While the US election was happening, the Australian government has pushed through, in the house of Representatives, the new MAD Bill - Mis and Dis information bill.
As far as I understand it, it will control and censor what we're allowed to say online, even more than now.
This website explains it better and if you scroll down you can sign the petition before it completely passes through and becomes law!
Good summary (and outlines the baseless hysteria that came in nice and early in the thread)
The article isn't very clear on what the ACMA can and can't do:
1. "These takes — built around the assumption that ACMA would have some kind of power to censor online content that it deemed incorrect — are misleading or mistaken."
2. "ACMA can then penalise these digital services if they don’t follow their own rules. If ACMA is unhappy with its efforts, it can also come up with its own industry standards that the companies must follow."
1 is contradicted by 2. Does the bill empower the ACMA to apply an industry standard that requires these platforms to remove content that meets criteria for being harmful and misinformation?
I don't see a contradiction?
1 would allow ACMA to remove and edit online content on other people's sites.
2 allows ACMA to penalise sites that are breaking their own digital rules about posting content. And if their own rules are weak or insufficient, it can create an industry standard that the rules must meet. (So a site can't say "we allow everything so we haven't broken our own rules")
@Crow K: Did you misread statement 1?
It says it's misleading or mistaken that the ACMA will be able to censor online content - implying the ACMA would NOT be able 'to remove and edit online content'. Which 2 contradicts as you noted.
This article is really exhibit A in why the bill is problematic. See Babet's comments - you can't just them as misinformation because you don't like what it says, but we all know that's what they left (and to be fair, some on the right) like to do.
@CaptainJack: Sorry, I meant "1 wouldn't allow ACMA". I'll spell it out below with an example to show what I think the distinction is. Let me know if the below has the contradiction (I don't think it does)
There's 3 dating sites, ChristianSingles, SexySingles and RandomSingles.
Christian and Sexy have 18+ sign up requirements, Random does not.
Christian TOS specifies pornography is NOT allowed to be posted, Sexy TOS specifies pornography IS permitted.
A casual internet user hits all 3 websites and discovers pornography and reports all sites to ACMA.
Can ACMA delete the porn off any of the three sites? No, it does not have that power.
What can ACMA do? ACMA can't do anything to Sexy but it can require Christian apply their own rules and remove the content. It can also tell Random it has to either put adult content requirements in place or, failing that, adopt a standard for websites that don't require 18+ membership.
(Also: Babet is only concerned because his entire gig is posting misinformation online, it's his livelihood)
@Crow K: It doesn't answer my question. Without being rude (as I do appreciate the response) the example seems to be a strawman, as the bill has nothing to do adult content or pornography (I even did a CTRL-F on the bill itself for these terms and neither are mentioned).
My question is simple: Users post a content on a platform that the ACMA considers to meet its definitions of harmful misinformation. The platform allows the content to remain as it does not violate its terms of service (either because its ToS do no prohibit misinformation, or it does not agree the content is harmful misinformation).
What happens next? Specifically, can the 'industry standard that the company must follow' require ToS to be enshrined that allow or require this content to be removed on the platform? And if the platform refuses, then what?
I can't stand Babet (I actually knew him before he was a senator) but your comments are exactly why this bill is dangerous. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean their opinions aren't valid and certainly doesn't mean they should be silenced (as many on the left want).
@CaptainJack: It's not a straw man, I'm not creating a weakened version of an argument to attack it?
It's a parallel example showing how a govt department doesn't have the power to directly regulate content (delete the things), but can require other private companies to enforce their existing TOS or have a complying TOS put in place?
And that's why 1 doesn't contradict 2.
As to your further comments about "well what if the TOS says harmful misinformation is fine, what then" , we're obviously going to need more specific examples because you're asking for concrete outcomes from loosely defined starting points? No one can answer to that level.
Finally, calling Babet a cooker is not the same as saying his opinions aren't valid? Or that they should be silenced? You're really embarking on a semantic discussion about what validity is (e.g. if someone believes the Holocaust never happened, is that a "valid" belief? "Should" that belief be silenced? Etc). Beyond the scope of the discussion.
The only straw man here is your argument saying it's the left who want to silence all their opponents. Where did that all come from? Just like you hit Control F to search for pornography, I hit it to search for "the left".
