Wondering about Australian anti-trolling laws for social media

[Melbourne Guy]

News just in: Australia will introduce legislation requiring social media companies to reveal anonymous users who post defamatory comments.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46751 has generally allowed US-based internet companies to avoid consequences for user posted content, and unlike PF, the larger ones appear to have gone all in on the 'anything goes' ethos, with much commentary about how this unfettered diatribe has led to a tragedy of the commons.

We are starting to see legislative / regulator push back to this seeming Wild West paradigm, and while I feel there should be mechanisms to minimise harm when using these platforms, I was hoping for the perspective of PF moderators who face into these issues on a daily basis.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...dia-companies-reveal-anonymous-trolls-2021-11

 

[Hornbein]

"the larger ones appear to have gone all in on the 'anything goes' ethos,"

Rife with censorship, I would say.

 

[Astronuc]

I was hoping for the perspective of PF moderators who face into these issues on a daily basis.

Participants at PF agree to adhere to certain standards of conduct in consideration for participation. If one violates that agreement (contract), then one is subject to 'demerits' or a warning. Accumulation of a certain number of demerits may result in a temporary suspension of one's privilege to participate at PF, or a permanent ban.

In the US, there are 50 states and various territories, and many county and municipal governments, each with their own laws regarding 'public nuisance' or 'disturbing the peace'.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_nuisance
A public nuisance generally refers to any conduct that interferes with the rights of the public. The precise definition of public nuisance often varies by state and is embodied in civil and criminal statutes.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/disturbing-the-peace.html
Laws exist that make it a crime to create a public disruption or commotion. These laws vary from state to state, but they typically prohibit:

• Fighting or challenging someone to fight in a public place;
• Using offensive words in a public place likely to incite violence;
• Shouting in a public place intending to incite violence or unlawful activity;
• Bullying a student on or near school grounds;
• Knocking loudly on hotel doors of sleeping guests with the purpose of annoying them;
• Holding an unlawful public assembly;
• Shouting profanities out of a car window in front of a person's home over an extended period of time;
• Allowing excessive dog barking in a residential area; and
• Intentionally playing loud music during the night that continues, even after a fair warning.

PF has a list of guidelines, including a list of offensive behaviors. PF moderators/mentors do their best to keep the peace and ensure folks adhere to the guidelines to which they agreed in consideration for participation at PF.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/

 

[strangerep]

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/disturbing-the-peace.html
Laws exist that make it a crime to create a public disruption or commotion. These laws vary from state to state, but they typically prohibit:

• Bullying a student on or near school grounds

So,... bullying a student far from school grounds is not "disturbing the peace"??

 

[Melbourne Guy]

Participants at PF agree to adhere to certain standards of conduct in consideration for participation.

Most social media sites have similar terms of service, @Astronuc, but PF seems more consistent in enforcing them. Perhaps, being focused on a constrained set of topics makes this simpler? Because, surely, it would be less effort for the site owners (or moderators) to just ignore anything but the most flagrant violations, knowing that discord generates conflict engagement which generates advertising revenue.

In the US, there are 50 states and various territories, and many county and municipal governments, each with their own laws regarding 'public nuisance' or 'disturbing the peace'.

What the Australian thesis seems to be is that such laws are not working to protect participants. Do you feel these laws are effective in the United States?

Rife with censorship, I would say.

Most reports I've seen refute that the larger platforms systematically censor anyone, @Hornbein, and the claims of anti-conservative bias appear prior to the last US election seem not to be true. But my research may be out of date, so I'd be interested in references to update my understanding.

 

[Hornbein]

surely, it would be less effort for the site owners (or moderators) to just ignore anything but the most flagrant violations, knowing that discord generates conflict engagement which generates advertising revenue.

That is how it was for quite some time. Then Congress called in Zuckerberg and threatened him with making his company liable for content. There was a major, sudden change in practice.

I will be taking no position about whether these actions are legal, justified, and/or desirable. My intent is to offer evidence that censorship is rife. Nowadays we see:

China CENSORS CNN's Coverage Of Peng Shuai, YouTube DEMONETIZES Breaking Points Video .

The President of the United States had his Twitter account revoked.

Google and Apple have complete control over which programs may be run on your smartphone. The social media company Parler was almost entirely forced off of the Internet.

