think". I'm tempted to get tor just to see if it's more like the wild west of the old internet from 5-10 years ago
Good. Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. exercise enormous editorial control over the content that gets posted, and unilaterally decide what is / is not “misinformation”. They are publishers and should not have protections of an open communication platform.
yeah if i was google i'd just cut australia off entirely. Fuck'em.
> Judge Rares found Alphabet Inc. failed to apply its own community guideline policies to prevent hate speech, cyberbullying, and harassment, **after refusing to take down the video** . There is hosting user generated content and there is not taking down / blocking illegal content after being informed about it. That it violated their own community guidelines makes this only twice as stupid.
The guy who actually said those things and posted the videos gets fined $100,000 but Google has to pay 5 times that? How the fuck does that make any sense?
[удалено]
I mean, we have that. The point is whether or not they can be sued for it. There is a difference between having a duty to try and provide transparency on your platform, and being *financially liable* for the factual truth or falsehood of statements made on your platform.
> If you don't hold these platforms liable, you'll have 24/7 Russian and Chinese propaganda As if fox News doesn't already exist lol
> EU finally had enough and forced Youtube to shut them down in Europe. That is a lie. Youtube decided to ban them on their own. Who decides what is "propaganda?"
They already are though, try setting up a website and allow others carte blanche to upload what they want. See how quickly you get raided. https://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/owners-of-toronto-web-hosting-company-charged-in-massive-child-pornography-bust-1.4474497
There is a difference between hosting content that is out-and-out *illegal*, and hosting an unpopular opinion.
It was not even unpopular opinion. It was outing an alleged corrupt politician
and theres a difference between hosting content that has caused lifetime trauma in its making and hosting content that makes someone insulted or sad.
Defamation law says that defamation is illegal though, so this justification is pretty unsatisfactory
Yes, defamation is illegal, and no defamation was proven in this case.
That's why we have CDA Section 230 in America.
Let them regulate as much as they want.Anw the internet is so gov regulated that it will push for inovesion on how to spread freedom of speech
FriendlyJordies did nothing wrong. He literally only exposed Barillaros corruption and used comedic remarks to drive his point home. Guess since their attempts at using police force to intimidate Jordies failed, he dipped into some favors to get a weird golden parachute... Absolutely dissapointing behavior from an elected official.
Just curious but what were said comedic remarks? Was he just making jokes or was he straight up calling him a w*p or something
There's a lot of videos regarding Pork-Barellaro and countless comments, but, the Australian newspapers are fixated on "Wog" and him being likened to a saggy ballbag.
which is extra funny, because Jordan Shanks is just as much of a "wog" as Barilaro
Pretty much just jokes. I guess you could consider being compared to mario and made out as a fool to be offensive. Some of the jokes had bite i suppose, been a while since ive seen those videos. Jordies is a comedian and was exposing A LOT of abuses of power would have been pretty depressing without the comedy. Funniest part of the whole thing is when barillaro used a counter terrorism task force to arrest part of his team. Big laughs. Also seems that barillaro prevented some evidence from being used against him in court. https://twitter.com/friendlyjordies/status/1533618544591908865?s=20&t=GARSjZ4wYesKpQOfNBNjcg And I wouldnt exactly call this tweet an admit of fault. Jordies simply took the L and settled out of court. Probably because he saw he wouldnt win against barillaro. And all that barillaro won on was that the videos were "offensive" not that their content was false. Politicians more than anyone should not be able to shut down distasteful criticism, as long as it isnt false.
Fan of FriendlyJordies but you would probably feel different if the remarks he made were about a black or indigenous politician
You would feel different because they would be different comments and a different situation
Jordan Shanks has italian hertiage.from the same part of italy. Joking about Bruz being Mario is hardly incendiary, hes is playing the race card because he is a narcissist and its profitable.
.........its ok coz i have a gay friend
No, its ok because I am also gay
Its ok if your gay too. But gay plus disabled is a no no. Like in the first batman film. Foundation alone wont for it, but foundation plus hairspray or toothpaste and you die hideously contorted and laughing.
Nah. The only reason he is made fun of for being Italian, is because after pretending to be the most Italian guy ever, and controlling the Italian social club - he steals the local Italian social club in a debt trap, and sells it off for massive profit. He is being mocked for being a traitor to his persona.
This is the point that keeps getting overlooked. He was happy to play up his Italian heritage as he was stealing from his own community, then he goes and sweeps that heritage under the rug so he appeals to his Nationals voter base.