@Crow K: I'm asking what the bill empowers the ACMA to do - not what WILL happen in the future, but what the ACMA CAN do. As with all legalese, the bill needs to be very clear regarding the obligations and authorities it enshrines.
This is a simple yet very important question, and I ask it so I can understand whether the bill allows the ACMA to censor information they consider to be false. If you don't know the answer, that's ok, but in that case it is inappropriate to accuse others of baseless hysteria.
@CaptainJack: link to the Bill itself - click on Exploratory Memorandum and the first two pages of the PDF discuss what ACMA is empowered to do in five bullet points (referred to as section 9, IIRC).
It confirms no censorship, only standard setting for digital platforms.
@Crow K: You're being disingenuous or simply don't understand point 4 - it allows the ACMA to develop standards that suppress public communication. If digital platforms don't follow those standards, the government will punish them. And on page 7:
The Bill limits the following rights:
• the right to privacy
• the right to freedom of expression
Are you going to correct your posts, or are you only against misinformation when it suits you?
EDIT: Another document on your page, the Impact Analysis states there's a risk of 'over-censorship'. So the concern isn't whether or not there will be censorship, but only how much.
Good summary
It's a great piece of propaganda, for sure.
"These new ACMA powers do not police misinformation. Instead, they police how tech companies are responding to misinformation."
They really do have to bend over backwards, twist logic to extremes, to justify these laws. It can only get pushed through with a majority brain dead population.
The ACCC don't manage the refunds and returns a store makes.
But it can force a store to comply with the store's written policy ("your policy says change of mind returns is okay now you have to honour that") and if the store policy is insufficient ("our policy is no refund ever, even if it is broken") then the ACCC can force the store to adopt the base level protections the consumer law offers.
Notice how this happened without a shopkeeper scare campaign and petition about "the ACCC is trying to force shopkeepers to do whatever the ACCC wants, police state oh no"?
Is what the ACCC does twisted logic, exploiting the brain dead population?
Nuance and conspiracy theorists. Never in the same room at the same time.
No one in their right mind would trust that site to report in an unbiased manner.
Thank you Lachlan Murdoch.
The Yes23 campaign was full of disinformation that inner city folk fell for or disseminated.
One thing we learned was the that Albanese government was not a reliable source of truth, at least not depending on the topic.
A year old but worth considering:
https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/opinions/why-misinform…
There's a specific carve out for government content. Airbus doesn't need to worry.
Thanks for that link. If our Human Rights body has concerns about the bill, that's a big red flag for the bill. To quote them;
"""""""""
….the draft bill defines any content that is authorised by the government as being excluded content. ………
This specific exclusion privileges government content but fails to accord the same status to content authorised by the opposition, minor parties or independents.
The result is that government content can never be misinformation but content critical of the government produced by political opponents might be……..
The fourth concern relates to the powers to regulate digital content that are granted under the draft bill to digital platform providers and (indirectly) the ACMA.
There are inherent dangers in allowing any one body – whether it be a government department or social media platform – to determine what is and is not censored content. The risk here is that efforts to combat misinformation and disinformation could be used to legitimise attempts to restrict public debate and censor unpopular opinions.
"""""""""
We must not forget that public debate changed things we take for granted today, like the abolishment of slavery, equal rights for women, etc….
I'm wondering if the opposition is not putting too much effort in debating this bill because it will be to their benefit when they're in power and they don't see much political advantage in opposing it?
The Australian Government should legislate that all amendments, discussions, new bills or other important national & state matters are given as wide an audience as possible. Compulsory, unbiased 10 minute video summaries included on all the major nightly news programs.
There is no other reason for this alleged "bill", other than the government, working with supranational organisations, wanting to control the narrative. It is being done in the name of "safety" from "harm".
You forgot to mention the Lizard People.
It's the lizards - draconian (worst - Biden/Harris, a lot of US Presidents since the mid 1800s), lizard (less worse - Trump) soul types that have no empathy. Most of the worlds leaders of countries & corporations are of these soul types, not human. A small minority of souls in these groups are polarized positive, sort of like Robert Englund's character in the original 1980's science fiction V tv mini series. According to a guy in California called Gary.
Happy?
