Fake News in Footy

[Ethan Tremblay 28,661]

Just now, daisycutter said:

but arguably they haven't been expeditious or coopertive on many occasions and have been difficult on issues of disclosure. Where they have complied it has been more through overt pressure and threats than any particular legal regulation. I'm not saying they should be instantly liable for any 3rd party content but their needs to be more legally binding regulations to spell out their responsibilities and liabilities when certain content is published on their sites

Completely agree.

[Diamond_Jim 12,065]

53 minutes ago, Demonland said:

That was the point I was making. I worry that I can potentially be sued if a user of my site makes defamatory comments on this site. Is Facebook not also potentially liable if that same user makes those same defamatory comments on Facebook?

A few forums that I used to contribute to in Asia have closed and then re-appeared on Facebook for the very reason you suggest.

As a positive your moderation policy seems to work very well.

Originally the argument for facebook was that it was a simple platform akin to a blank page. With their aggressive use of channelling algorithms it is obvious that they are now far more.

As an aside I was reading articles recently saying that Facebook is no longer as popular amongst the young. One of the reasons given was that millennials had no desire to share their life with their parents!!

Edited March 16, 2018 by Diamond_Jim

[daisycutter 28,709]

25 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Completely agree.

at the moment in western countries it is a bit of a free for all. there is uncertainty as far as the law goes. in the future the internet will be even more king of communications than it is now. fta and satellite tv will be virtually dead, as will printed media. it will all (mostly) be moved to the lawless (currently) internet. There must be huge legislative changes globally coming. What they will be who knows, and it will be a moving target for some time. moderate or draconian, is anyone's guess, but it's definitely going to happen. 

Edited March 16, 2018 by daisycutter
spellink

[Demonland 66,676]

4 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

A few forums that I used to contribute to in Asia have closed and then re-appeared on Facebook for the very reason you suggest.

As a positive your moderation policy seems to work very well.

My policy has always been that if I, or the moderating team, think something is borderline then we take it off. Even if technically it's not libelous or defamatory I err on the side of caution and if the user isn't happy about that then I don't care. I'm covering my arse first.

[daisycutter 28,709]

big footy would be in more trouble than us. they even have a rumours sub board which gets quite libellous and seems unmoderated

[DaveyDee 421]

3 hours ago, Demonland said:

My policy has always been that if I, or the moderating team, think something is borderline then we take it off. Even if technically it's not libelous or defamatory I err on the side of caution and if the user isn't happy about that then I don't care. I'm covering my arse first.

Good policy just never get sick & if you have a “private” message system disable it

[Nasher 33,187]

9 hours ago, Demonland said:

My policy has always been that if I, or the moderating team, think something is borderline then we take it off. Even if technically it's not libelous or defamatory I err on the side of caution and if the user isn't happy about that then I don't care. I'm covering my arse first.

Yep, this.  This is the attitude previous forums I have experienced use too.  And it's amazing how the more experienced you get, the less sensitive you get to complaints about hard moderating styles.  "You don't think I should have deleted that post? Well I did. Oh well". "Oh, you posted it again after I deleted it? I deleted it again, and banned you for making me waste my time deleting it twice. Oh well."

[Binmans PA 26,595]

I wouldn't really label AFL journalism fake news TBH. Sports journalists are certainly guilty of hyperbole and sensationalism, but it's more the overly positive and blue sky reporting of the club websites. But then, why would the official club websites report internal problems? It makes more sense for clubs to deal with issues internally and use their articles to excite and attract fans.

But knowing this, I treat all MFC media and generally most AFL reporting, as puff pieces.

Edited March 16, 2018 by A F

[DaveyDee 421]

Knew it was only a matter of time 

https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/04/23/16/30/eddie-mcguire-fake-news-erectile-dysfunction-facebook

Sounds like Eddie is out to sue somebody - wonder what Facebook will do. 

“McGuire said he believed Facebook had a "duty of care"

Interesting! 

Edited April 23, 2018 by DaveyDee