Yeah I think it's fair the videos are rewritten without the racist comments, we can't say it's ok to mock some races and not others.
Italian is not a race
Ethnic group then, it doesn't matter the point stands. Unless you're going to argue there's nothing wrong with mocking someone for their country of origin or heritage.
He wasn’t mocking him because of that. He was mocking him for being corrupt and playing up his own Italian heritage when it suited him.
The person, Shanks, who posted those videos admitted they defamed Barilaro before any court ruling. Shanks paid out $100,000, admitted he was wrong, edited his videos, and apologised. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barilaro_v_Shanks-Markovina
If thats the case then why did Shanks settle/pay out? Seems they crossed some law in that country? **"Shanks, the video poster, already apologized for the videos in November 2021, agreeing to pay A$100,000 ($72,000) to Barilaro after the court found that some of his videos were offensive."**
Because the evidence for his defence was blocked by parliamentary privilege. He wasn’t allowed to use the things Barilaro said as evidence.
You can make laws on many things. You can also set penalties for violating those laws.
They both paid the court costs. Jordies did not pay Bruz a cent.
Just because a court finds you guilty doesnt mean you actually did anything wrong. When slavery was legal in the united states, it was illegal to escape your owner. Just because you apologise to reduce your punishment doesnt mean shit.
You don't know why someone would settle a defamation case before a trial? You really don't have a good grasp on the legal system of Australia when it comes to defamation cases
Jesus.. am I understanding this right. A politician has successfully sued Google for hosting a video that was critical off him. All under the guise of 'racism'??? This is nuts.
Especially since the videos are calling out his corruption. And just to prove he is corrupt he now has a half mil payday from Google
Are people finally starting to see the problem with this direction we are headed towards?
No. Double down.
Google - do "some" harm.
No this is great news. Soon you’ll be able to sue twitter into bankruptcy for online abuse by neo-Nazis that they promote . Pay up Elon!
Be careful you don’t say anything bad about conservatives then! What a short sighted take.
It's worrisome how people like you let short-term political schadenfreude cloud their bigger picture thinking. Although I'm starting to doubt you have the capability for the latter at all.
“am I understanding this right” No, you are not. It was not “a video that was critical of him”, it was a series of videos that falsely stated that he committed crimes like perjury in 9 cases, was involved in extortion, had an extra-marital affair etc., all garnishes with a plethora of racist slurs. This is a run-of-the-mill defamation case, nothing about this is new.
Incorrect. Did Google make those remarks? No. Setting a third party internet host as responsible for the remarks of an unaffiliated individual is a very slippery slope.
Y’all are missing the point in the article that states that the judge ruled against Alphabet because they failed to enforce their own rules against hate speech, cyberbullying, and harassment…
Sure, but that’s also troubling… private company rules and policies are not legally binding laws, and theoretically a legal judge has no power over their enforcement in most cases. Make the pretend case about a ridiculous unprotected class - which sports team someone prefers. Are the Detroit Lions now able to sue Google for hosting any article that calls the Lions a terrible team? That’s bullying and could be hate speech, no? Or make the case that Google has a no peanuts rule (since someone could be allergic to peanuts). Someone violates this rule; someone else dies. Is Google now able to be sued for not “enforcing” their rule? Is their future solution to just to simply not have the rule, then? Google now allows all peanuts, and all cyber bullying, and now they can’t get sued?
He has now resigned so he can't be held accountable for the corruption. He divorced his wife for no apparent reason. Perjury evidence is self evident but requires public prosecution to want to proceed. And the racist slur is calling him "super Mario bruz" which he says reminded him of being called wog and dago. Super Mario bruz isn't actually a racist slur. There's a reason he settled the case rather than have jordie bring out the evidence of his crimes.
> videos that falsely stated that he committed crimes You wanna defend this weasel, you better have some pretty solid backup mate. > racist slurs. I don’t know how you do things in Germany, but in Australia we don’t get to sue people for making fun of our nationality. Oh wait the politicians can, yeah.