Lo1 terms on ozbargain is surprising. Gary who?
There's no doubt that there's a lot of wacky information/opinions out there, but to let the government or one of its agencies decide what is and isn't right is risky because it can become censorship before we know it. It's a slippery slope.
We should be improving our science education in schools, but that's a whole other post.
This seems to be great news!!
Our government is so much better than all those bad govs.
Ours only comprises of the most upstanding, unbiased, accountable and staggeringly intelligent sages of wisdom.
Even though free speech was decided to the best antidote to bad speech over centuries by every western country, changing that, in secret, by faceless, unaccountable people just seems so much better!
Otherwise no adult could work out what is right or wrong anymore!
So Thank you, life will be so much clearer with censorship overlords.
"MAD Must Go" is sponsored by "Aligned Council of Australia". And when one looks at the website of the Aligned Council of Australia, one can see why they are sponsoring MAD Must Go. The group is FULL of mis- and disinformation, the very thing that MAD is designed to combat. The groups that comprise this council also express opinions that are at best pseudoscience.
We saw what happened in the USA, when it comes to mis- and disinformation.
There is an Australian federal election next year.
So yeah, MAD really needs to not go. We need it now more than ever.
We need it now more than ever.
That sounds like disinformation. With the bill passed your post would then have to be deleted. Good game.
I don't like that political speech or news publishers get a free pass on this bill. They should be just as accountable as everyone else, especially since they have more of a platform to spread information.
The exemption for political speech was there early on, but was removed in this final version. Basically, if it's harmful the platforms should remove it.
News publishers don't get a free pass either, they're already governed by ACMA. Again, their posts would be removed by the platform if harmful but if they posted something that gets swept up in these laws then ACMA would already be cracking down on them.
This is Orwellian overreach, and just not needed. The greatest & easiest way to rebut, refute or disinfect misinformation or disinformation is sunlight; exposure and testing of these ideas is the solution, not blanket banning of discussions. The reality is that power once granted is abused, and if you look through history at how often ideas that were accepted as gospel were later proven incorrect, and the counter ideas originally considered to be heresy, proves strongly why such legislation should never be allowed.
Prosecute things which cause actual harm, do not try to control thoughts, information or narratives which the government of the day happens to disagree with!
Finally, some common sense.
The greatest & easiest way to rebut, refute or disinfect misinformation or disinformation is sunlight; exposure and testing of these ideas is the solution, not blanket banning of discussions.
If you really think this, you haven't been paying attention in the last 10 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA
Trying to eloquently discuss and refute misinformation and disinformation takes far longer than propagating it. It's asymmetric warfare where the truth is inherently disadvantaged. This bill tries to hold social media to account and level the playing field.
Great speech, but people literally died drinking bleach, pro-anorexia groups kill hundreds of people each year and tonnes of people are radicalised by crap they read on the internet.
Is an open discussion about drinking bleach really a requirement on social media? Particularly when it never sees sunlight, it's left buried in the groups that purposely target their audience?
The reality is that misinformation and disinformation have been used as part of some of the worst atrocities in history. Prior to the Rwandan genocide the RTLM radio station (which had significant regional reach) was promoting anti-Tutsi propaganda, claiming made up attacks on Hutus and calling for killings. ISIS made significant use of social media, when you have hundreds of thousands of people following ISIS channels on Twitter, the "sunlight" isn't getting in. Voices of reason simply aren't being heard by their followers, there's no open discussion but a one way connection to people who are often very easily influenced.
You're ignoring the very specific problem with social media and generalising it as discussion. This law doesn't block discussion, no one will be arrested for talking about being anti-vaccine. All it does is force social media networks to remove the content they said they're going to remove and one of the requirements is harm. And yes, various religions have called ideas harmful in the past and murdered people over it, but that's not the world we live in today.
Is an open discussion about drinking bleach really a requirement on social media?
Good lord, have you actually read the comments made by Trump in that 2020 briefing?
Here it is for you:
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/re…
"THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me. So we’ll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that’s — that’s pretty powerful."
