1. That case isn't finished with appeals and there are already multiple laws in the pipeline to override it.
2. Facebook didn't require publishers to be liable. The court did.
1. Yes we haven't heard yet whether they will appeal, but the law as it currently stands creates a legal context where you can understand publishers wanting more information about Facebook users who comment on their posts. There are some perverse shakedown incentives created by the current situation.
2. Thanks - poor wording on my part. I meant to communicate that Facebook avoids liability in their terms, and of course the court determined the actual liability falls on publishers posting content.
This is because Facebook requires page owners to assume all liability for comments.
This has resulted in publishers losing defamation cases based on third-party comments made on their posts [1].
* (regardless of whether you feel, as I do, that the proposed legislation is a politically-motivated protection racket for a favoured media mogul)
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/01/australian-med...