Yeah true, i'm no IT guy, so in general i assumed it was always near impossible to talk with a human.

I'd argue they've always operated with a lack of accountability. The key difference, like always in power relationships, the power differential now is far more noticeable than a decade ago.

Yeah, totally agree the cops or prosecutors won't do anything for joe blow in a situation like this. But thats why its so wrong and the rules of the game need to change.

It doesn't matter the wealth of the person bringing the case, they are the aggreived party, therefore he has a right, and in the end, if they make progress it sets precedent strengthening others claims.

And also what has the public prosecutor done for Forrest withbthwir involvement? The article didn't go into detail, it seems his lawyers triggered something that federals had to get involved in, but then at the first opportunity they've come back saying 'yeah nah, we not gona take this further.'

What am i missing here? I suppose the details of the Australian proceedings would shed more light.

I don't know about it being ridiculous. At best, Meta can argue they are doing the bare minimum for the size and importance of the platform. And that I agree is because of these review teams and reporting processes.

"The second issue is Forest is campaigning for law reforms around this issue."

So the legal action is part of a wider action. If theres a wrong done then, part of a wider program or not, Forest has every right to take action.

The real issue I suspect is a commentary on the inaccessibility of the courts to the average person vis-a-vis someone like Forest. I agree, but silver lining. He can pay a legal team to research and deliver the points of the case to a degree that is out of reach for an average person. And, if successful, or if not but a point is partially agreed, this adds to the body of case law surrounding the subject that other lawyers can pick up and run with for their clients cases.

Imagine a trickle-down theory, but it actually works (unlike others), the benefits accumulate over decades long periods. As i say silver lining only.

"The courts want nothing to do with that. They interpret existing laws and have zero involvement in writing new ones."

You might be thinking of the French legal system which i believe is codified.

Australia's, like the UK's, still has common law (read judge-made law). Where legislation is silent a judge may decide a case by using a number of tools available to them to interpret the law, like the Golden rule. They may also rely on Torts. And i'm sure theres plenty of other examples where judges may 'make' the law.

You can argue that there is so much legislation now that common law is seldom going to be relied upon. This is due to case/common law becoming settled and eventually legislated. Legislation then over-rides common law, but the ability is still technically there.

I didn't look into the case much, but from the top of my head, an example might be that migration high court decision not long ago, which changed the law and caught the federal government by surprise.