He asked QUESTIONS. What was then done later by others on social media (possibly by bad intentioned actors) was to make it SEEM like Trump recommended injecting bleach! When he didn't! Even Biden in the first presidential debate this year couldn't get it right when he said Trump recommended to "inject some bleach" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqG96G8YdcE&t=200s
What's more interesting in that Trump quote was his reference to UV light, because it actually was a beneficial treatment in the early & mid part of the last century, which was more or less suppressed! https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-century-of-evidence-p…
In any case, I'd much rather people have the freedom to discuss these issues, rather than have an orwellian & fascist state dictate to the masses what constitutes misinformation!
Yeah, that's crazy that people don't understand the mainstream media is scamming people.
Either way, I really thought the populace in America was that stupid. I ended up losing $20,000 betting on Kamala Harris somehow managing to get through this election again.
For one this misinformation that spread can include the Trump comments that were clipped stating he wanted Liz Cheney dead, but the actual comments were just your ordinary anti-war Democrat talking lines. Remember Trump himself was a Democrat before too. *Edit, typed wrong person previously.
There was another comment involving Trump condemning Neo-Nazis which the mainstream media clipped and stated he was referring to the Neo-Nazi's as "very fine people". That was not what he said.
All this misinformation I was sure it was enough to trick enough people to vote Democrats, but it wasn't enough. If this misinformation bill gets passed in Australia, maybe it screws over 7News, 9News, Ten, ABC and other platforms more than social media because we can stay anonymous and use VPNs.
However, I do suspect that there will be exemptions deliberately that allow the mainstream media to lie, because you must understand how politicians don't want to be held accountable for their words.
this is what I’m talking about.
Well, if you can't see what that article really is, then no surprise you'd support censorship. The AJTMH article it cites was based on collecting "infodemic" information & categorizing it according to various groups.
It used data from covid19misinfo.org, a group receiving money from the Canadian Government & WHO.
But here's the kicker: the primary author of that 2020 article is based at the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research in Bangladesh. That centre, since 2020 has received over 40 million dollars in grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for research in various areas including Global Health, & Gender Equality. It has also received more millions in funding by the BMGF, going as far back as 2003.
They are pushing the "misinformation" angle to pursue their agenda & supporting it with fake science.
@mrdean: Let's assume for a moment I don't think there is a global conspiracy theory between Bill Gates, the Canadian government and the WHO.
What's the agenda, misinformation and fake science here? Do you think bleach is safe to consume? Or if it isn't, no one on social media said to consume bleach? Or if they did, that no one actually did it?
Do you think bleach is safe to consume?
No I don't.
Or if it isn't, no one on social media said to consume bleach?
In all my time on the internet, I don't recall ever coming across anyone recommending consuming "bleach". However, I am familiar with MMS/CDS, which I've seen many many times on the internet referred to as "bleach", when it isn't.
How about you point me to specific instances you've come across, instead of pathetic articles like the bbc one you linked to.
@mrdean: Chlorine dioxide isn't a bleaching agent? Wikipedia is also in on this conspiracy then.
But that's it, that's the misinformation? Chlorine dioxide isn't the same bleaching agent you get when you buy a jug of bleach off the shelf at the supermarket? Hell of a conspiracy there.
How about you point me to specific instances you've come across, instead of pathetic articles like the bbc one you linked to.
This is exactly why you can't talk to a cooker.
Cooker: oh yeah says who
Person: here's an article published on the BBC, quoting a study by the WHO (partially funded by the Canadian govt)
Cooker: oh BBC lol and WHO double lol and Canadian govt yeah they're in on it too got anything credible mate
The world's scientists need to start hiring overweight guys with big bushrager beards to sit in their cars and make videos directly yelling into their phone camera, it's the only way these cookers are ever going to come across it
The world's scientists need to start
doing unbiased research.
You do realise the BMGF is a funder of the WHO, yeah?
You do realise the BMGF & related entities have given loads of money, not just to research institutions & the WHO, but also media outlets like the BBC Media Action (a "charity", since 2006 the recipient of over $50000000) & The Guardian (since 2011 over $15000000), yeah?
Of course, you don't see any sort of problem with that, after all it's "philanthropy" right? It's protecting people from "misinformation" & harm right? If you really think that money doesn't in the least buy some sort of influence when it comes to reporting in the "news", then you are truly naive.
@mrdean: Fair enough, how about you name some of your impartial and reputable sources of information who don't rely on funding and I'll give them a look?