Apple has asserted the right to search all of your iPhone files and report the result to the police if they see fit. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58109748

Over and over again I see the argument that since these are private companies they can do as they please. But the government quite publicly coerced them into these actions in the Zuckerberg hearings. Congress threatened to change the law to make them liable for content, so the companies began to "voluntarily" censor. These seems to me a legal fig leaf. If you find this puzzling kindly consult some Renaissance paintings of nudes.

On a personal scale, a friend of mine had her Facebook account revoked for distributing anti-vax opinions to her friends.

I myself used to distribute dance videos to Youtube. Recently I got tired of continually having some robot accuse me of violating community standards and threatening me with having my account suspended or deleted. For a while I was completely baffled as to what the problems could be.* Youtube will not tell you why they do what they do. Eventually I figured out that once it was for using the word "screwdriver." Another time it was having Astronomy Domine in the title. I always won on appeal to a human but when I'm trying to have fun I do not care to deal with threats. This new robot censorship was so random that I stopped posting out of fear of having my 300+ videos deleted for no good reason.

I could give many other examples but that is enough. I am taking no position about whether these actions are legal, justified, and/or desirable, and do not care to debate any such things. My point is that censorship is rife.
----
*Youtube's threats had nothing to do with copyright. Youtube is quite effective at detecting copyrighted material before distributing a video. If any of the material is copyrighted then the copyright holder can opt to accrue all the ad money. 90% of the time that was their choice. 9% of the time they disallowed distribution. About 1% of the time they chose to have Youtube yank the video and inflict a mild punishment. In my experience the latter are small time operators unwilling to pay Youtube for the first two options so they do their own policing.

 

[Melbourne Guy]

There's a lot to unpack there, @Hornbein, more than I've got time to work through this evening Down Under. But I will say that I don't think there's ever been any doubt that China censors its citizens, so that seems a false flag in the context of the proposed Australian social media law. And you can side-load Android apps, though not Apple without jail-breaking the OS.

I'm not sure that's censorship though, because - notionally - there are clear rules app authors have to abide by, and on the same basis, any rule that restricts behaviour can be construed as censorship. Which is technically correct, but also the definition of society, I'd have thought?

Anyway, I appreciate your extended reply, I'll mull it over because your position is nuanced.

 

[Astronuc]

Most social media sites have similar terms of service, @Astronuc, but PF seems more consistent in enforcing them. Perhaps, being focused on a constrained set of topics makes this simpler? Because, surely, it would be less effort for the site owners (or moderators) to just ignore anything but the most flagrant violations, knowing that discord generates conflict engagement which generates advertising revenue.

The policy at PF has evolved over the years, but as far as I know, it was/is a friendly, welcoming place where members/participants could share an interest in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). The owner/administrator ( @Greg Bernhardt ) established the policy and the moderators/mentors, who are STEM professionals and educators support the policy. We acknowledge disagreement, but discourage conflict. If conflict was disencouraged, many of us would go elsewhere. However, many of us find a community of folks at PF with much the same appreciation for science and Nature, and understanding of Nature (physics).

What the Australian thesis seems to be is that such laws are not working to protect participants. Do you feel these laws are effective in the United States?

I think the challenge with the larger social media platforms is the larger population involved. Clearly there are portions of the population that have strongly disparate opinions on a variety of matters, often involving political and religious themes. PF had a discussion forum on current events and politics, but closed it because of the conflict. Similarly, on climate change, or rather specifically anthropogenic global warming, PF had to restrict discussion due to heated conflict. PF also restricts/prohibits expressions of personal theories or personal opinions on science, especially theories/opinions based on misunderstanding or false premises. Finally, PF prohibits misinformation/disinformation.

Reiterating from the PF Global Guidelines

Short Summary:
Most of the guidelines are common sense and basic courtesy. Other special guidelines are the following:

• We wish to discuss mainstream science. That means only topics that can be found in textbooks or that have been published in reputable journals.
• Homework must be posted in the homework forums and an attempt must always be provided. Furthermore, one must use the homework template.
• Full solutions to a homework problem should never be given until after the questioner has arrived at a correct solution. Only hints and explanations are allowed.
• Be civil, productive and aim for high quality of participation.

Mission Statement:
Our mission is to provide a place for people (whether students, professional scientists, or others interested in science) to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community. As our name suggests, our main focus is on physics, but we also have forums for most other academic areas including engineering, chemistry, biology, social sciences, etc.PF offers members/participants a unique forum and essentially access to tutors and academics that one might find at a university, and as such, is an invaluable resource. That staff are dedicated to ensuring that.

