reuters.com
www.reuters.com
      • PorkrollPosadist [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        11·
        6 days ago

        I don’t know how the law works in Australia but one way this could get funny is asking whether Reddit considers itself as a “common carrier” or not. Is Reddit a publisher, or are they a communications platform? If Reddit insists they are a communications platform (and therefore not liable for what people post), they are insisting is not their speech being censored, so what standing do they have to bring this case?

        • WrongOnTheInternet [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
          9·
          6 days ago

          That doesn’t apply in that way in Australia. The federal government enacted a law that required social media companies to take reasonable steps (left undefined) to ban under 16 year olds from their platforms

        • insurgentrat [she/her, it/its]@hexbear.netEnglish
          8·
          6 days ago

          I’m no expert. I’ve just read the constitution (boring, mostly do to with organising the first Parliament. Literally do not understand consty fetishists), the criminal code for my state, some details on contract laws, and a bit of case law that interests me + some convos with lawyers.

          There are precedents for things being overturned as unreasonable restrictions on communication and/or political organisation however as you point out there are subtleties in whether something is determined to be a carrier or a publisher. I think reddit would fall under the latter, but it’s a fuzzy vague opinion based on vibes I can’t really explain.

          There’s been some back and forth between Australia and our colonial overlords about whether tech companies are liable for publishing criminal stuff/where their responsibility ends.

          • PorkrollPosadist [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            5·
            6 days ago

            There’s been some back and forth between Australia and our colonial overlords about whether tech companies are liable for publishing criminal stuff/where their responsibility ends.

            This is an excellent point. Regardless of the letter of the law, there will be substantial political pressure from the US to preserve the hegemony of its tech platforms.

  • dead [he/him]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
    8·
    6 days ago

    Based on the comments of this post, I can easily tell which users read the article and who didn’t. Commenting on a post without actually reading the article says a lot about a person’s behavior.

    Reddit and its lawsuit never uses the phrase ‘free speech’. The phrase ‘free speech’ was used by the Reuters article. Reuters is based in the UK and the two people who wrote the article are from Australia. In hindsight, I’m not sure why they used that phrase. If knew that users would get hung up on it, I would probably have changed the title.

    If you commented on the phrase ‘free speech’, then you did not read or understand the article because the lawsuit is not actually related to the US concept of ‘free speech’.

    The actual lawsuit cities an Australian law called ‘Freedom of political communication’. The reuters article says this in the first sentence.

    Here’s a screenshot from the lawsuit paperwork.

    https://redditinc.com/hubfs/Reddit Inc/Content/2025.12.12 - Reddit - Application.pdf

    Reddit is suing Australia because it says that Australia is repressing the right for young people to get involved in politics. Does Reddit have the correct motives here? Probably not. They probably just want to sell more ads.

    Is it correct that Australia is using the under-16 social media ban to prevent young people from learning about politics? Probably yes. The social media ban prevents young people from learning about things like Palestine and LGBT.