A judge has ruled media are liable for defamatory comments on their Facebook Pages. The decision hinges on suggestion *all* comments can be hidden & premoderated. THEY CAN NOT BE. I'll explain why not, how Fbk comments work… and tell you a secret about FB comments. A THREAD
/1

The only thing I'm trying to explain here is what is technically possible in managing Fbk comments. I'm not arguing they shouldn't be managed, or that media should get a free pass. This potentially affects any business in the world with a Facebook Page, and Fbk is responsible
/2

First, the full text of the ruling is here buff.ly/2Nzy7AP Key assertion is that it's possible to "block all comments totally", "hide all comments" in a way that "no comments could ever be made or seen" or "forbid all comments by others" on a Fbk Pg. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE
/3

Let's start with the fundamentals. No owner of a public Fbk Pg in the world* can opt to turn off comments. Fbk Groups have more controls & comments can be turned off there, but Fbk doesn't provide those tools for public Pages*

*Stick with this thread for an unforeseen twist!
/4

OK, so what does judge mean by 'hide' comments? In the settings of any Fbk Pg you can add keywords to a moderation list. Comments with those keywords will be hidden, but remain visible to the commenter, all of their Facebook friends and Page admins. That list looks like this:
/5

Ok great, defamation be gone! Fixed, right? Not even close. Now we need to explain why the suggested keyword solution* DOES NOT WORK. Why can't you block all, hide all or forbid all comments on a Facebook Page (apart from the fact Fbk doesn't allow it)?
/6

*it's not a solution

The keyword filter solution* is faulty on several levels. 1) it can never stop all comments; 2) it only applies to text comments, it can never catch images, and; 3) it still allows some members of public to view the comments, meaning they're not even fully hidden in 1st place
/7

1) It can never stop all comments. Ruling says if "all pronouns; the definite and indefinite articles; and all conjunctions and prepositions" were added to the keyword filter, the Fbk Pg owner "is able to hide all comments, pending the monitoring of such comments". NOT TRUE
/8

1st of all, people don't always write fully formed comments that include those words, they also post single word comments. Accidental misspellings, or intentionally adding characters to replace text – like pa3dophile – would instantly bypass keyword filters.
/9

'Why not just make sure all possible permutations are included in the keyword filter?' Try to imagine all possible defamatory words, potential misspellings AND intentional character replacements. Oh & I didn't tell you, Facebook's keyword filter has a 10,000 character limit.
/10

2) The keyword filter solution* ONLY applies to text. People can, and do, post pictures or gifs as comment replies. And those picture comment posts can be, and have been, defamatory. The keyword filter solution* can NEVER stop those.
/11

*it's not a solution

3) Even if a comment is hidden by keyword filter, it's still visible to the commenter & all their Fbk friends. If the defamed party is a Fbk friend, their entire community or circle of friends can all still see the defamatory comment & the filter has achieved precisely zero.
/12

I'll come back to explain why 3) is particularly problematic, but the practical outworking of points 1, 2 and 3 is this: comments CAN NOT be premoderated to be "blocked in advance" so that "no comments could ever be made or seen and the process cannot be reversed"
/13

Remember how I said Fbk Pg owners can't turn off comments? Keep it in your mind as we continue. Facebook DOES NOT ALLOW Pages to turn off comments. If this ruling is the new legal standard, be very clear that it's Facebook that doesn't allow Page owners to comply with the law
/14

The option to have complete control over comment management, in order to comply with the law, is not provided by Facebook. Now that we've explained why it's not possible to block all, hide all or forbid all comments totally using the keyword filter, this is why it matters👇

/15

The only way you can argue a Fbk Pg owner can definitely premoderate comments & thereby hold them legally liable for comments posted, is by ensuring they are in control of tools that provide a failsafe, 100% ironclad guarantee of hiding any & ALL comments now or in the future
/16

That is the only way you can argue 'and thus your Fbk Pg allows you to vet comments in advance'. If even ONE comment gets through – not even a defamatory comment, any comment – the entire argument that Fbk Pg owners are in control of comments on their Page falls apart.
/17

Pro tip: COMMENTS CAN GET THROUGH. Which means a keyword filter, the ONLY method available to Fbk Pg owners, and suggested by the ruling as a legally effective way to premoderate defamatory comments, DOES NOT WORK.
/18

