Yahoo Finance Facebook apologises to Australian MP falsely accused by conspiracy theorist of being in 'paedophile network'
Facebook has apologised to Nationals MP Anne Webster over months-long delays in responding to reports of abuse she received from an online conspiracy theorist that led to an $875,000 defamation payout order.
In September, federal court justice Jacqueline Gleeson ordered the payout to the first-term Mildura MP over Facebook posts in April by Australian conspiracy theorist Karen Brewer. The posts were shared hundreds of times and falsely accused Webster of being “a member of a secretive paedophile network” who had been “parachuted into parliament to protect a past generation of paedophiles”.
Related: How QAnon spread to Australia and spilled out into real life
Webster’s husband and the not-for-profit they set up to help single mothers were also included in the payout.
Gleeson in her decision said Brewer’s posts were “disgraceful and inexplicable”.
Brewer’s account was not deleted by Facebook until Guardian Australia reported on the case in August.
Webster installed security cameras at her home because she feared being physically attacked.
In a parliamentary committee hearing on family, domestic and sexual violence, Webster questioned whether Facebook could support people subject to abuse online if it took around five months for Facebook to take action in her case.
“It took till August until anything was done, after several court hearings and Facebook being reminded that they were part of the contempt of court if they continue to post it – if you continue to post it,” she told Facebook’s Australian director of public policy, Mia Garlick.
“So I’m concerned that the responsiveness is actually not there. If it’s not there for me, then is it there for people who are abused in domestic relationships, or relationships that are over?”
Garlick apologised for how Facebook had handled the case.
“I do want to apologise for the experience that you had on our platform and I understand how upsetting and damaging untrue accusations that were said must have been for you.
“And I think that there are a number of claims that are made particularly about public figures – and primarily, it’s often female public figures – that will violate our community standards that we will be able to take action on and remove promptly,” she said.
But Garlick differentiated between Webster’s experience on Facebook and the experience of people who are not public figures. She said content was not automatically removed in cases where public figures are accused of crimes, but said Facebook reviews applicable laws to see if the content could be found to be in breach of the law, and then it is blocked.
“I think one of the difficulties that arise in relation to the current state of defamation law is where we have to make a judgment about whether the person posting the content could rely on the defence of truthfulness,” Garlick said. “And recent court decisions have also changed the standard for the content to be considered unlawful.
“And so we actually engage with local counsel to work through that legal analysis.”
Garlick said posts were blocked, and the account was removed for “repeatedly violating community standards”, but blamed “legal complexities” for Facebook not acting faster.
“There were some additional legal complexities in that case. And certainly, you know, we’re actively engaged in advocating for reform of defamation law to try to assist in more swiftly addressing those kinds of issues.”
Webster pointed out the defamatory posts also targeted her husband and a charity, and she said Facebook’s abuse reporting tools were not fit for purpose.
“If they are to guard the safety of the users, I don’t think it’s doing a very good job,” she said. “The fact that it takes maybe 48 hours – maybe three days – for a response to come at all and then for any action to be taken really was only after a court finding that meant Facebook would be held in contempt of court.
“I’m just assuring you that I am absolutely focused on ensuring that people in Australia are not harmed in the way that I was harmed, and that my organisation was harmed and that my husband was harmed – it is not OK.”
The MP said the policies were not working and needed to be improved.
Garlick said Facebook’s machine learning and AI processes were developing to ensure that abusive content was caught before it was posted, but it was hard to hard code in potentially defamatory content.
“Our goal is to try to remove harmful content before people even see it, because that removes the harm,” she said.
“I very much understand and I’m very sympathetic to your case. And I do think that our ability to sort of code for defamation law is a much more complex thing.”
As part of a state and federal reform of defamation law announced last year, social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter could be held liable for content posted on their platforms.
Currently a federal court decision has found news companies are liable for the comments posts on Facebook, despite the fact that news companies do not have the ability to pre-moderate comments on Facebook.
Facebook has resisted any suggestion it is a publisher, and therefore liable under law for what its users post on the site. Webster said she believed Facebook is a publisher and therefore holds such liabilities.
Garlick said Facebook was advocating for effective compliance regulatory frameworks “to give the public and governments the confidence that we do take responsibility.”
Garlick said in the second quarter of 2020, Facebook removed 2.4m pieces of content for bullying and harassment, 22.5m for hate speech, and 35.7m for adult nudity.
