Response 20519956

Back to Response listing

Introduction / Questions about you

What is your name?

Name
Maria

Who are you making this submission for?

Please select one item
(Required)
Myself
Another person
Organisation (including Commonwealth, state, territory or local government agency)

If answered ‘individual’: what interest or background do you have in the Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill?

Please select all that apply
I work for a social media provider
I work for a digital platform which is not a social media provider
I otherwise work in the media industry
I am a legal practitioner
I am an academic
I am a concerned citizen
I am a government employee

What is your organisation?

Organisation
NA

This organisation is a:

Something else:
NA

Which state or territory do you normally live in? If you are making this submission for an organisation—which state or territory is your organisation based in?

Location
Please select one item
ACT
NSW
VIC
TAS
SA
WA
NT
QLD
Outside of Australia

What is your postcode?

Postcode
Redacted text

Do you want your submission to be public?

Making your submission public

Please select one item
(Required)
I agree to my submission being made public under my name
I agree to my submission being made public anonymously
I do not want my submission to be made public

Options for providing your views

Do you have a document you would like to upload as your submission on the Bill?

Please select one item
(Required)
Yes
No

The objectives of the Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill

Addressing the implications of the Voller decision

Please select one item
To a very large extent
To a large extent
To a moderate extent
To a small extent
To a very small extent
Not at all
Why did you provide this answer?
It doesn’t solve the issue at hand, people will always find a way to troll. People will find ways around this bill such as using a VPN. Free speech is a basic right and this would be taking it away.

Supporting complainants of defamatory content online

Please select one item
To a very large extent
To a large extent
To a moderate extent
To a small extent
To a very small extent
Not at all
Why did you provide this answer?
Again, individuals will always find a way around it. People will just start saying things with their names attached, or will invest in VPN and other services. This doesn’t solve anything, just providing more problems

Part 1 of the Bill – “Introduction"

This question relates to the definition of ‘relevant contact details’ in clause 6.

Please select one item
Yes—though more information is provided than would be required to institute proceedings
Yes—the information provided is sufficient to institute proceedings
No—the information provided would not be sufficient to institute proceedings
Unsure
Why have you provided this answer?
These methods rely on the individual providing correct information to the social media. People can always make another email account or buy another SIM card. Furthermore, it would make it incredibly difficult to identify possible victims of identity theft.

To what extent is it practical to require a social media provider to have access to relevant contact information (name, email address and phone number), in order to meet the requirements in the Bill?

Please select one item
To a very large extent
To a large extent
To a moderate extent
To a small extent
To a very small extent
Not at all
Unsure
Why have you provided this answer?
I am assuming social media platforms would withdraw access from Australian citizens to their site, as it would be extremely difficult to change the platform to meet one countries requirements. Furthermore, it would be difficult to seperate work from private life, many people would have accounts removed to adhere to the requirements of the bill.

Do you have any other comments or concerns about any issues arising out of Part 1?

It is removing peoples right to free speech. It can cause people who would prefer to stay anonymous online to suddenly be exposed to the world, possibly putting them in dangerous situations. For example, someone who belongs in the LGBTQIA+ community

Part 2 of the Bill – “Liability”

Is it appropriate for individuals and organisations to be protected from potential defamation liability for comments made on their social media pages by others, as set out in the Bill?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Why have you provided this answer?
Because people have the right for free speech. Furthermore, this bill would provide a platform for individuals to take advantage of others, falsely claiming defamation as they took personal offence to what was being said.

Would it be appropriate to also protect individuals and organisations from potential defamation liability for comments made by others on their website or other digital platform that is not social media?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Why have you provided this answer?
Because people have the right to free speech.

Is it appropriate to protect individuals and organisations from potential defamation liability for comments made on their social media page by others irrespective of where that comment was made, or should this protection only apply when the comment was made in Australia?

Why have you provided this answer?
Neither, as other countries would most likely not get involved. If the protection only applies in comments made in Australia, then it wouldn’t be fair to those who are experiencing the same issues but their commenter did not reside in Australia. In addition, it would be challenging to differentiate between those who actually reside overseas or if someone was just using a VPN

Is it appropriate for social media providers to be deemed the ‘publishers’ of defamatory comments published on their platform, as set out in the Bill?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Why have you provided this answer?
Because social media providers cannot control the individuals on the platform. For example, a teacher cannot control every student in the class

Is it appropriate that social media providers have a conditional defence to a defamation claim where they help identify the originator of defamatory comments, as set out in the Bill?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Why have you provided this answer?
The individual has a right to anonymity and free speech.

