Connect with us

SOCIAL

Australian High Court Ruling Could See Media Outets Held Legally Accountable for their Facebook Posts

Published

on

australian high court ruling could see media outets held legally accountable for their facebook posts

A new legal ruling could have major implications for how news content is shared online, and ensuring less sensationalism in Facebook posts, specifically, which have been designed to trigger maximum response.

Last week, the Australian High Court upheld a ruling which, in some circumstances, could see Australian media outlets held liable for user comments left on their respective Facebook Pages.

The finding has sparked a new range of concerns around potentially limiting journalistic free speech, and impeding reporting capacity. But the complexity of the case goes deeper than the initial headline. Yes, the High Court ruling does provide more scope for media outlets to be held legally accountable for comments made on their social media pages, but the full nuance of the ruling is more specifically aimed at ensuring incendiary posts are not being shared with the clear intent of baiting comments and shares.

The case stems from an investigation in 2016, which found that inmates of a youth detention center in Darwin had been severely mistreated, even tortured, during their confinement. Within the subsequent media coverage of the incident, some outlets had sought to provide more context on the victims of this torture, with a handful of publications singling out the criminal records of said victims as an alternate narrative in the case.

One of the former inmates, Dylan Voller, claims that the subsequent media depictions of him were both incorrect and defamatory, which lead to Voller seeking legal damages for the published claims. Voller himself had become the focus of several articles, including a pierce in The Australian headlined “Dylan Voller’s list of jailhouse incidents tops 200”, which highlighted the many wrongs Voller had reportedly committed that had lead to his incarceration.

The case as it relates to Facebook comments, specifically, came about when these reports were republished to the Facebook Pages of the outlets in question. The core of Voller’s argument is that the framing of these articles, within Facebook posts specifically, prompted negative comments from users of the platform, which Voller’s defense team has argued was designed to provoke more comments and engagement on these posts, and therefore garner more reach within Facebook’s algorithm.

Advertisement

As such, the essence of the case boils down to a critical point – it’s not that publications can now be sued for people’s comments on their Facebook posts, in simplified terms, but it relates to how the content is framed in such posts, and whether there can be a definitive link shown between the Facebook post itself, and whether that has lured defamatory comments, and community perception, which can harm an individual (it’s not clear that the same regulations would extend to an entity, as such).

Indeed, in the original case notes, Voller’s legal team argued that the publications in question:

“Should have known that there was a “significant risk of defamatory observations” after posting, partly due to the nature of the articles”

As such, the complexities here extend far beyond the topline finding that publishers can now be sued for comments posted to their Facebook Page, because the real impetus here is that those publishing any content to Facebook on behalf of a media publisher need to be more careful in the actual wording of their posts. Because if subsequent defamatory comments can be linked back to the post itself, and the publisher is then found to have incited such response, then legal action can be sought.

In other words, publishers can re-share whatever they like, so long as they remain aligned to the facts, and don’t look to share intentionally incendiary social media posts around any such incident.

Case in point, here’s another article published by The Australian on the Dylan Voller case, which, as you can imagine, has also attracted a long list of critical and negative remarks.

Advertisement
Facebook post from The Australian

But the post itself is not defamatory, it’s merely stating the facts – it’s a quote from an MP, and there’s no direct evidence to suggest that the publisher has sought to bait Facebook users into commenting based on the article shared.

Which is the real point in question here – the ruling puts more onus on publishers to consider the framing of their Facebook posts as a means to lure comments. If the publisher is seen to be inciting negative comments, then they can be held liable for such – but there has to be definitive evidence to show both damages to the individual and intent within their social media post, specifically, not the linked article, which could then lead to prosecution.

Which may actually be a better way to go. Over the past decade, media incentives have been altered so significantly by online algorithms because of the clear benefit for publishers to share anger-inducing, emotionally charged headlines in order to spark comments and shares, which then ensures maximum reach.

That’s extended to misinterpretations, half-truths and downright lies in order to trigger that user response, and if there’s a way that publishers can be held accountable for such, that seems like a beneficial approach, as opposed to proposed reforms to Section 230 laws in the US which would more severely limit press freedoms.

Again, this ruling relates to Facebook posts specifically, and the wording of such being designed to trigger emotional response in order to lure engagement. Proving a definitive link between a Facebook update and any personal damages will still remain difficult, as it is in all cases of defamation. But maybe, this finding will prompt Facebook Page managers at media outlets to be more factual in their updates, as opposed to comment-baiting to trigger algorithm reach.

As such, while it does open up media outlets to increased liability, it could actually be a path forward for instituting more factual reporting, and holding publishers to account for triggering online mob attacks based on their angling of a case.

Because it’s clear that this is happening – the best way to attract comments and shares on Facebook is to trigger emotional reaction, which then prompts people to comment, share, etc.

Advertisement

If a Facebook post is found to be clearly prompting such, and that can cause reputational damage, that seems like a positive step – though inevitably it does come with increased risk for social media managers.  

