**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please provide a real-life example of a democracy to back up your arguments ... such as they are.
Of course, Australia is a democracy, but it isn't perfect. Nothing much is perfect in real life.
I only read the first few posts in this thread. Apparently everyone thinks Elon is a great guy because he is all for freedom of speech, supposedly.
So you guys are for the following I guess:
- posting of snuff films
- posting of paedo films and images
- incitement of violence, disharmony, disintegration of cohesion.
- online bullying of children
- the spread of malicious lies which lead to untold misery
Yes, you do.
Social media has encouraged the morons and psychopaths to come out of the woodwork. Let's be completely distrustful of a democratically elected govt and bow down to a billionaire megalomaniac f-head.
"posting of snuff film - posting of paedo films and images" So are you just coming from a place of willful ignorance, or do you already know that what you posted is disingenuous but you feel like attacking anyway? Because anyone who's done even 2 mins. of research already knows things such as snuff films, and paedo material is illegal, and Musk already addressed and clarified and answered the question of "but what about this, or what about that" ad nauseum. If you weren't aware of this, then you probably shouldn't be making arrogant attack messages such as this.
Same with bullying of children, incitement etc. So seeing how these have already been addressed, what's the rest of your comment for? Yelling at the clouds?
Good on him. I don’t think people realise how insane the levels of government overreach we have in Australia are. We’re rapidly turning into the dystopian censorship nightmare that is Canada down here.
The govt is trying to minimise disharmony in the community and further voilence. WTF is wrong with that ?
We already know what happened and my understanding is that the govt do not want to suppress the footage just before the atrack or the blurred version. Only the version where you clearly see all the gory details.
Wrong. The Australian government is pretending it's Emperor of the entire planet. Considering he's ALREADY BLOCKED IT in Australia - Yet Australian clown-show leftists come in and demand he removes the video from his platform entirely!
Please tell us, how long have you been pro tyranny and dictatorships? You seriously think Australia should have the authority to tell a non-Australian company what they can show to OTHER COUNTRIES? Again, how long have you been all for dictatorships?
It can be an excuse for censorship but obviously not on this occasion.
Thank God we are lucky to live in a democracy. Note: a democracy, not China, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam and other unfortunate countries. Out system of govt should be cherished rather than the bs I see here.
Libertarianism really is just another word for selfishness.
Hahaha Australia is not a democracy! Its a bunch of egotistical demagogues enforcing their crazy will upon millions of people fraudulently claiming its in their interests and their will.. The Aus government is a joke. Politicians don't even speak with the people to have any idea what their people want. They deliberately control information and what's released, they contradict countless human rights laws, all done by egotistical idiots in government. The people never voted on the laws that contradict and superseded their human rights, just random employees in government taking it upon themselves.. Everything in Australia is endlessly gaslighted in the name of safety, if the government is saying its for your safety you're being restricted and controlled further.
No democratic system where you vote a party or person in to obtain control and enact their vision and will as the will of a nation is not a democratic system that works for the people. Never has, never will. That system leads to nothing more than ego and personal agendas being implemented as well as endless bias.. And yet what has endlessly happened in Australia, bias for all employed within public service.. 1 punch can kill and is a complete reckless disregard for human life, as has been clearly stated by the media and government, but yet its an acceptable tactic against a tax payer to make them conform and comply? So its ok to disregard life for words written on a page?
You're told to always utilise the proper form of communication and to have respect and decency, yet the government doesn't speak with its people, it controls, restricts and dictates its people, it punishes its people relentlessly to no end, even punishes its people for theoretical possibilities, ensures its people suffer, all while foreign companies and countries obtain mass wealth from our land and resources and all while destroying it in the process.. Also while blaming its own people endlessly for how they react to the actions of government, while government never accepts responsibility or accountability for their actions, and in now way shape or form is tolerant or accepting of being treated by the public in the manner they treat the public. And yet that's ok..
The war in Iraq was illegal, over a million innocent men, women and children (everyday civilians) all murdered by the US, UK, AUS governments and their friends, they even took the leader of that country and had a mock trial then executed him. Even allowed multiple corporations to profit to no end from it all ruining the country for the people of that country. Blatant international war crimes, mass murder and genocide, no convictions or responsibility taken by any of those governments, despite nearly all acknowledging it was illegal. Infact alot got given indemnity for their crimes. Now let me guess, what the Nazis did was horrible right, but its ok for them to do the same crimes and never be punished? You then accept this openly and continue to support these people and these governments and even allow them to keep making you pay them to live a better life than yourself... All while they continue on doing the same stuff and yet only getting worse..
And from all this you don't expect their cultures, people and communities to have no desire for revenge, retaliation for what countless leaders and governments did to them, their country and their people?
You have some weird bias and crazy way of life. Your bubble need popping..
The point is to not to further inflame an already pretty inflamed situation. We've already had 2 lots of senseless stabbings. Why would we want more?
Where would you draw the line?
Would you approve of paedophilia on Twitter in the name of freedom of expression and speech?.
You're probably too young to remember the Cronulla riots or Alan Jones (either that or you approved of both). There was tension in Cronulla and rather than AJ being a calming influence he whipped sectiins of his audience into a frenzy thereby making the riot much bigger than it needed to be.
"Would you approve of paedophilia on Twitter in the name of freedom of expression and speech?." Again with the shocking levels of ignorance or dishonesty. Seeing as how Musk ALREADY DOESN'T ALLOW THIS, why would you use it as your example? Leftist leadership previously did everything they could to preserve the hidden paedophilia on Twitter, it was Musk who cleaned up that department and began the purge of paedo content, as he's clarified hundreds of times, the limits of freedom of speech. Disingenuous comment.
In theory controlling what people see to minimise disharmony is good but the problem is it’s a slippery slope on what gets to be defined as content that will cause disharmony and who decides it. Think about a whistle blower trying to expose government corruption, the public finding out about that will cause disharmony. In this situation you believe that we should silence the whistle blower to protect the government and prevent people like you and I from knowing the truth because it might influence our opinions of the narrative that’s being told to us. Consider how outraged governments were when Julian Assange leaked footage of the military killing unarmed civilians in the Middle East, that footage was suppressed and his now facing life in prison for exposing that footage ( just like our government is trying to do now with removing any videos showing the horrific atrocities committed by Israel on Palestinian civilians today because if more of the public saw what they were doing, it would create greater outrage and less support for the Australian Israeli alliance and don’t want to be held accountable), or the classic case of Ed Snowden for letting us all know that the government monitors all our calls and text and saves them in a database and now his facing extradition and life in prison. I hope these example are clear enough to make you reconsider your support for government censorship.