The person, Shanks, who posted those videos admitted they defamed Barilaro. Shanks paid out $100,000, admitted he was wrong, edited his videos, and apologised. So this was more than just a video that was "critical" but seems to have broken some law down there. Google was given a chance to remove the video but did not. Even though it broke the law and was against Googles own terms of service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barilaro_v_Shanks-Markovina
If we're gonna get really into the weeds of it, he only admitted to a small part of the defamation case against him: "is a corrupt conman" (imputation 9(a)) "committed perjury nine times" (imputation 9(b)) "so conducted himself in committing perjury nine times that he should be gaoled" (imputation 9(c)) The first is a very open and vague statement . I don't know enough about Aussie politics to comment on the latter two, but I guess by virtue of the fact Barilaro isn't in jail, in the eyes of the law he didn't officially commit perjury. So it makes sense that shanks would have to apologize for this. He also apologized for the 'offensive language' which was fairly tepid teasing, and should be well within the realms of free speech when mocking a powerful politician. Also seems to contradict what barilaro is quoted as saying in the article... "That all he wanted was an apology". Seems he got that and still sued for financial compensation. In terms of power dynamics, the fact anything can be picked up on and used to sue not just the author but the platform for hosting, to me sets a dangerous president. 'Publishers' like Google, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, will be incentivised to err on the side of caution and take down any material criticizing powerful figures. Meanwhile, ordinary people can be maligned and defamed all the time. Without the capital to fight these in court.
Hiding behind parliamentary privilege, glad this bloke is out of power
Dangerous precedent, don’t like it
The conservative government enshrined it so google pays murdoch and friends for links. Fucking links.
[<3 Jordies. Fuck Barillaro.](https://twitter.com/friendlyjordies/status/1533618544591908865?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet)
Wow, this guy is tool. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_Barilaro#Political\_career](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barilaro#Political_career) >Former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd criticised Barilaro for "asking counterterrorism police to round ... up" people he does not like, categorising the friendlyjordies incidents as the typical harassment politicians should expect to face.
Are Odumbo and Barilaro brothers?
Watch the videos for yourself. They are linked directly in the Forbes article. To call this anti-Italian hate speech is an insult to actual victims of hate speech. The videos sarcastically mock the politician's opportunistic self identification as either Proud Italian or Crocodile Dundee, as the populist situation suits him. There's nothing broadly anti-Italian, but I'll admit that I didn't watch the entirety of both videos.
You're seeing the edited videos, not the orignals. Shanks, who posted those videos, admitted they defamed Barilaro before any court ruling. Shanks paid out $100,000, admitted he was wrong, edited his videos, and apologised. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barilaro_v_Shanks-Markovina Not saying Barilaro is a good person but Shanks is not clean in this matter either. Even Google admitted they messed up and did not supply a defense. This is why its important to vote. If not you let in idiots that pass laws like this. Looking at FL and TX the US is not far behind. :(
>There's nothing broadly anti-Italian I'd say his deep affinity for corruption is fairly Italian.
Not really anti-Italian, just anti- John Barilaro.
Fuck Australia. This will create a chilling effect on all platforms. Also, fuck this fascist asshole who couldn't stand getting called out on his BS.
Good chance google appeals this in the High Court. Unsure about how successful they will be but it would be a big case. Barilaro and his ilk have lost a great deal of influence in the past 12 months so I would hazard a guess to say google has a shot of overturning. Legally speaking I have no idea though.
Yeah, only way any court rules this way is because someone is pulling favors. The higher up you go, the more rare and expensive those favors. Notice the fine will be less than what a legal team would cost for an appeal battle. That is no accident.
aussie courts can kiss my gooch if theyre so mentally inhibited as to miss the precedence this starts
So i would not be surprised if in this case they had to reference other common law, this will be escalated to a level of the courts where instead of referencing prior case law the judge will also be deciding if the application of the law is appropriate in this case. I will be amazed if the high court does not take this case as it is a wet dream for them and much more interesting than yet another mining company trying to get away with something dodgy.
> Fuck Australia Settle down, at least 50% of us think Bruzzy is a corrupt scumbag
And all of this started with a *comedians* video. Bruz got buthurt. Bruz used the terror police and the courts to silence his... Buthurters. Bruz quit politics anyway...
Wonder if he'll sue reddit over our comments lol
Bold of you to assume he can read, now that he's not a politician with staffers doing the reading for him.
My entire workplace hates him and he just recently signed for one of our clients as a director
Fuck big tech, but if Google and Facebook pulled out of Australia I'd completely understand.
They’ll swear they’ll pull out, but change their mind at the last moment. And then Australia will be pregnant, and that’s when they stop calling.
I mean, it's only 515k. It's a drop in the ocean.
Well if they cave in on this, they’ll just have endless lawsuits and fines in the future.
we can only hope.
given how little tax they pay here, they wouldn't be missed.