@Crow K: My request regarding the "specific instances" wasn't directed to you. There was no response.
@mrdean: My request on what the misinformation is hasn't been answered either.
You answered your own question anyway, you've heard of MMS and it contains bleach. It's just not the bleach you find in a supermarket. "Bleach" means bleaching agent, thus why it was reported in the media that way. If you read the BBC article I linked, it even says
Social media also helps scammers to take advantage of the pandemic, selling ineffective badges that claim to ward off the virus, and urging followers to part with money in exchange for a "mineral miracle supplement", which is - in reality - diluted bleach.
So as far as I can tell, you're claiming that Bill Gates, Canada and WHO are misleading the world on what bleach is - and you're wrong anyway.
Chlorine dioxide isn't the same bleaching agent you get when you buy a jug of bleach off the shelf at the supermarket?
It's just not the bleach you find in a supermarket. "Bleach" means bleaching agent, thus why it was reported in the media that way.
When people use the word "bleach", in their minds they think of supermarket bleach, which is what is generally available. Nobody would drink that. I certainly wouldn't recommend it. But that is what "they" (entities like WHO/Gates, government health authorities) want people to equate MMS/Chlorine Dioxide with, when it is different! Look at the wiki pages for sodium chlorite, sodium hypochlorite & chlorine dioxide. One doesn't get chlorine dioxide by simply watering down or diluting supermarket "bleach".
It's amusing when people of all sorts talk about "the dose making the poison" in regards to various substances, but in this case they are quite happy to throw everything under the one "bleach" umbrella.
The same thing done with the word "bleach" was identical to how the word "unvaccinated" was used. "Unvaccinated", if you ask a normal person to define it, would say "someone who was not vaccinated", period. This would be logical & in their minds every time they heard the word used in an official capacity by government health authorities. Except that, the government health authorities knew the definition they used most of the time was different. For government reporting purposes the word "unvaccinated" actually meant "vaccinated but less than 2 weeks post injection". This, like the use of the word "bleach" deceived people in thinking one thing, when the reality was different.
There is a great deal of propaganda & shaping of public opinion & nudging involved, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that articles like the bbc one are used as part of the offensive. Unfortunately, you can't see it yet.
Look at the wiki pages for sodium chlorite, sodium hypochlorite & chlorine dioxide. One doesn't get chlorine dioxide by simply watering down or diluting supermarket "bleach".
I don't need to look at the wikipedia page to know that you don't get different chemicals by watering down another chemical. That is kinda obvious. Bleach is already a diluted product as well.
But that's not misinformation. Most people don't know that the bleach in the supermarket is sodium chlorite. They do know that it will burn like hell if they get it on their skin, consumer it or breathe it in. Because that is true of most bleaching agents, including chlorine dioxide.
But you do realise sodium hypochlorite is more dangerous, yeah? It can't be maintained in its pure form, it will explode. It is a bleaching agent, it will burn like all hell if you get it on you, even at highly diluted levels. It's incredibly highly regulated because it's dangerous. The guy who created MMS went to prison for poisoning people. If you think MMS is safe, I'm seriously worried about you. If you don't, then the whole global conspiracy on misinformation is solely that they called it bleach and someone might think it's not bleach. That's some evil villainy right there!
You want misinformation? It's that drinking MMS will do anything besides hurt you. That's what misinformation is, not that a word is used in a way that you thought it might mean something else. Otherwise you're going to be incredibly surprised if you ever try to eat a wood chip. Tip, it's not like the chips from the supermarket.
For government reporting purposes the word "unvaccinated" actually meant "vaccinated but less than 2 weeks post injection"
What's wrong with that? For the purposes of tracking the spread of disease, a person who hasn't developed antibodies in relation to the vaccine are still as susceptible to the virus as someone who isn't vaccinated. Again, what exactly is the "misinformation" besides words are being used in a way you don't expect?
It's like making a ball of dough and saying you made bread. No, you haven't, not until the bread is baked. The ingredients are there, but the process isn't finished.
You want misinformation? It's that drinking MMS will do anything besides hurt you.
There are real medical doctors who've actually written books about MMS/CDS & how it's helped people. Goes to show how blinded & brainwashed people are, that the targeting of people like Jim Humble is seen as a good thing. I know people who've used it to recover their health.