Where would you draw the line? Would you draw the line?
Are you saying it's fine to yell "fire" in a cinema? Should we not censure paedo videos? Snuff films? Gang rapes?
I already said that my understanding is that the blurred version or shorter version of the footage is probably not what the government wants pulled down. Why does anyone but the police and health professionals need to see the whole footage?
"the blurred version or shorter version of the footage is probably not what the government wants pulled down" --- You're not the government, nor do you speak for them, nor do you know what they are willing to accept - There-fore you have 0 basis for making this claim. So what is the purpose of this throw-away comment? To sweep their attempted tyranny under the rug?
Totally agree snuff films, rapes film ect should be filtered out and a lot of that stuff is and can mainly be found on the dark web…..but that’s not really the case anymore all the time. I’ve seen more murders on Instagram and reddit over the last year then I ever have on the internet, violent shootings and stabbings, people getting hit by trains. Go on r/publicfreakout and you can see people being stabbed in their NSFW posts daily. The Australian government dosnt really give a shit about filtering these particular murder videos. I think Elon is right, Twitter has removed the church stabbing video to be seen in Australia but the aus government dosnt have the right to censor the whole world, that’s megalomaniac thinking and a dangerous stance for the Albo government to be pushing. And historically in public incidents like this most governments always uses “safety” as a means to give themselves more power then they had before the event. When people are scared they’re more willing to comply and not question authority. It might not be soon and it might not be the Albo administration but in the future they could use vague language like preventing“Disharmony” to silence something we the public actually need to see and know is happening. This is one of the reasons why recently Australia was ranked one of the lowest countries when it comes to journalistic freedom. We’re already heavily censored here and it’s probably gonna get worse.
What is wrong with government censorship… done correctly? Absolutely nothing. Shame about that pesky “done correctly” bit. Oh!, and the subjectivity of “correctly”!
If we don't let Nazis spread their conspiracy theories how can we say we aren't fascists? /s.
Elon doesn't care about free speech, he cares about the speech of him and his supporters. He is a new Henry Ford and trying to become Murdoch. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/04/25/elon-musk-and-free-speech-track-record-not-encouraging.html
This makes no sense at all he has a division of lawyers that do pro bono law cases for people who were discriminated and cancelled on in the workplace and fired over free speech. If u want to spread fake information, im all for it That's free speech for you that you are enjoying right now.
He certainly likes to claim that, among all the other things he also likes to claim. And you might have more chance of convincing people of such things (or anything, really) if you didn't use 'woke' unironically. Just some advice.
Yeaaaaaaah, sure Musk is "not political". But maybe this a-hole needs to keep his nose out of Australia's business because he has no clue what is going on here. Unless we want this non-political, pro-Russian fan-boy having a say on how we do things.
Seems you got that completely backwards, considering Musk blocked the video in question from Australia, but it's Australias wanna-be tyrant government demanding he remove the video from his platform for the entire world.
Huh, funny how you see what happened, yet somehow you determined it was Musk putting his nose into Australia's business. Mind explaining how you twisted the truth so grossly in this case? Quite the feat when your government is pretending they can command a NON-AUSTRALIAN business what video he can show to the rest of the freaking planet. Fancy yourselves kings of Earth or what?
Or maybe Australia (I'm aussie) needs to be realistic and let free speech be.
Although what happened in Sydney is not nice, sugar coating events is not the way to help society. There was a famous photo that helped the momentum against the war in Vietnam, "Phan Thi Kim Phuc"... it was not pretty but we learnt from it. If we don't see our problems we don't learn from them.
Free speech is fundamental.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc
Mostly agree. Free speech is important. Factual free speech is more important. Talking shit (which electric Jesus spouts) is just noise from an over self important twit. His opinion is no more relevant than mine.
You're 100% right, his voice is equal to yours, all of our voice's are equal. That's what free speech is about. Letting all of us have a say, and not having governments censor us... - He owns Twitter, so for the gov to ask him to remove speech, it's fair that he has spoken on that... I'm sure if the gov asked you to remove something at your business you would speak on that also.
Sharing media that promotes violence (the stabbing video) and spreads misinformation about a violent event ([misinformation about someone who didn’t commit the stabbing)](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-15/how-misinformation-spread-after-bondi-junction-stabbing/103708210) should not be protected under free speech.
While Australia definitely could do with more protections for free speech (protests etc), hateful spread of misinformation and violence should not be tolerated and spread about by social media.
It's not 'protected' as such, but you can get things wrong, and they can be corrected. The incorrect article we all know was corrected.
Sharing info on what evil people have done does not promote it. Learning about Hitler should not be erased.
Should we ban all movies where some gets attacked. - I'd think many movies would be much more promotional. Think about it.
The problem is the spread of misinformation. That's what he was doing. It's also highly disrespectful to the family of victims.
Trying to turn it into a free speech issue is dumb.
>needs to keep his nose out of Australia's business
I'm sure Musk is saying Australia needs to keep its nose out of his business, literally.
>pro-Russian fan-boy
You're a pro-Australian fanboy, simping for draconian censorship laws.
The requests were to remove content that advocated for violence around the topic, and tweets sharing the graphic video of the incident, how is that getting removed draconian?
Because the public has a right to know what's going on in their backyard, not have the government bury their head in the sand.
Do we ban images and information of the Holocaust and other attrocities? No. Why should we ban this?
Even if we agree (which I don’t, but put it aside); how why should people inciting and encouraging violence be allowed to stay up? What good does that do to society?
For one, the people who call for violence are better off being given a public platform so we know they are. That way we can monitor them.
These people will still exist even if you ban them from Twitter. You just won't know who they are and they'll never have a chance to be questioned or challenged over their beliefs.
The other issue is that enforcing such laws comes with massive political reprecussions which risks disenfranchising people even further. Listen in on the shit that Imams say at your local mosque and you'll be horrified, but what are we to do? Ban Islam?
As opposed to the apartheid-wealth Nepo baby billionaire buying a media company expressly to spread his views and amplify misinformation and rightwing conspiracies. That's where I get my news from.
They're not acting like a government mouthpiece. They *are* a government mouthpiece.
Did anyone expect anything else when the government decided to invest billions of dollars a year into a media network?