Socialmediatoday.com

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

SOCIAL

Snapchat Explores New Messaging Retention Feature: A Game-Changer or Risky Move?

Published

on

By

Snapchat Explores New Messaging Retention Feature: A Game-Changer or Risky Move?

In a recent announcement, Snapchat revealed a groundbreaking update that challenges its traditional design ethos. The platform is experimenting with an option that allows users to defy the 24-hour auto-delete rule, a feature synonymous with Snapchat’s ephemeral messaging model.

The proposed change aims to introduce a “Never delete” option in messaging retention settings, aligning Snapchat more closely with conventional messaging apps. While this move may blur Snapchat’s distinctive selling point, Snap appears convinced of its necessity.

According to Snap, the decision stems from user feedback and a commitment to innovation based on user needs. The company aims to provide greater flexibility and control over conversations, catering to the preferences of its community.

Currently undergoing trials in select markets, the new feature empowers users to adjust retention settings on a conversation-by-conversation basis. Flexibility remains paramount, with participants able to modify settings within chats and receive in-chat notifications to ensure transparency.

Snapchat underscores that the default auto-delete feature will persist, reinforcing its design philosophy centered on ephemerality. However, with the app gaining traction as a primary messaging platform, the option offers users a means to preserve longer chat histories.

The update marks a pivotal moment for Snapchat, renowned for its disappearing message premise, especially popular among younger demographics. Retaining this focus has been pivotal to Snapchat’s identity, but the shift suggests a broader strategy aimed at diversifying its user base.

Advertisement

This strategy may appeal particularly to older demographics, potentially extending Snapchat’s relevance as users age. By emulating features of conventional messaging platforms, Snapchat seeks to enhance its appeal and broaden its reach.

Yet, the introduction of message retention poses questions about Snapchat’s uniqueness. While addressing user demands, the risk of diluting Snapchat’s distinctiveness looms large.

As Snapchat ventures into uncharted territory, the outcome of this experiment remains uncertain. Will message retention propel Snapchat to new heights, or will it compromise the platform’s uniqueness?

Only time will tell.

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

SOCIAL

Catering to specific audience boosts your business, says accountant turned coach

Published

on

Catering to specific audience boosts your business, says accountant turned coach

While it is tempting to try to appeal to a broad audience, the founder of alcohol-free coaching service Just the Tonic, Sandra Parker, believes the best thing you can do for your business is focus on your niche. Here’s how she did just that.

When running a business, reaching out to as many clients as possible can be tempting. But it also risks making your marketing “too generic,” warns Sandra Parker, the founder of Just The Tonic Coaching.

“From the very start of my business, I knew exactly who I could help and who I couldn’t,” Parker told My Biggest Lessons.

Parker struggled with alcohol dependence as a young professional. Today, her business targets high-achieving individuals who face challenges similar to those she had early in her career.

“I understand their frustrations, I understand their fears, and I understand their coping mechanisms and the stories they’re telling themselves,” Parker said. “Because of that, I’m able to market very effectively, to speak in a language that they understand, and am able to reach them.” 

“I believe that it’s really important that you know exactly who your customer or your client is, and you target them, and you resist the temptation to make your marketing too generic to try and reach everyone,” she explained.

Advertisement



“If you speak specifically to your target clients, you will reach them, and I believe that’s the way that you’re going to be more successful.

Watch the video for more of Sandra Parker’s biggest lessons.

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

SOCIAL

Instagram Tests Live-Stream Games to Enhance Engagement

Published

on

Instagram Tests Live-Stream Games to Enhance Engagement

Instagram’s testing out some new options to help spice up your live-streams in the app, with some live broadcasters now able to select a game that they can play with viewers in-stream.

As you can see in these example screens, posted by Ahmed Ghanem, some creators now have the option to play either “This or That”, a question and answer prompt that you can share with your viewers, or “Trivia”, to generate more engagement within your IG live-streams.

That could be a simple way to spark more conversation and interaction, which could then lead into further engagement opportunities from your live audience.

Meta’s been exploring more ways to make live-streaming a bigger consideration for IG creators, with a view to live-streams potentially catching on with more users.

That includes the gradual expansion of its “Stars” live-stream donation program, giving more creators in more regions a means to accept donations from live-stream viewers, while back in December, Instagram also added some new options to make it easier to go live using third-party tools via desktop PCs.

Live streaming has been a major shift in China, where shopping live-streams, in particular, have led to massive opportunities for streaming platforms. They haven’t caught on in the same way in Western regions, but as TikTok and YouTube look to push live-stream adoption, there is still a chance that they will become a much bigger element in future.

Advertisement



Which is why IG is also trying to stay in touch, and add more ways for its creators to engage via streams. Live-stream games is another element within this, which could make this a better community-building, and potentially sales-driving option.

We’ve asked Instagram for more information on this test, and we’ll update this post if/when we hear back.

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

Trending

Follow by Email
RSS