464 Peguam Negara Malaysia v. MKINI Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Anor [2021] 2 MLRA [99] It is to be borne in mind that Delfi does not concern other fora such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc on the Internet where third-party comments can be disseminated, for example an Internet discussion forum or a bulletin board where users can freely set out their ideas on any topic without the discussion being channelled by any input from the forum’s manager; or a social media platform where the platform provider does not offer any content and where the content provider may be a private person running the website or blog as a hobby. [100] Echoing similar decision as Delfi (supra), the case of Fairfax Media Publications (supra) had unanimously held that the online media is liable as publisher of third-party comments. In this case, Fairfax Media Publications, Nationwide News Pty Ltd, and Australian News Channel Pty Ltd (“the applicants”) published newspapers in NSW and operate television stations. The applicants maintain Facebook pages on which they publish newspaper articles with an accompanying comment, image and headline. From December 2016 to February 2017 the applicants posted news items concerning the incarceration of the respondent, Mr Dylan Voller, in a juvenile justice detention centre in the Northern Territory. Third parties posted comments critical of the respondent. The respondent commenced defamation proceedings against the applicants claiming that particular comments posted by third parties were defamatory of him, and that the applicants were liable as publishers of the third-party comments. [101] The trial court found the respondent liable for third-party comments. The decision was affirmed on appeal where the Court of Appeal held that a person who participates in and is instrumental in bringing about the publication of defamatory matter is potentially liable for having done so notwithstanding that others may have participated in that publication in different degrees. [102] The court found that they were the primary publishers and cannot rely on the defence of innocent dissemination under s 32 of the Defamation Act 2005 since they facilitated the posting of comments on articles published in their newspapers and had sufficient control over the platform to be able to delete postings when they became aware that they were defamatory. The court distinguished between primary and subordinate distributors of defamatory matter; it operates as a defence against liability, not a denial of publication. The meaning of publication in Webb v. Bloch [1928] 41 CLR 331 was referred to. [103] We also refer to the case of Murray v. Wishart [2014] 3 NZLR 722, the New Zealand Court of Appeal where it applied the “actual knowledge” test as opposed to “constructive knowledge” test. The case concerns the determination of the question whether a Facebook host is a publisher. It was in this legal context that the court decided that the only test to be applied is whether or not the Facebook host has “actual knowledge”.