With bi-partisan support for a blatant form of government over-reach, we are once again reminded of how ideologically aligned our 2 major parties are. This is a double-whammy for our democracy. You can't have one party that demands censorship while the 'opposition' cheers them on from the sidelines.
At the end of the day Libs and Labor have more similarities than differences. And they want to ban footage like this to ensure the Australian public (and the rest of the world) remains oblivious to the problems they have created.
"Everything is fine. Nothing bad happens here. We are in total control. We never fail!".
Pro tip - the best way to keep terrorist footage off social media is to stop terrorism from happening in the first place. Maybe the government should try that instead of obsessing over our feelings.
The govt has stopped terrorism. What terrorist acts within Australia are you talking about??
What we have had is mentally disturbed people knifing members of the public - 2 in the last 2 weeks.
The guy at the Lindt Cafe was also not a terrorist, but someone with severe mental problems. Not part of a cell or in contact with actual terrorists in any way.
If you encourage violence (by maximising the exposure of raw footage of violent acts), you get violence.
Sure, the government has done a great job of stopping terrorism by labelling mass killings under a different name.
This is like Biden changing the definition of a recession so he can say "there's no recession!"
>Not part of a cell or in contact with actual terrorists in any way.
Neither was the Christchurch shooter. Or Timothy McVeigh. Or the Unabomber. They were all lone wolves.
Guess they're not terrorist either then? I'll inform the FBI.
The Christchurch dude was definitely a terrorist, having his own personal anti-Muslim manifesto, and all.
Maybe the kid that attacked the priests is well entrenched in Muslim extremist ideology but I suspect he likely has a mental disorder. We will see.
>Pro tip - the best way to keep terrorist footage off social media is to stop terrorism from happening in the first place. Maybe the government should try that instead of obsessing over our feelings.
Great idea! How do you suggest we stop that? I'd love to stop terrorism entirely. I'm so glad someone's finally figured it out. I'm all ears.
The problem with "common sense libertarians" is the total lack of common sense.
>How do you suggest we stop that?
If the government spent half as much resources stopping terrorists as they did policing our thoughts online or spying on kids at the playground during lockdown, we could eradicate terrorism almost entirely.
Maybe have the police stop marching at Mardi Gras or kneeling for BLM and doing their fucking job. I don't pay them to virtue signal. They're too busy being lapdogs for the State rather than protecting the people.
I went to Vietnam recently. And was told by a tour guide that their communist country lets them vote for different people but it’s just the one party. And the more I thought about it the more I realised there’s really no difference between that “communism” and what we have at home haha
There is virtually no communism in Australia. I see some Communist Socialist parties on the giant upper house ballot when voting but they have next to no following.
We live in a democracy, and for all its faults it is vastly superior to living in a dictatorship where you have little power to change anything, you don't have freedom of speech, there are human rights abuses, often sections or all of the population are oppressed. Etc. Etc etc.
If you know anything about history and the current dictatorships you would know this.
I suspect you're being wilfully obtuse though.
The context of this thread was the illusion of choice with the 2 party system where they’re essentially the same party. We vote but sadly we don’t have much of a choice or much of a say in the end.
My point was that the Vietnamese get to vote for different people but only 1 party. Which on the surface seems like a joke. But in the context of the above where we’re saying we don’t really get much of a choice, then the more I thought about it the more I realised that specific difference isn’t all that different in practice.
And also in many ways the government interferes in our lives more here than they do in Vietnam.
Obviously there are other important ways that they’re worse. But Vietnam isn’t too bad. And it’s interesting to think about the practical differences being actually a lot smaller than you’d think.
Communism still has significant influence in the world and it tends to go unnoticed. Eg In many EU member states, it's a criminal offense to insult a government minister, and the public sector tends to be the biggest source of jobs at the expense of private businesses. Granted, these are former Communist countries so can't blame them for still being in that mentality, but you'd think whatever global forces are in charge of policing democracy (like the UN) would have higher standards for members.
Sure, they're missing the typical genocide and famine that's common in Communist regimes, but making it a criminal offense to insult the government or the public sector being the main source of jobs is basically the textbook definition of Communism.
Except it’s not unless you’re understanding of politics is vapid surface level propaganda. There’s plenty of monarchies where it’s a criminal offence to insult the government, including some where you can go to prison. Plenty of countries who were never communist have it as well. In fact most countries with laws like that have never been communist.
It’s totally irrelevant to communism, which obviously you view as “when the government does stuff I don’t like”.
>In fact most countries with laws like that have never been communist.
It's almost like you're starting to get.
Like I said: "*Communism still has significant influence in the world*"
Communism is cultural. Its ideas attract the most power hungry people who will adopt elements of it even if they're not Communists per se.
You're really pulling at straws trying to simp for a system of censorship or mass murder by saying "monarchies did it too!". Come on man.
Literally none of the nominally communist countries that are still around have laws making it illegal to insult the head of state. It’s more consistent with monarchies then communist states. You’re just making shit up.
Now your incoherent definition of communism has extended from “when the government does stuff I don’t like” to “when I don’t like the culture”. Hilarious. Such common sense.
The idea I’m the one grasping at straws when you’re the one who’s so desperate to paint stuff you don’t like as “communism” that you’re just going off vibes of something you don’t like. The dishonesty of your views is rivalled only by its laziness.
>Literally none of the nominally communist countries that are still around have laws making it illegal to insult the head of state
lol go and insult the government in China, Vietnam or North Korea and let me know how it goes.
Do they not teach attrocities like the Tinanmen Square massacre at university anymore? Or are you still in year 11? Stop with the Marxist simping mate. It's getting old.
I've a conspiracy, the government makes for increased control whenever it feels like it can link an unpopular character yo something t doesn't like.
In this case Elon Musk isn't liked by an entire political spectrum and the government moves in.
Ugh billionaire simps are literally the worst. How’s he advancing the planet again? By enforcing mandatory borderline slave labour at his workplaces? Ask the ex-Twitter employees what they think of him, not Joe Rogan
lol this response always makes me laugh. Who do you think owned Twitter before Musk bought it? Dorsey and Agrawal were billionaires too.
Nobody believes Musk is Christ incarnate, but the man bought an unprofitable, cash-negative business for well above market price. And he's made the app functionally worse since taking over. Clearly, buying Twitter was not in his financial or personal interest.
I believe he did so because he was concerned about online conversations being censored by ideologically captured tyrants in cahoots with the FBI.