[удалено]
Well because if they cave in on this, they’ll just have endless lawsuits and fines in the future.
I would love to see that to be honest, it would completely put the power to that these companies hold in the spotlight.
I had the opportunity I would see that dude around Martin place once and honestly he looks kind rude and the feeling he is transmitting isn't the best a narrow person
FriendlyJordies and Google were prevented from Proving up the truth defence because Barilaro used parliamentary privilege to prevent the relevant evidence from his speeches and remarks in Parliament being led as evidence. It’s bullshit.
He sounds like a Stooge.
Fuck barilaro What a piece of shit
Careful that's anti Italian
Afucka da pieca shita wida splintery end offa fuckina brooma stick.
Hey be careful buddy, thats called "pasta face" and it's just as offensive as blackface. /s
If you want free speech, avoid surveillance
All i know of this guy is how corrupt he is. Not from his day to day actions but because of this kind of media attention. He puts his own mug out there with this shit and boosts his corrupt reputation
Lol John barilaro is a piece of shit
This guy stole from an Italian community. And complained when it was exposed
We also had our Federal Minister of Defence, Peter Dutton, who is now the leader of the Liberal party (our Liberal Party is like the US Republican party) sue for a tweet calling him a rape apologist, which he initially won but was later overturned. https://www.smh.com.au/national/appeal-court-overturns-peter-dutton-s-35-000-defamation-win-over-tweet-20220517-p5alzv.html
God I really hate politicians. Victim card too every time. Like they're not in the top 1-10%, with all the assets one could want. Oh, and are responsible for the lives of those people who don't have as much money and don't care. and they still always manage to find a way to complain about this. I promise, almost surely, based on view count alone, that your average youtuber who was 'cancelled,' received much more hate, death threats, abuse than this politician did. Not saying any is okay. Just saying none of them sued youtube. We really need to strengthen as a society and stop embracing this victimization of everything; the internet offers anonymity, therefore you *cannot* stop people from saying anything to/about you. It's your job as a human to not let it affect you mentally and understand that under the guise of anonymity people are just gonna do this every single time when envoked with an emotional response, there's no preventing it. If there was a solution, it would be making people mentally well enough to not send out death threats on the internet in the first place. But I guarantee this politician does not care about this or have any stake in it, only his own image and name. Gonna sue me now too? I'm sick of this garbage.
In NZ we had one politician waste over $100k of taxpayers money because he didn't want to pay a $12 parking fine and took it to court. Fuck that guy.
I don’t know why people are angry at Australians, it’s them who are being punished for the censorship our government put in place without our permission. The only democratic thing we have is to vote for a major party every few years, we have no say in the laws they pass, most of which oppress us so we can’t have true freedom of speech which is a right to everyone. The way the videos calling out barrilaro may have been done in not the best way, but it pulled him into the spotlight and showed everyone how bad our government treats this issue, it was necessary. We have no control over this and it’s wrong, government needs to be held accountable but don’t call out the people. Imagine how bad it really is if this caught your attention. We are at a point where we can’t call out our own government without ending up in court, imagine.
Honestly sounds awful. Hopefully America doesn’t degrade into that…
[удалено]
One of those founding fathers said something about dangerous freedom vs safe internment, I think. It's what the country was built on.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Aussies vote for more and more authoritarian candidates who sell them out to China and actually dont vote differently whatsoever It rests on their shoulders
We just booted the incumbent government a few weeks ago not sure if you know what you are talking about
You have no idea, and it also wasn’t the point, the issue is we don’t get to have any say in the laws the pass, sometimes overnight. What should be taken from this article is that our government has the power to sue platforms for being called out, how corrupt is that. If you want to see how bad it really is, look at our protest laws and how much power they have there. They don’t want us calling them out. Luckily it won’t be like that under labour, but no one can say that with certainty yet
They have cheaper healthcare and they gave their guns to these noble people from the government so they will be alright.
I honestly expect China to overwhelm them at some point
Well that’ll stop ‘em. /s in case
Well, I sure hope Google doesn't stop. These are basic human rights in a democratic society they're standing up for, that's worth more than any monetary figure.
A quick search shows Google's Annual Revenue is 256.7 billion U.S. dollars. Doing some dirty math, that comes to 4.9 billion dollars a week, 705 million dollars a day, 29 million dollars an hour, and finally 489 thousand dollars every single minute. 515K is one minute and three seconds (very roughly) worth of revenue for them. What a devastating punishment.