What's wrong with that? For the purposes of tracking the spread of disease
It gave a false impression of the ACTUAL number of people in hospitals who in reality DID NOT receive an injection.
If 50 people ended in hospital in a certain week, all of whom where classed as "unvaccinated" by the government, & 45 of those actually had an INJECTION, & 5 did not, what CONCLUSION would a reasonable person infer from that?
The answer the government authorities want you to believe, is that those 45 people were "unprotected" because they hadn't developed antibodies. But the logical answer is that those 45 people were likely HARMED by the injections!!!!!!! That's the problem with that!!!!!! We'll never know the true numbers because the government weren't willing to break out the categories & properly count the numbers of those truly "unvaccinated". They deliberately deceived people.
@Crow K: Oye, didn’t you also claim that the Russia-Ukraine wasn’t at all responsible for the hike in fuel prices?
Isn’t that disinformation-misinformation on your behalf?
So…..
Off to the Gulag, aye?
Have you seen the flat Earthers doing tests to prove the Earth is flat and when their tests indicate that the Earth is not flat, they conclude their tests must be flawed? Information and the subsequent testing of it unfortunately does not fix the effects of misinformation.
I'm not commenting on whether this bill is good or bad. But trying to change someone's views on a subject can be nigh impossible.
My favourite one of those was a guy whom really diligently followed the principles and rigorous scientific approach (despite not being thoroughly or conventionally trained at a University level). He formed a sound hypothesis, constructed a pretty impressive empirical test and… Subsequently found his belief was not only unsubstantiated, but the test had successfully proved entirely the opposite. Which then consequently caused an abrupt and significant fracture to his foundational belief. It was unimaginably hard, and as he sat with it, and talked through it you could see not a dogmatic blindness, but someone whom was genuinely trying to process and reshape their outlook. That was more impressive than any science and belief challenge that I've ever confronted myself, and I'm entirely unsure I could handle it as gracefully as that guy did. It was humbling to watch, and I try to reflect on his journey when I find myself confronting my own firmly held beliefs.
I understand your comment and agree, however there are always going to be delusion people regardless of what information is or is not controlled, just like there will always be drug users regardless of whether it is legal or not. Ultimately there has to be a point where government does not impinge on people, and I am of the opinion that it should be far less than it currently is.
I guarantee you that I will make far better judgements for me and my loved ones than a government will, and I would bet that the vast majority of people would do the same. Governments should be there to manage services, not people.
I would just like to say that i applaud the OzB community for a very thoughtful and rational response to this OP, with facts, citations and common sense.
Falling for clickbaity "they want to silence us!" (amongst other misinformation) can be very easy these days, and im very happy to see rationality win out, at least in this discussion.
Sounds like Liberal vs Labour talking points.
Just a new version of the same old bullshit.
Perhaps in the next bill the ABC will be renamed as Pravda, so that people know which 'information' is approved.
Sounds more relaxed than the national security law
How about actually reading the bill instead of immediately believing whatever the Aligned Council of Australia wants you to believe.
Their entire network is a "who's who" of mis-information.
https://i.imgur.com/BPl6wCl.png
Oh god, that is a mess of dodgy arse and bullsh*t spewing organisations there.
I don't even need to read the bill to know that if these guys don't like it, then there's probably some good stuff in there.
Just took a look at the Aligned Council of Australia's website. Should be called the Aligned Cookers of Australia.
Who has the right to be the arbiter of truth? Does one really want the unelected beurocracy (ACMA) to be the arberter of truth?
Men shouldnt compete in womens sports.
Lets see how long before this post gets unpublished :)
Idc about sports, Im more concern about the toilet thingy …
This is an important issue, thanks for the heads up. Signing the petition!
how do we stop stupid thou? there are a lot of stupid people out there and bad actors as the USA elections over the past 12 years have shown us
How do we protect Australia from becoming a country who votes in world champion stupid because we cant discriminate the real and the fake
Not an opinion or position on the MAD bill but more a question
It's too late and this law will make it almost impossible
Thanks newscorp, you are probably the biggest threat democracy has had in the past 2 decades
And it's a bloody shame it's owner is one of us…an Aussie , what an embarrassment
how do we stop stupid thou?
