A website isn't allowed to prohibit discussion of doing illegal drugs on it?
This feels like a bad decision. Is the complaint just that Facebook didn't say specifically that the ban was because the page was promoting drugs? It sounds like it would have been legal if they were just more specific about the why?
If that's the case, it feels like a waste of everyone's time when the reasoning is obvious. If that's not the case, it's horrific to think that Poland has some law requiring sites to host any discussion. That would just turn every site into 4chan, and I would sooner ban Poland than ban having rules.
> It sounds like it would have been legal if they were just more specific about the why?
Maybe (probably?). Court didn't address the merit of the ban, it was impossible to do so, because FB didn't explain their reason. That latter part is ruled illegal, they need to explain (even if they're right) and provide meaningful way to contest (a human with power to make the decision, i.e. not an address that a bot always replies a LLM-generated rejection).
The blocked material was related to harm reduction related to illegal drug use.
There's a strong possibility that some harm reduction discussions could be interpreted as promoting illegal drug use, especially within the context of Facebook's rules.
Harm reduction strategies aim to minimize the negative consequences of drug use without necessarily promoting abstinence. This means providing information like:
- Safer injection practices
- How to recognize and respond to an overdose
- Drug interactions and testing
- Detailed instruction on drug acquisition, drug usage techniques, supplies and equipment
Facebook's rules on drug-related content are designed to prevent the sale or promotion of illegal substances. These policies might be too broad, leading to the removal of legitimate harm reduction information.
And some advocates of illegal drug use sometimes communicate in the language of harm reduction, which can make it very difficult for a moderator to distinguish what material follows the rules and what material does not.
> The blocked material was related to harm reduction related to illegal drug use.
Court didn't say anything about merit of actual decision, it was more about procedural guarantees that essentially require some aspects of due process.
11 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 27.7 ms ] thread- by blocking fanpages FB infringed on personal/moral rights of the organisation owning the fanpage
- agreement in FB's ToS to file any case in Irish Court is null and void even in case of organisation, and not consumer
- the case can be held in Poland and in Polish language (FB has Polish version, so they should be able to defend in Polish)
- FB is not allowed to block without justification and a way to contest the block
- FB/Meta needs to restore full page with likes, shares, follows etc
- FB/Meta is to post apology for their behaviour on the fanpage in question
The case started in 2018 or 2019. During the case court imposed interim measure reinstating the page and forbidding FB from removing it.
(I'm repasting this comment from previous Polish language submission, which didn't take off: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39701174)
This feels like a bad decision. Is the complaint just that Facebook didn't say specifically that the ban was because the page was promoting drugs? It sounds like it would have been legal if they were just more specific about the why?
If that's the case, it feels like a waste of everyone's time when the reasoning is obvious. If that's not the case, it's horrific to think that Poland has some law requiring sites to host any discussion. That would just turn every site into 4chan, and I would sooner ban Poland than ban having rules.
Maybe (probably?). Court didn't address the merit of the ban, it was impossible to do so, because FB didn't explain their reason. That latter part is ruled illegal, they need to explain (even if they're right) and provide meaningful way to contest (a human with power to make the decision, i.e. not an address that a bot always replies a LLM-generated rejection).
There's a strong possibility that some harm reduction discussions could be interpreted as promoting illegal drug use, especially within the context of Facebook's rules.
Harm reduction strategies aim to minimize the negative consequences of drug use without necessarily promoting abstinence. This means providing information like:
- Safer injection practices
- How to recognize and respond to an overdose
- Drug interactions and testing
- Detailed instruction on drug acquisition, drug usage techniques, supplies and equipment
Facebook's rules on drug-related content are designed to prevent the sale or promotion of illegal substances. These policies might be too broad, leading to the removal of legitimate harm reduction information.
And some advocates of illegal drug use sometimes communicate in the language of harm reduction, which can make it very difficult for a moderator to distinguish what material follows the rules and what material does not.
Court didn't say anything about merit of actual decision, it was more about procedural guarantees that essentially require some aspects of due process.