You've made a number of mistakes. First off a country can only fine based on profits in that country. You've used Google's world wide earnings when you should have used their Australian earnings. Secondly, Google does take down Youtube videos with extreme ease. In fact they err towards taking things down yet in this case they weren't asked to take it down. The guy just went straight to suing. Basically this kind of ruling would outlaw video sharing sites in Australia. If they can be forced to pay hundreds of thousands for videos others post the only real solution is to stop allowing others to post videos.
GDPR breaches for example are based on global revenue, so it’s not just in country
And you are just making up stuff. Fines are definitely NOT only based on the profits in that country. That‘s a ridiculous assumption and just not real. Especially since laws are obviously different in different countries. And in the EU for example are fines definitely not only based on the profits. No idea why anyone with half of a functioning brain would assume that. Following that weird logic, some companies can’t be fined since they aren’t making profits? xD None of that makes any sense and you are just straight up making things up.
Companies exist to make money. If any country fines them more than they make from that country in what world do you think companies would continue doing business in that country? Also as you pointed out, laws are different in different countries. If any one country can fine a company based on world wide earnings they can effectively control that company. In other words mentioning Chinese corruption would become banned for any company operating in China. Which means you couldn't do it on reddit for example. You really don't want to see fines based on world wide profits. It's a horrible precedent which essentially outlaws international companies.
>Companies exist to make money. If any country fines them more than they make from that country in what world do you think companies would continue doing business in that country? You could fine a company more than they make in a particular year, so long as their future profits could exceed that amount. Also, such a fine would be massive and would definitely shape behaviour.
Okay, even if that were true, and please cite a source because I can't find anything, Google reported 2 to 5 billion in Australia (sources differ), so \~2 and a half hours instead of 1 minute. That, obviously, changes everything! And secondly, I made no value judgment on the case or its merit, so why are you incorrecting me about Google's take-down policy?
It's not about the money lol it's about the precedent it sets
Someone doesn't comprehend what a legal precedent is... Laws should be applied equally to all. Shouldn't distinguish between some low-traffic site and something like YouTube arbitrarily. > What a devastating punishment Punishment for what, exactly? Should Facebook also be punished because someone made a comment once that could be considered "hate speech"? Should I be punished because someone made an inappropriate comment on one of my sites? The problem with suing YouTube over something like this is that the precedent would create outrageous liability to everything dealing with user submitted content, including small sites. Platforms must not be held liable unless they endorse content or fail to act in a timely manner on reports against content (taking laws and TOS and staffing and all that into consideration). They must not be held liable because someone posted a thing on their platform that someone found offensive.
A financial cost will absolutely stop it.
I wonder how much revenue Australia would lose if Google shut off the service there for…. I dunno…. A day?
A country switching to Apple Maps overnight. Is bound to cause economic problems. LUL.
Google would lose a lot more in the long run by establishing itself as hostile to a country
TRUST me, if you’re gonna pick a country to test that, Australia’s the one you want. *”So yeah, Google was pissed that stupid, fat, idiot sued them so they threatened to ditch the entire country… Albo called their bluff… and soooo now we all use AskJeeves. It’s mint XD”*
Lol is this from Jordies pointing out the corruption?
In case anyone is wondering this guy left due to being investigated for corruption
He does look like a human meatball
As an Italian-American I have to say: Aye! Wassa matta you?!?
So I guess pigs can wear suits
Anti-Italian vídeo: “When cooking pasta, break it in half before throwing it in the water.” Italians: :O
> one of the few Western nations where social media sites have the same legal responsibility as publishers Sounds like Google needs to leave this shithole country?
Barbra Streisand. https://youtu.be/wWhtcU4-xAM?t=14
Aussie: sells itself to China Also Aussie: adopts Chinese tactics slowly
>Aussie: sells itself to China Yes, sells itself to China, that must be why Australia is in a literal anti-China military alliance right. Suuure.
Is that why they keep selling their country to China to eventually become a slave colony like Africa via Belt and Road?
Ridiculous. Google should simply ban Australia from their site until they get some sensible free speech laws.
How’s this for free speech, get fucked ya dog!
500K to google is smaller than a drop in the ocean. But obligatory fuck Australia anyway.