We do what we can to find better people to vote for
Ingsoc and their propaganda outlets will be the only source of truth and not subject to this law. You will be fine, until you are not.
Remember when they arrested that pregnant woman in front of her kids for a Facebook post during COVID? If you don't see an issue with that then just carry on. Nothing to see here. Let the government of the day decide what you can and can't say.
No?
You didn't see it, because cat, beer, prank and sports videos are all more important to you. Ignorance is a choice.
"The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed."
It will also not be the last step in this direction. The Victorian Allen government is considering to make free speech in private a crime, whereby anyone over hearing you saying something that is different to what the government allows you to say, will be reportable as a crime.
The kids of this generation will never know any different and it will become so normal that they will never even think to question it.
It is our children who will be reporting us to the state for thought crimes.
To quote the legislation… "Members of the community cannot make a judgement about those opinions (found online), but must be protected from the obvious inadequacies of their judgement"
Additionally it outlaws saying anything relating to an election that could cause "harm". The government will decide what "harm" is, what is allowed on social media and who is allowed to say what. And…. we are coming up to an election
It won't be in effect before the election.Fake news
Would love a source on this
It will also not be the last step in this direction. The Victorian Allen government is considering to make free speech in private a crime, whereby anyone over hearing you saying something that is different to what the government allows you to say, will be reportable as a crime.
Did you guys know that OP wants more tax breaks for the rich?
OP is probably Gina Rinehart or one of her sycophantic minions.
Be aware she is clearly an enemy of working ppl.
When everything rises in price in Australia because of Trumps policies, refer back to her saying exactly the opposite today in Murdochs rags.
Rich white future eating ,silver spooner ,entitled Jabba the Hutts have no idea what it's like to work,struggle or pay a fair share of tax. WE carry her, not the opposite.
WE are going to cop a barrage of right wing BS until the next federal election. Don't swallow it.
It is difficult to know what to believe now that the algorithms feed you information that relates to your searches online, becoming more and more bias in a reinforcement loop.
There are news feeds that are fact checked and are somewhat transparent about media bias like Ground News or Allsides but complete transparency and objectivity and freedom from all bias is perhaps an ideal for journalists to be aware of and aspire to, we as the consumer are also aware that any news source may contain unconscious opinion and bias .
We need consistent information from many reputable and reliable sources but there still can be unconscious bias to the status quo.
You see this a lot with business interests protecting their assets and income streams to the detriment to local populations around the world .
This may inspire journalists to make people aware of these things,
or they may be taken along with government militaries to report on insurgent uprisings threaten these interests and the status quo.
As large corporations become larger again(than governments even) and all encompassing they become more influential like an elephant on the plain , the smaller interests keep your distance from their orbit of influence, lest you get squashed.
You can see this within all the ongoing wars Putin vs Europe or religious differences and land claims vs a vested interest oil industry and the families that benefit
or the military industrial complex which is a catchy name for a bunch of companies who make bombs and planes and tanks an all the accoutrements of war for killing of people and to make profit for their shareholders.
Their are vested interests in Russia looking for profits in Ukraine while Putin gets his warm water port in crimea to play with his navy while European industrial farming interests and their gas and mining exploration have to back off.
China are becoming independent of western control by diversifying supply chains and financial markets and a lot of information is going dark from the west now.
Many people decide as you get older that less is more with news and information and touching on it now and then is all you need as long as you have a macro view and you just have you have your little piece of home and self sufficiency then it’s better to shut it out most of the time .
Hope that helps 🗿
Thanks chat gpt
Good one.
Is there a petition to get Media and Politicians included in this bill?
We could only dream of something that good. It's a shame no politician is ever going to vote to remove parliamentary privilege.
This bill from the Labor government reeks of desperation—an incompetent and lazy way to address losing a debate. It’s no different from someone incapable of defending their position who resorts to silencing their opponent or, worse, threatening to “get rid of them.” Australians are better than this. We are a nation built on free speech, robust debate, and the principle that ideas should stand or fall on their own merit—not be suppressed by government overreach.
Millions of people around the world dream of the freedoms we enjoy. They fight tirelessly against authoritarian regimes that stifle dissent, control information, and silence critics. Yet here we are, in a free, democratic society, on the brink of accepting a law that mirrors the practices of regimes we condemn. Is this the path we want to take?
