46
Reddit sues Australia over social media ban, citing free speech threat
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2025
46 points (100.0% liked)
technology
24208 readers
360 users here now
On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.
Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020
- Ways to run Microsoft/Adobe and more on Linux
- The Ultimate FOSS Guide For Android
- Great libre software on Windows
- Hey you, the lib still using Chrome. Read this post!
Rules:
- 1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct. Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
- 2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
- 3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
- 4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
- 5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
- 6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
- 7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
it's not that simple. We'll see what happens
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?
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
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.
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.
Jim Jordan (US House Rep) already started doing this in November, before Reddit sued.
Edit: obviously to protect tech interests, just a timeline note
There is no chance banning under 16 year olds from using social media will be found to disproportionately impact the implied right to political communication
I agree, but I don't think it's as simple as the consty no say mah freeze peach therefore meritless