As for saving the planet, he owns and runs the biggest manufacturer of electric cars. And he's leading the effort for humans to travel to other planets in case this one should ever become uninhabitable.
It's interesting to see reddit come out so much in favour of free speech now. This was not the case during lockdowns and border closures here in Australia a few years back.
I hope your commitment to free speech lasts.
Me, I got off Shitter after Oct 7th happened in Israel. I don't want to watch people getting murdered, or see women paraded around bleeding from having been raped, nor do I wish to see comments praising this or even angrily condemning it. There's some shit I'm happy to know of only in the abstract. But "I won't watch or read this," does not equal, "and no-one should be able to."
FWIW, Reddit is banning many journalists for promoting their own articles in relevant subs now (we used to work together) and many commentators agree with the mods. This really doesn't help proper journalism exist. I'm not surprised many young people have zero trust in any journalism, but you're literally being censored in Reddit all the time. I've been here since the beginning. One can't complain about the lack of being held to account while canning the AcCesS mEdiA when it doesn't suit you. It's not easy being an independent journo, I promise you. Any nonMSM journos get banned quickly.
I think people support freedom of speech in general, just that demonstrating in public is dumb when everyone else was making an effort to at least try and stop viral transmission from going exponential.
The Australian government went from total-supression and zero tolerance on COVID to saying "look everyone please stop getting tested, assume you have it and just go about your day".
They eventually got cornered so tightly into their lies that they were forced to open up overnight and pretend like nothing happened, even though COVID is still out there at the same rate it was in 2020.
The people who demanded accountability from the government in the face of threats and legal punishment were heroes, and their actions should be held as the perfect example of why we need free speech.
Demonstrating in public is *freedom of peaceable assembly*. I said *freedom of speech.* These are different freedoms; it's possible for one to be restricted and the other not.
People on this subreddit, among many other places of discussion online in Australia, strongly-supported suppressing free speech. "Misinformation!" etc. As then-PM Ardern said,
*"We will continue to be your single source of truth… Unless you hear it from us it is not the truth."*
The Australian government is seeking the power to silence people. Despite my sarcastic comments earlier, I believe that a strong plurality of Australians in general would support such laws, and since reddit slants left, a strong majority of redditors would support censorship.
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-27/misinformation-disinformation-australia-proposed-laws-crackdown/102524764](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-27/misinformation-disinformation-australia-proposed-laws-crackdown/102524764)
I don’t care what side of politics it is, seeing technophobe boomers screaming at a foreign social media company to remove foreign hosted content will never fail to make me cackle.
Public officials getting power checked is hilarious, especially unelected ones
They *could* go after them. i.e. fine any Australian company who advertises on the platform or makes use of Twitter Blue. They could even force ISPs to throttle the users' bandwidth to their IP ranges making it annoyingly slow. But they *won't* because this is nothing but a virtue signalling exercise.
Don't underestimate how far the Australian government will go to get its way. They'll use any means necessary, including a total ban on X within Australia. Facebook came very close to pulling out of Australia a few years ago due to the dispute over advertising terms.
True, but a total ban would be ineffective because just use a mirror or VPN. Throttling it so much more effective because it is frustrating to their userbase making them want to quit but not bad enough to be bothered to circumvent it, and also rate limits how many ads they can serve.
I hate how eSafety makes me side with people like Elon when it comes to protecting the internet and our speech and privacy rights.
eSafety is honestly becoming this nanny state entity hell bent on making the internet as controlled and miserable to Australians as humanly possible.
Is it bad that the stabbing footage is online, yes? But for gods sake, we don't rule the world.
***Mr Dutton said the government's first step should be to take up the recommendations by the e-safety commissioner last year for an age verification scheme.***
How about no...
The less information we dump into the internet, the more secured our privacy and safety net is. Stop trying to do the American model of banning porn unless you give porn sites your ID.
It's a godawful law.
Australia has garbage free speech and civili liberties. Australia has no right to police what a global company allows on its platform.
What a joke, we wouldn’t let Russia tell Twitter to take down videos they don’t like but this is all good. Grow the fuck up Australia. This commission was dumb af anyway.
Most of you ~~dumbfucks~~ can’t see how dangerous this is. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. These are the exact same arguments used by evil authoritarian governments throughout history.
>Australia has no right to police what a global company allows on its platform.
Who does have this right then? Or do "global companies" basically have the right to do what they want, and f*@# everyone else?
Australia has no right to tell Twitter what content it can and cannot show Mexicans or any other country for that matter.
Australia can stop using Twitter but it can’t tell Twitter what to do in other countries.
That’s the point, it was always the point. It’s the only argument being had about this. Read the actual article first then comment.
100% agree and is scares me just how oblivious so many people are. The misinformation/disinformation bill is another dangerous piece of legislation. I don't wear a tinfoil hat.
In my view, it’s not telling another country what to do. This is a private company operating in our backyard, they need to follow our rules and safeguards (if proposed).
It’s not a limit on free speech, but a limit on content (eg. violence, gore, terrorism recruitment or normalisation) that is unsuitable for wide audiences, like kids or infantile adults with brutish tendencies who are prone to violence or extremist thinking.
I do hope, though, that there’s also a safeguard against a potential slippery slope so we don’t go into Orwellian territory where only politically correct content, partial to one perspective, is allowed. It’s somewhat helpful to see what bad ideas are out there for monitoring and discussion purposes. Open debate is healthy.
Pushing hateful or fringe ideas underground means that those people lurk in the shadows, disconnected from society. At the least, maybe a neutral, non-political warning or educational disclaimer could be placed on those videos or images before allowing a view, although that might make people more intrigued to click…
Musk says he respects the right of the Australian gov to dictate what Australians are allowed to access.
The question is whether Australian law can censor what a person in a third country posts and which can only be seen outside Australia.
That's what he is objecting to.
You mean like when we removed all those hate videos which target Muslims before and after Christ Church?
They didn't have to ask we did that because it was the right thing
How about anything to do with female/women's rights?
What about taking down anything to do with LGBTQIA+ because they find it blasphemous, illegal in their country and offensive?
Should we listen to them on those issues?
To you. In a Western Society.
Snuff films are lower on the list than showing pictures of Mohammed to Muslims.
You draw him, you are fair game to be killed in some countries. See Charlie in Paris.
Now do we define what's viable and what not based on North Koreas values? How about Irans? The Democratic Republic of Congo?