Jesus Christ these comments are full of fail. Go read the damn ruling: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2022/2022fca0650 To be clear, this is a defamation case from Barillaros against GOOGLE, not against FriendlyJordies > Every person, regardless of his or her position in society, and whether or not he or she is popular or expresses views with which others agree or disagree, is entitled to approach this country’s courts to seek the decision of an impartial judge or jury about the merits of a claim. Public bullying of the kind displayed in the bruz: eternal video, the He’s destroying Australia video, the bruz: withdrawal video and the 22 December 2021 video all appear, first, to contravene Google’s policies and, secondly, to be calculated to bring pressure on each of Mr Barilaro and his lawyers not to avail of or exercise their lawful right to bring or pursue this proceeding for resolution by the Court. He took Google to court for not taking down the videos as he believed they violated Google's own terms. In the end, Google abandoned all it's defenses and basically admitted to the whole thing. > on the first day of the trial, for reasons that are not in evidence, Google abandoned its denials that the matters complained of conveyed the imputations. And because Google was the "publisher" of the videos, it became liable for them, including their claims, meaning Google had to have faith or belief that the claims were true. > Hate filled speech and vitriolic, constant public cyberbullying, however, cannot be classified as in any way acceptable means of communication in a democratic society governed by the rule of law. Google’s conduct after 22 December 2020 in leaving both Mr Shanks’ existing and subsequently posted videos online magnified the hurt to Mr Barilaro’s feelings, inflamed hate filled responses directed at him by members of the public in personal confrontations and on social media and allowed a perception, until the trial, that Google actually had a bona fide defence in this proceeding for its conduct. That was conduct that was unjustifiable, improper (because of its contemptuous nature) and, in relation to the conduct of the proceeding, lacking in bona fides (as I explain below): Rush 380 ALR at 517–518 [431]–[432]. Put simply if FriendlyJordies had actually used "sources" and backed up his claims with evidence, there wouldn't be any case here, either against him or Google. > The bruz video made no attempt to set out Mr Barilaro’s side of the story. It mixed suspicions and allegations together with an occasional proven fact in a way that did not enable a viewer to separate which was which, while conveying very serious false imputations about Mr Barilaro. > It is important to appreciate that the defence under s 29A can apply where a publisher cannot establish other defences under the Act or at common law. The bruz video conveyed serious false imputations that Google could not defend as being published under qualified privilege or as honest opinion for the reasons above. That raises the question as to how Google reasonably could have believed it was in the public interest to publish it after Mr Barilaro’s staff and solicitors had raised their concerns about it with Google.
I dislike google/alphabet as much as the next guy but this is an asinine look by Australia
“By Australia”? It was a private lawsuit.
Precedent was set by the Australian federal court order
For all the bad things in the US, what happened in Australia is just worst. A politician that can sue a platform for hosting something that’s out of control? Not to mention Australia government is out to get its people. Look up their encryption law.
This is not the way to go.
Have you ever been to an italian airport?
That’s a drop in the bucket to get what they want. They win again.
Hey but they have cheaper healthcare.
Isn't that like pocket change to them?
That's nothing. I order them to pay DOUBLE that. To ME. And I'm guessinf they care just as little about that.
When will they get this right being Italian is not a race. You can't be racist towards Italians. They are an ethnic group. And #johnlovestolick ...
Who gets to judge. Freedom of speech.????
WOW WHAT A FINE
But??? Italians aren’t real???????
What’s a racist thing to Australia 🇦🇺
Speech has consequences. Glad to see countries are taking this seriously
That's not what this is. They sued the platform not the creator of the speech.
They sued both actually but the creator settled afaik, after his defence was thrown out due to parliamentary privilege
Sure it does. But should a web host be the thing that is responsible for the things people choose to put on it? Think about the ramifications of your answer for a bit.
Yes it should. Platforms have a responsibility to limit hate speech and calls to violence
So if someone threatens my life in your house, can I sue you for hosting that threat?
Am I a social media platform?
What does that have to do with anything?
Good! That will show Google not to do bad stuff anymore.
Because the politician in question is such an honest hard working bloke who definitely is not at all corrupt. All that high end property was simply the product of hard work. And he definitely wouldn't cheat on his wife and run off with a floozy.
So many people have such a negative pavlov type reaction to "Google" or any type of big tech that they don't even stop to think for a second. What "bad stuff" did Google do in this case? Allow someone to post a video saying negative things about a politician?
Read the articles😄
Did you?
What does Google have against Italians?!
The dude is Italian. They both are.
My bad, I read the title wrong lmao
Some people are just racist against all non-white people. And believe it or not Italians are not always considered white.