It's simply not possible to hide all Facebook comments & premoderate them. As much as anyone would like it to be true, it is a technical impossibility. Fbk Pg owners across the world (not just media, any business with a Fbk Pg) can't guarantee they can premoderate comments…
/19

…which proves Fbk Pg owners DON'T have full control over comments. Facebook both forces Page owners to accept defamatory comments AND refuses to provide the tools that would allow them to comply with the law. Refuses? Well…not for everyone. Here comes the Facebook reveal
/20

🚨🚨 Facebook DOES have the tools that allow Fbk Page owners to turn off comments on posts, has had them since at least 2016, and has given that functionality to one specific industry to make it easier for them to comply with US law. Pharma:

/21 statnews.com/2016/11/01/fac…

Why would they do that? From that story in a health industry publication: "All these new features could send pharma spending on social media skyrocketing". Facebook even created a new team in 2015 to specifically work with drug companies

/22
statnews.com/2016/11/01/fac…

So what was the outworking of that? A Facebook Health client partner & Bayer's associate director of marketing presented, together, at a pharma industry conference to unveil Bayer's new Facebook ad using a new scrolling safety information ISI format.

/23
fiercepharma.com/marketing/baye…

And the Fbk Pg mentioned in that story facebook.com/BETASERON/ has no Comments or Reactions (Likes) on any post. ie COMMENTS HAVE BEEN TURNED OFF.

🚨☝️Facebook has tools to allow any Pg owner in the world to be in full control of comments. It does not provide them 🚨

/24

I'm explaining this at length because even @ABCmediawatch got it wrong in last week's segment on the ruling, when @TheRealPBarry declared Pages can hide comments or block them entirely & the judge's solution would work abc.net.au/mediawatch/epi…

/25

I see how #MediaWatch could get it wrong, but they should hold themselves to the same accuracy they demand from the media. As @TheRealPBarry would say, did @ABCmediawatch do enough to ensure their reporting was accurate? I don't think so.

/26

https://twitter.com/TheRealPBarry/status/1145663744405430273

To come back to a few points – there's been quite a lot of suggestion that this somehow only affects 'outrage' media, which is both bizarre & naive. Have you seen Fbk comments on posts about Indigenous issues, women's rights or Rosie Batty? Here's just one real world example👇

The @ballaratcourier posted a story about a local trans member of the community. They eventually had to delete the Fbk post because of the comments, which included DEATH THREATS. buff.ly/2XtPNOc

The @ballaratcourier isn't 'outrage media' posting that to "excite comments". NOBODY should consider it reasonable that ANY post abt trans, gay, Indigenous, #MeToo or any other issues can be "expected to excite adverse comment" (a quote from the ruling)

Never posting because of that is a VERY dark road. If anyone (not just media) feels it's safer to avoid comments by never posting abt ANY *potentially* controversial topic, those issues disappear from public square & are again made invisible, taboo, pushed into shadows & hidden

I was also going to come back to point 3) and we can relate it to the @ballaratcourier example. When a comment is hidden, it's still visible to the commenter & all their Fbk friends. Ballarat has a population of ~110k people. The @ballaratcourier Facebook Page has 52k fans
/31

They won't all live in Ballarat, but a significant portion will. There are enough connections there that simply hiding a comment on the @ballaratcourier Fbk Pg is extremely unlikely to satisfy the legal requirement of hiding all comments by default.
/32

The point of this admittedly long thread was that no Fbk Pg owner in world controls comments. Facebook does. If the law is going to require pre-moderation, fine, but it's Facebook's responsibility to activate the tools THEY HAVE that will allow Pages to comply with the law
/33

I didn't link in thread to any stories explaining this, so will add a few to read as background. This by @JustinianNews was just published.

Lawyers are now free to cherrypick defamatory Facebook comments, looking for nuggets of gold | Richard Ackland buff.ly/2NOxe7U

Here's one of the early news pieces from decision 2wks ago, with comment from @paulgordon.

Media companies scramble after judge rules they are liable for Facebook comments buff.ly/2NEX1PI

And some analysis.

Has an Australian judge just broken Facebook for publishers? buff.ly/2NOuOWu