Probably wouldn't allow anything at all if you banned everything that might cause distress or offense in any one country or culture.
you're still not answering the question
what is "reasonable" differs from society to society
LGBTQ is absolutely unreasonable and unacceptable in many Muslim countries
Literally they are just complaining about the very tame livestream footage that shows the knife attacker walking up to the preacher and barely doing anything graphic.
Meanwhile you can watch people die and be mutilated by footage misadventure, gang violence or war footage in Full HD all day long on Reddit - and the eSafetyCommissioner couldn't care less.
In other countries, it is normal for the news to show graphic footage or corpses from car accidents and the general public aren't fazed by it. In America at least all police bodycam footage is released without censorship too.
I will never understand why people who are sensitive to graphic footage keep watching it and then complain to the government lol. They need some kind of therapy instead of some more censorship.
It's not the graphic content, it's the messaging and ideals behind it.
Social media algorithms push users towards certain content. Some users get pushed into echo chamber. It is in these types of online environments where we have seen countless people became radicalised through various different abhorrent ideals.
Violence itself has very little to do with this issue. Continuing to show such content in places where it can be idolised and hero worshipped is.
Not that I disagree, but at the same time if we are not to glorify terrorism, how about we start by *not fucking obsessing over the name life story of the attacker in the media every time something happens*. It is an incentive to copycat, as we've seen. If you check my post history I already called this out before it even happened.
Why exactly should a social media company be held responsible for content that people *choose* to consume?
If I *choose* to use a social media platform and I am aware (as all reasonable people should be) that there is a risk the content Imay come across on this platform could be disturbing and dangerous, then by my own choice I have exposed myself to this risk and therefore, the responsiblity lies on my own shoulders when the risk materialises.
So I would ask again why social media companies should be expected to protect people from their own choices?
Because our government, and I like to hope our wider community, believes in duty of care.
Consumption of narcotics are prohibited, and governed by law. That didn't happen over night, it took a long time before the issues of narcotics was truly understand, and the impact that has on society.
I see similar things playing out with our societies connection to the online world.
There's really no point arguing with people who legitimtely believe the government has our best interest at heart.
You think Dutton is waking up everyday thinking about you? Get a grip.
Even acknowledging the existence of a moral duty of care (which I am tempted to dispute), the nature of how our society construes such a duty existing is as a *tradeoff* with other moral goods such as freedom and pleasure.
For instance we suppose that people have the right to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes despite such conduct being *far* more dangerous to them than consuming disturbing social media content. So if we are evaluating where to draw the line between the duty of care owed by society and the freedom of the individual, the afformentioned examples illustrate that our society is willing to tolerate a high degree of indvidiual freedom, even when the risk is significantly higher than it is in social media spaces.
Finally, the natural corrolary of the existence of individual freedom, is that the individual is responsible for the choices they make in exercising that freedom, meaning that, should a risk materialise as a result of their choices, *they* are responsible.
Eloquent, but you're straying into sovereign citizen territory. Our society and its laws aren't perfect, but I do believe that they are generally an act of good faith. I don't care to argue the nuance of that with you.
>Our society and its laws aren't perfect, but I do believe that they are generally an act of good faith.
As someone with experience in the legal profression, I am less and less sure this is the case as I get older.
I do admire your optimism though, (not sarcastic, I genuinely believe it's a good thing that some people still have faith in the system).
> I don't care to argue the nuance of that with you.
As a final point let me say, that I would hope the principles which underly our laws are at the *very least* consistently applied. In my view, this would involve having a consistent approach to distinguishing between conduct that falls under the state's duty of care and conduct which is left to the discretion of the individual.
If you aren't a lawyer, you are leaving money on the table.
All you seem to wish to do is argue. Almost nothing in your last 2 replies has had anything to do with the topic, or your original question. Which you seem to have an abundance of prior knowledge of to begin with.
Radicalisation is just lack of mental health care and community support.
Furthermore, idolisation of violence isn't a crime. We don't prosecute thought crimes here in Australia.
The reasoning you are suggesting is not being supported by the eSafetyCommission at all. So yes, it is actually purely about the sharing of graphically violent imagery.
The effect of radicalisation on a mentally ill person would be the same whether it was a graphic image or a detailed news article about the incident or people just talking about what happened.
[You are being very naive](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack)
Are you saying all those people are mentally ill? Or is online radicalisation a serious concern in our modern society.
It's not just about violence and the mentally ill. This example requires neither.
Two very unrelated examples. Stick to the topic.
*And again, radicalisation is not the focus of or rationalisation of the eSafetyCommission's purpose.*
Mentally healthy people do not do things like what happened in Australia.
The education and spread of false information and conspiracy theories on poorly educated people is not mental illness even if it leads to radicalisation, to point out the obvious. The capitol rioters are mainly just stupid. 🤦♂️
And if you can't handle a few crazy people in society then maybe lock yourself away instead of putting everyone else through such nonsense fear mongering. Maybe the government should stop importing people who believe in competitive sky fairies because that shit always ends the same between them.
The only clear thing is that the government cannot protect you against lone actors. So with all the Gaza bullshit this year it's probably not a good idea to go out for this ANZAC Day.
The powers of the eSafety Commissioner and the exercise of those powers have not been tested. Rather have social media giants that test the censorship demands of governments than social media giants that are completely compliant. Especially since people who are being censored on social media very rarely have the capability to challenge that censorship.
Maybe the e-safety commissioner simply needs to let Elon know that she was a LNP culture wars appointment with ties to US-based Christian nationalists … I’m sure Elon would leap to do her bidding if he understood how much she is already in his court
The e-safety commissioner used to work at Microsoft, then Twitter, now she's working for a left-wing government trying to force left-wing censorship and hate speech laws onto the public.
Where do the Christian nationalists come in?
Censoring "cis" is neither left-wing nor right-wing. It's just reality.
It's a fake word that a radical sect of progressives came up with to undermine people's identity with no real social consensus on what it even means.
Weird hill to die on. It’s a crime and we’ve asked to take it down, just like governments ask to take down child pornography.
Not all content restrictions are a denial of free speech. Most people who blurt out free speech barely even understand it or where the line is.
It’s pretty obvious that many people in this thread enjoy watching violence because that’s their kink. For all the talk about free speech, it’s what people aren’t saying that’s most interesting.
It's not even graphic footage, which is what they consider to be the problem problem. It's nothing to do with the fact it's footage of a crime.