Is it appropriate for social media providers to be the only people or organisations that the Bill deems to be publishers of defamatory comments on social media, as set out in the Bill?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Why have you provided this answer? If you have answered no, who else should also be deemed a publisher when defamatory comments are published on social media, and why?
The individual is at fault, not the platform. The platform cannot control every user, like the government cannot control every citizen

Would it be appropriate for digital platform providers other than social media providers (including other digital services and web page owners) to also be deemed the ‘publishers’ of defamatory comments published on their platform?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Why have you provided this answer?
It is not the digital platform providers responsibility of what an individual or corporation has to say about a given issue, they have no control.

Would it be appropriate for digital platform providers other than social media providers (including other digital services and web page owners) to have access to a defence to defamation claims where they help identify the originator of defamatory comments on their platform?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Why have you provided this answer?
It is an individual’s right for anonymity and free speech

Is it appropriate that the measures aimed at incentivising social media providers to help identify the originator of defamatory comments apply only where comments are made in Australia, or should they apply regardless of where the comment was made?

Why have you provided this answer?
It should not be a concern, people will always find away around it.

Is it appropriate that, in circumstances where a potential litigant has asked for the relevant contact details (name, email address and phone number) of the originator, social media providers only have access to the conditional defence where those details are actually given to the complainant?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Why have you provided this answer?
This could be taken advantage of and put individuals at risk.

Is it appropriate for a social media provider to give the complainant the country location data in relation to a comment– being a statement as to whether the comment appears to have been made in Australia – to a complainant without the originator’s consent?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Why have you provided this answer?
Because the individual did not give consent!!

Is it appropriate that a social media provider is only authorised to give relevant contact details (name, email address and phone number) of an originator to a complainant either with the originator’s consent or because a court orders them to via an End-user Information Disclosure Order?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Why have you provided this answer?
If this absolutely horrific bill passed, this should be the ONLY way social media platforms give out information. With peoples consent

Are there any improvements that could be made to the complaints regime in the Bill?

This bill is absolutely disgraceful.

Do you have any other comments about Part 2 of the Bill?

It’s horrendous

Part 3 of the Bill – “End-user Information Disclosure Orders”

Is it appropriate for courts to be able to order social media providers to give an originator’s country location data and relevant contact details (name, email address and phone number) to the complainant, if an anonymous originator has posted defamatory comments on a social media service, as set out in the Bill?

Please select one item
Yes
No

Is it appropriate for a complainant to be able to apply to the court for an End-user Information Disclosure Order without having first gone through the complaints mechanism provided for in Part 2?

Please select one item
Yes
No

Is it appropriate to give the court discretion to refuse an application for an End-user Information Disclosure Order where there is a risk to the originator’s safety?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Why have you provided this answer?
99.99% of applications should be refused if this bill becomes law.

Is the discretion provided to the court to refuse an application for an End-user Information Disclosure Order in circumstances where there is a risk to the originator’s safety, enough to protect human safety?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Why have you provided this answer?
Human safety is not enough. The originator is being doxxed, leading to a variety of issues that don’t just involve human safety. Well-being is important too

Do you have any other comments about Part 3 of the Bill?

It’s frankly disgusting

Part 4 of the Bill – “Nominated Entities”

Is it appropriate to require social media providers to have an Australian nominated entity?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Why have you provided this answer? If you have answered no, how should relevant requirements of the Bill be enforced against foreign social media providers?
The bill should not be passed, let alone enforced. simple as that.

Is it appropriate to set a threshold of 250,000 Australian account holders before the obligation to have an Australian nominated entity applies?

Please select one item
Yes
No

Do you have any other comments about Part 4 of the Bill?

The rich 1% is taking advantage over everyone else

Part 5 of the Bill – “Miscellaneous”

Are the provisions permitting the Attorney-General to intervene appropriate?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Why have you provided this answer?
Because a random comment made by a young person should not be taken seriously

Are the provisions allowing the Attorney-General to authorise legal assistance appropriate?

Please select one item
Yes
No
Why have you provided this answer?
Comments made by young people, or just people in general, should not be taken seriously. It’s the internet. Not everyone is going to love you

General issues

Please provide any other general comments you have on the Bill.

It’s removing peoples right to free speech.