 

[Astronuc]

So,... bullying a student far from school grounds is not "disturbing the peace"??

I suspect 'on or near schoolgrounds' has to do with jurisdiction of the government, or school board, or local ordinance. Away from school, it is a matter of citizens to intervene, or otherwise, notify the authorities/police, and for the police to take appropriate action. There are plenty of local ordinances that would apply to such behavior. If not, it's up to member of the community to establish local ordinances.

 

[phinds]

We acknowledge disagreement, but discourage conflict. If conflict was discouraged, many of us would go elsewhere.

I think you meant "If conflict was ENcouraged ..."

 

[phinds]

I suspect 'on or near schoolgrounds' has to do with jurisdiction of the government, or school board, or local ordinance. Away from school, it is a matter of citizens to intervene, or otherwise, notify the authorities/police, and for the police to take appropriate action. There are plenty of local ordinances that would apply to such behavior. If not, it's up to member of the community to establish local ordinances.

 

[Astronuc]

I think you meant "If conflict was ENcouraged ..."

Thank you for the correction. Yes, I meant that. Otherwise, the negative, "If conflict wasn't discouraged, . . . . "

 

[Keith_McClary]

Here are the sponsors of "independent" ASPI:

 

[Melbourne Guy]

Sorry, @Keith_McClary, I am missing the linkage of your post? Was the ASPI the instigator of the anti-trolling concept?

 

[sysprog]

Google and Apple have complete control over which programs may be run on your smartphone.

I think that they are rather bossy, but Android is open source $-$ if you don't like what 'they' write, you can write your own . . . https://cs.android.com/android/platform/superproject/

 

[Keith_McClary]

Was the ASPI the instigator of the anti-trolling concept?

Maybe they have a different definition of "troll":


It seems to mean anything the government doesn't like.

 

[Melbourne Guy]

It seems to mean anything the government doesn't like.

I'm not really seeing the 'big reveal' in your post, @Keith_McClary. Which 'government' are you referring to? And do you think the identity of trolls should be exposed...or not exposed?

 

[Keith_McClary]

do you think the identity of trolls should be exposed...or not exposed?

What exactly is the definition of "troll" and who decides if you are a "troll" ? They say it is about protecting women and children, but will it be used by politicians or corporations to punish their critics?

 

[sysprog]

What exactly is the definition of "troll" and who decides if you are a "troll" ? They say it is about protecting women and children, but will it be used by politicians or corporations to punish their critics?

The new law seems incautiously overly censorious to me, and I agree that the term 'troll' is at best poorly defined; furthermore, with VPNs and proxies and such available, it's not really especially difficult to avoid being reliably identified.

 

[Melbourne Guy]

What exactly is the definition of "troll" and who decides if you are a "troll" ?

If we put this definition aside, @Keith_McClary (and also @sysprog), the intent as I understand it is to unmask anonymity for the purpose of legal investigation into posts that are sufficiently inappropriate as to cause emotional and mental harm.

I note that PF encourages users to register using pseudonyms, but from the "Physics Forum Privacy Policy":

The only purposes of member accounts are to differentiate the posts of one member from those of another (i.e. so that our software will indicate that "Alice" posted one message, while "Bob" posted another) and to prevent anonymous spam.

In my mind, 'anonymous spam' is essentially what the law is attempting to defend against, and the validity - and practicality - of such defense is the heart of my question. Is there a justifiable reason why people should be shielded online from the consequences of behaviour that would see them arrested in the street?

 

[Rive]

Australia will introduce legislation requiring social media companies to reveal anonymous users who post defamatory comments.

While the notion is right, there are some worrisome parts there:

Once a complaint is filed, the company must provide victims with information about the anonymous user so that they can pursue legal action against them

Do I take it right that there is a hint of no legal control there? That feels like a real concern. The described system would provide private information without anybody actually overseeing the process and decide if the offense is real or not, requires/allows legal action or not?

I know that my point of view regarding human notions is often negative (as I see: realistic, that is), but this (in this form) would rather make rise of a different kind of trolling than vanquish it.

That's just outright stupid, by my opinion at least. Could somebody please confirm how this would really work?

 

[Melbourne Guy]

Do I take it right that there is a hint of no legal control there?

That's possible, @Rive, we're seeing subversion of legal controls on legislative regulations in many examples, but I don't think this is finalised yet, and that's a typical point of challenge as the details are revealed. Sadly, Down Under is not unique in this, it seems to have become an incumbent governmental playbook the world over.