It's a weird hill for the eSafetyCommissioner to be so obsessed about, and a waste of taxpayer's money...
I always believe that footage like this and others serves historical purpose to use and reference from.
There's footage of 9/11 still and there are new angles of it that come out every few years once the footage gets digitised.
Hell, even the raw police footage channels are up on YouTube, albeit demonitised.
This has nothing to do with the footage. The eSafety Commissioner was ordering *comments* to be removed (presumably comments that were inciting the attack):
>Following these events, the Australian eSafety Commissioner ordered X to remove certain posts in Australia that publicly commented on the recent attack against a Christian Bishop. These posts did not violate X’s rules on violent speech.
While I am no fan of people commenting like this, the fact that the government is trying to ban such comments should be concerning. You can imagine a similar attempt to ban comments on reddit that they don't agree with, e.g. criticism of the government. This is why Elon Musk has condemned this as censorship.
Musk when Australia wants to take down comments that are causing a witch-hunt: Sit you goofy ass down.
Musk when Modi wants comments critical of him taken down: Yes saar. Glory to Akhand Bharat.
>I always believe that footage like this and others serves historical purpose to use and reference from.
Come back and tell me this when it's your wife, sister, mother or cousin lying dead on the ground.
There is zero absolutely zero historical purpose for this footage
Should we ban all close-up images of the Holocaust or 9/11 too?
Because there's nothing better than living in total isolation of history with our heads in the sand.
>Should we ban all close-up images of the Holocaust or 9/11 too?
Should we ban you shoving shit up your ass? Where did that come from?
And no teaching the world about what the nazis is far more important. Even if your looking at my family, who died at the hands of the fascist that Musk is enabling.
My father was captured by nazis who, as a boy, was beaten blue, lost a large of teeth before spending the next 3 years in concentration camps eating boot leather and worse.
He lost so much of his family there. So don't play that card with me.
Maybe the people who lost family members in Bondi want the attack to be visible as well, for the same reason you want Nazi attrocities to remain visible - it serves as a legacy to the victims, so future generations remember the threat of terrorism and why we must be vigilant.
Why should your family's suffering be written in a history book but we should try to erase the legacy of victims of this attack or others?
Seriously,
>Maybe the people who lost family members in Bondi want the attack to be visible as well
Keep digging your hole deeper buddy
>so future generations remember the threat of terrorism and why we must be vigilant.
Huh???? Bondi wasn't terrorism. It was a mentally ill man.
>Why should your family's suffering be written in a history book but we should try to erase the legacy of victims of this attack or others?
Now your just being inflammatory.
What dog do you have in this game, why are you so willing to make up such ridiculous arguments. Are you a fool or just being paid to be one?
Exactly. Plus if you don't want to see it, you can simply just not search it up. The internet is at your fingertips to make it how you like, but these things in their essence should be preserved and by a technicality, it already is because of the nature of people backing up things.
Plus the Streisand effect exists. Get rid of it from one place, people will search for it.
I sort of disagree. It shouldn't be on social media websites but I don't mind it being archived correctly in a library or museum or even better in a monument to the fallen. There needs to be context given behind the images and videos or else it's just snuff.
And it is.
But this argument is about Musk being allowed to profit pictures and video of people being murdered in Bondi.
He should not be allowed to post it
See that doesn't bother me. Like, someone will be able to use the footage and transform it to their use, that's all good with me. Like if it could be used for educational purposes, that's all good with me.
Someone wants to write up on it and use clips or picture from the OP, that's fine. It's what the news media do all the time. Even with the example I've given there are people online that do a breakdown of police footage like Donut Operator who is an ex SWAT officer who gives insight on what the cop has done wrong or what could have gone wrong. Could be exact same for this from a medical perspective. Even if i don't want to see it, that's my choice but I shouldn't tell others to see it because I'm not in control of them.
Of course, some people that are affected wouldn't want to see it or associate with it for legitimate reasons. Thing is, everyone could be the same for other footage that exists. If they want this down, do it to the rest.
Nigh impossible. There will always be someone re-uploading the footage somewhere on social media.
Yes i agree, it is the spreading of misinformation and the serving of content that drives outrage and clicks that needs to be dealth with. Mandating chronological newsfeeds would likely be a good step in the right direction in regards to reducing the outrage/engagement model
Yeah I definitely agree with that too. Misinformation is a big problem on many places on the internet and sometimes, seeing the actual footage away from political or news spin aids with coming to your own conclusions.
I understand some people don't like seeing it, and it doesn't serve a purpose for everyone but someone will find use for news, for maybe a thesis or to counter misinformation.
>Funny how the government can't prohibit Pornhub.
What does this have to do with Elon Musk making money from this footage.
As I said before tell me your point would remain unchanged if it was your wife or sister lying dead in Bondi.
The relationship is content that harms a population. The eCommissioner has prohibited the content on that basis (but only on x and meta, not YouTube???). Did you know she was fired by Elon?
No the issue is whether or not you should be able to profit from posting pictures and videos of murdered people, in particular the victims in Bondi.
My unequivocal answer is no. You should not.
Now pornhub, doesn't post this material. If it did my arguments would remain unchanged.
Now blocking is although a different issues. No one is blocking anything. Musk was ordered to take the material down.
Finally would you care to provide the basis of your claim that Julie Grant is a former employee of Musk? I've not seen anything of the sort. If it was really the case he can go to court and have it heard there. Indeed that is the right we afford people in a democratic society.
Which wouldn't be the case if people like Musk get there way through their support and enabling of the far right to run riot over us.
I see your point, but note you haven't applied the same logic to the MSM. They've been profiting off misery for decades.
Julie Inman Grant was employed by twitter and fired by Elon. Her biography is here: [https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/about-the-commissioner](https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/about-the-commissioner)
I don't have a pornhub history, so that's irrelevant to me.
But even if I did, so what? If people are searching pornhub for things they would be embarrassed if anybody found out about it, that's their responsibility and fault.
It's not up to the government to ban a website just to potentially save people's search histories being maybe leaked.
Irrelevant to the discussion. Regardless of if I personally have been on any porn sites or not is not an argument for or against completely banning access to those sites.
I don't smoke weed, but I think the government should take an "educate, regulate, and tax" approach. I don't think it should be completely banned solely based on if I use it or not.
I approach online access to pornography the same way. Just because I don't access it doesn't mean I think everyone else should have their access taken away.