Censorship is not the solution. It’s a cowardly way to avoid addressing the root causes of disagreement or discontent. Instead of empowering governments to decide what can and cannot be said, let’s trust Australians to discern truth from misinformation. We need to stand against any attempt to muzzle voices and undermine the open discourse that defines our democracy.
Sorry, but lies are not a component of "open discourse", normally, so I don't see your point? Also, do I play the national anthem while I read this nationalistic crap you've ejaculated on my screen?
I felt sorry for you, based on the words and expressions you used, you must suffer mentally a lot and maybe a traumatised childhood and difficult grow-up, get some help dude…all the best
There's a little note in the Bill under section 13(2)(e)(ii) that gives away what this whole thing is really about, and the states objective to the effect of increasing media literacy.
It's unlawful for government to use powers under an act to achieve goals beyond that acts purpose and this will regularly be challenged in court.
If you've been watching, the High Court are happy to tell the government their laws or actions are unlawful (e.g. NZYQ). There is literally nothing to worry about unless you want to be a Russian or Chinese bot.
Is this to go after news outlets or just the average Joe?
Non-government controlled media including content creators on YouTube and the average Joe who posts on social media.
Government, their specified media and chosen academics will be exempt from misinformation.
We will not even know what has been censored or deleted as it will be done before it's even seen. ACMA will decide what we are allowed to see and say.
It is focused on publishers and digital media llatfoylike Facebook
People in the UK thought their MAD bill was good too at first , but 5332 People arrested between 2008-2017 , has changed many a mind, and since 2017 its sky-rocketed
https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-do…
Wow, look at that, a complete mis-representation of what you've linked! No wonder you're signed the partition.
The only people that fear the truth are those with something to hide .
This MAD bill will hide the truth.
I think people just talk too much.
Speech shouldn't be censored. Especially legal speech.
For an overview: https://lettersfromaustralia.substack.com/p/free-speech-shoc…
It appears the next Senate session starts on Monday the 18th of November, during which this "bill" will be put to a vote. It's the last stage before becoming law. Unless some sort of special session is called before that, if that's possible.
https://www.aph.gov.au/news_and_events/events_calendar
There are 76 senators in Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members
12 in each state & 2 each in the territories.
The writer of that substack, Alison Bevege seems to have been a journalist who worked for News Ltd for about a decade. Since the pandemic, she drives buses. She recommends visiting your closest senators to voice your concerns about the "bill". Or your support for it.
The general page on the "bill" can be found here: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat…
What a bunch of hypocrites are the ill-informed supporting this bill. Not only is it illogical, aka circular reasoning, they have no concept how integral and fundamental in nature is the concept of free speech is in a democratic society, and not to mention the insidious nature of these types of bills being a stepping stone to further bills limiting general freedoms.
99.99% (literally) of ozbargainers have already tuned out and are pounding beers whilst browsing endless prank videos on Youtube shorts. It's over.
Who gets to decide what is mis/dis information?
Eg. Who decides if Trump is a nazi or not?
The amusing part is the petition is a classic piece of misinformation, yet despite what it says even this petition would not be banned under this legislation.
Platforms will never be able to prevent misinformation. Only information can rebute misinformation and platforms that allow the flow of information can allow misinformation to be challenged.
With censorship you remove the ability to challenge the presented information or argument which is more harmful as it can allow the powers at be to control and manipulate the news or narrative especially in volatile political environments. This has already proven in the past years with Mark Zuckerberg coming out about the pressure he faced during the political election and Covid. In a world of Censorship, there is no open conversation which is far worse. There's no room to challenge, no accountability for the moderator.
In a perfect world, Censorship can work but we do not live in one and thus we need to allow the ability to have open discussions and allow information to present and challenge the truth.
Under this legislation if the government decides that the earth is flat then that's it. Schools will teach students that the earth is flat. Experts that prove it isn't will be removed from the internet and could be imprisoned. Most posters on here would then agree that the earth is flat as you just go with the government. Is that a world you want to live in ?
“Just go with the government”. I think the majority ozbargainers here want exactly that but don’t realize it. Or won’t admit it.
Probably good to read about it here, from July 2023.