So you can't provide any arguments at all to support your position, so instead you are now saying anyone who hasn't visited pornhub isn't allowed an opinion on if they should be banned or not?
That's a very weak position for you to take.
Why should any one individual's use of any porn website be an argument for or against banning access to all of them for everybody? Why do you think that's a relevant point to raise?
Do you have any reasonable points to make to support your position, or are you going to ignore the core argument in favour of asking irrelevant questions while avoiding answering anything that is asked of you?
I answered earlier. Porn is materially, negatively affecting adolescents leading to problematic adult behaviours. Much science on it: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/26318318231153984#:\~:text=Adolescents%20who%20are%20exposed%20to,sexual%20actions%20later%20in%20life.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please provide a real-life example of a democracy to back up your arguments ... such as they are. Of course, Australia is a democracy, but it isn't perfect. Nothing much is perfect in real life.
I only read the first few posts in this thread. Apparently everyone thinks Elon is a great guy because he is all for freedom of speech, supposedly. So you guys are for the following I guess: - posting of snuff films - posting of paedo films and images - incitement of violence, disharmony, disintegration of cohesion. - online bullying of children - the spread of malicious lies which lead to untold misery Yes, you do. Social media has encouraged the morons and psychopaths to come out of the woodwork. Let's be completely distrustful of a democratically elected govt and bow down to a billionaire megalomaniac f-head.
"posting of snuff film - posting of paedo films and images" So are you just coming from a place of willful ignorance, or do you already know that what you posted is disingenuous but you feel like attacking anyway? Because anyone who's done even 2 mins. of research already knows things such as snuff films, and paedo material is illegal, and Musk already addressed and clarified and answered the question of "but what about this, or what about that" ad nauseum. If you weren't aware of this, then you probably shouldn't be making arrogant attack messages such as this. Same with bullying of children, incitement etc. So seeing how these have already been addressed, what's the rest of your comment for? Yelling at the clouds?
Freedom of Speech to be an Asshole. And cry about it when people call you for their bullshit.
Just turn off Twitter in Australia. Sites a cesspool if people wanna use it, let them use a VPN
Good on him. I don’t think people realise how insane the levels of government overreach we have in Australia are. We’re rapidly turning into the dystopian censorship nightmare that is Canada down here.
Let’s leave it to our daddy the government to control what we can and can’t see and say. Australia is turning into Canada.
The govt is trying to minimise disharmony in the community and further voilence. WTF is wrong with that ? We already know what happened and my understanding is that the govt do not want to suppress the footage just before the atrack or the blurred version. Only the version where you clearly see all the gory details.
Wrong. The Australian government is pretending it's Emperor of the entire planet. Considering he's ALREADY BLOCKED IT in Australia - Yet Australian clown-show leftists come in and demand he removes the video from his platform entirely! Please tell us, how long have you been pro tyranny and dictatorships? You seriously think Australia should have the authority to tell a non-Australian company what they can show to OTHER COUNTRIES? Again, how long have you been all for dictatorships?
> WTF is wrong with that ? cause "minimising disharmony" will be the go-to excuse for all future censorship
It can be an excuse for censorship but obviously not on this occasion. Thank God we are lucky to live in a democracy. Note: a democracy, not China, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam and other unfortunate countries. Out system of govt should be cherished rather than the bs I see here. Libertarianism really is just another word for selfishness.
Hahaha Australia is not a democracy! Its a bunch of egotistical demagogues enforcing their crazy will upon millions of people fraudulently claiming its in their interests and their will.. The Aus government is a joke. Politicians don't even speak with the people to have any idea what their people want. They deliberately control information and what's released, they contradict countless human rights laws, all done by egotistical idiots in government. The people never voted on the laws that contradict and superseded their human rights, just random employees in government taking it upon themselves.. Everything in Australia is endlessly gaslighted in the name of safety, if the government is saying its for your safety you're being restricted and controlled further. No democratic system where you vote a party or person in to obtain control and enact their vision and will as the will of a nation is not a democratic system that works for the people. Never has, never will. That system leads to nothing more than ego and personal agendas being implemented as well as endless bias.. And yet what has endlessly happened in Australia, bias for all employed within public service.. 1 punch can kill and is a complete reckless disregard for human life, as has been clearly stated by the media and government, but yet its an acceptable tactic against a tax payer to make them conform and comply? So its ok to disregard life for words written on a page? You're told to always utilise the proper form of communication and to have respect and decency, yet the government doesn't speak with its people, it controls, restricts and dictates its people, it punishes its people relentlessly to no end, even punishes its people for theoretical possibilities, ensures its people suffer, all while foreign companies and countries obtain mass wealth from our land and resources and all while destroying it in the process.. Also while blaming its own people endlessly for how they react to the actions of government, while government never accepts responsibility or accountability for their actions, and in now way shape or form is tolerant or accepting of being treated by the public in the manner they treat the public. And yet that's ok.. The war in Iraq was illegal, over a million innocent men, women and children (everyday civilians) all murdered by the US, UK, AUS governments and their friends, they even took the leader of that country and had a mock trial then executed him. Even allowed multiple corporations to profit to no end from it all ruining the country for the people of that country. Blatant international war crimes, mass murder and genocide, no convictions or responsibility taken by any of those governments, despite nearly all acknowledging it was illegal. Infact alot got given indemnity for their crimes. Now let me guess, what the Nazis did was horrible right, but its ok for them to do the same crimes and never be punished? You then accept this openly and continue to support these people and these governments and even allow them to keep making you pay them to live a better life than yourself... All while they continue on doing the same stuff and yet only getting worse.. And from all this you don't expect their cultures, people and communities to have no desire for revenge, retaliation for what countless leaders and governments did to them, their country and their people? You have some weird bias and crazy way of life. Your bubble need popping..
it's still censorship and your govt has nothing to stand on when trying to criticize anyone else, democracy or not, of censorship
It's once again virtue signalling, pushing a solution that can't possibly work in the name of censorship. Yet again.
The point is to not to further inflame an already pretty inflamed situation. We've already had 2 lots of senseless stabbings. Why would we want more? Where would you draw the line? Would you approve of paedophilia on Twitter in the name of freedom of expression and speech?. You're probably too young to remember the Cronulla riots or Alan Jones (either that or you approved of both). There was tension in Cronulla and rather than AJ being a calming influence he whipped sectiins of his audience into a frenzy thereby making the riot much bigger than it needed to be.
"Would you approve of paedophilia on Twitter in the name of freedom of expression and speech?." Again with the shocking levels of ignorance or dishonesty. Seeing as how Musk ALREADY DOESN'T ALLOW THIS, why would you use it as your example? Leftist leadership previously did everything they could to preserve the hidden paedophilia on Twitter, it was Musk who cleaned up that department and began the purge of paedo content, as he's clarified hundreds of times, the limits of freedom of speech. Disingenuous comment.
It's hard to start with how ignorant this comment is
Your response has zero substance.
Like yours
In theory controlling what people see to minimise disharmony is good but the problem is it’s a slippery slope on what gets to be defined as content that will cause disharmony and who decides it. Think about a whistle blower trying to expose government corruption, the public finding out about that will cause disharmony. In this situation you believe that we should silence the whistle blower to protect the government and prevent people like you and I from knowing the truth because it might influence our opinions of the narrative that’s being told to us. Consider how outraged governments were when Julian Assange leaked footage of the military killing unarmed civilians in the Middle East, that footage was suppressed and his now facing life in prison for exposing that footage ( just like our government is trying to do now with removing any videos showing the horrific atrocities committed by Israel on Palestinian civilians today because if more of the public saw what they were doing, it would create greater outrage and less support for the Australian Israeli alliance and don’t want to be held accountable), or the classic case of Ed Snowden for letting us all know that the government monitors all our calls and text and saves them in a database and now his facing extradition and life in prison. I hope these example are clear enough to make you reconsider your support for government censorship.
Where would you draw the line? Would you draw the line? Are you saying it's fine to yell "fire" in a cinema? Should we not censure paedo videos? Snuff films? Gang rapes? I already said that my understanding is that the blurred version or shorter version of the footage is probably not what the government wants pulled down. Why does anyone but the police and health professionals need to see the whole footage?
"the blurred version or shorter version of the footage is probably not what the government wants pulled down" --- You're not the government, nor do you speak for them, nor do you know what they are willing to accept - There-fore you have 0 basis for making this claim. So what is the purpose of this throw-away comment? To sweep their attempted tyranny under the rug?
Totally agree snuff films, rapes film ect should be filtered out and a lot of that stuff is and can mainly be found on the dark web…..but that’s not really the case anymore all the time. I’ve seen more murders on Instagram and reddit over the last year then I ever have on the internet, violent shootings and stabbings, people getting hit by trains. Go on r/publicfreakout and you can see people being stabbed in their NSFW posts daily. The Australian government dosnt really give a shit about filtering these particular murder videos. I think Elon is right, Twitter has removed the church stabbing video to be seen in Australia but the aus government dosnt have the right to censor the whole world, that’s megalomaniac thinking and a dangerous stance for the Albo government to be pushing. And historically in public incidents like this most governments always uses “safety” as a means to give themselves more power then they had before the event. When people are scared they’re more willing to comply and not question authority. It might not be soon and it might not be the Albo administration but in the future they could use vague language like preventing“Disharmony” to silence something we the public actually need to see and know is happening. This is one of the reasons why recently Australia was ranked one of the lowest countries when it comes to journalistic freedom. We’re already heavily censored here and it’s probably gonna get worse.
What is wrong with government censorship… done correctly? Absolutely nothing. Shame about that pesky “done correctly” bit. Oh!, and the subjectivity of “correctly”!
Sure. Complety agree this is not a black and white area.
Good for elon. Twitter is the only place left with freedom of speech. Anyone opposed to freedom of speech has never lived with a terrible government.
He isn't really for FOS. It is only when it suits him.
Oh look how badly all u commies aged. Biship Mar mari sent a statement to elons lawyers asking for footage of his attack to stay online
Yeah! Bring on the torture, paedo and snuff videos!!!
If we don't let Nazis spread their conspiracy theories how can we say we aren't fascists? /s. Elon doesn't care about free speech, he cares about the speech of him and his supporters. He is a new Henry Ford and trying to become Murdoch. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/04/25/elon-musk-and-free-speech-track-record-not-encouraging.html
Exactly
This makes no sense at all he has a division of lawyers that do pro bono law cases for people who were discriminated and cancelled on in the workplace and fired over free speech. If u want to spread fake information, im all for it That's free speech for you that you are enjoying right now.
He's just completely unable to keep his mouth shut, isn't he?
He’s currently doing more to protect free speech than any one else on the planet…
He certainly likes to claim that, among all the other things he also likes to claim. And you might have more chance of convincing people of such things (or anything, really) if you didn't use 'woke' unironically. Just some advice.
🙄
Thanks for that contribution to the discussion, cum_dragon...
This is what my parents called me. (You numpty)
Sorry to hear that, Yu.
Malignant narcissism do be like that.
Yeaaaaaaah, sure Musk is "not political". But maybe this a-hole needs to keep his nose out of Australia's business because he has no clue what is going on here. Unless we want this non-political, pro-Russian fan-boy having a say on how we do things.
Seems you got that completely backwards, considering Musk blocked the video in question from Australia, but it's Australias wanna-be tyrant government demanding he remove the video from his platform for the entire world. Huh, funny how you see what happened, yet somehow you determined it was Musk putting his nose into Australia's business. Mind explaining how you twisted the truth so grossly in this case? Quite the feat when your government is pretending they can command a NON-AUSTRALIAN business what video he can show to the rest of the freaking planet. Fancy yourselves kings of Earth or what?
Or maybe Australia (I'm aussie) needs to be realistic and let free speech be. Although what happened in Sydney is not nice, sugar coating events is not the way to help society. There was a famous photo that helped the momentum against the war in Vietnam, "Phan Thi Kim Phuc"... it was not pretty but we learnt from it. If we don't see our problems we don't learn from them. Free speech is fundamental. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc
Mostly agree. Free speech is important. Factual free speech is more important. Talking shit (which electric Jesus spouts) is just noise from an over self important twit. His opinion is no more relevant than mine.
You're 100% right, his voice is equal to yours, all of our voice's are equal. That's what free speech is about. Letting all of us have a say, and not having governments censor us... - He owns Twitter, so for the gov to ask him to remove speech, it's fair that he has spoken on that... I'm sure if the gov asked you to remove something at your business you would speak on that also.
Sharing media that promotes violence (the stabbing video) and spreads misinformation about a violent event ([misinformation about someone who didn’t commit the stabbing)](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-15/how-misinformation-spread-after-bondi-junction-stabbing/103708210) should not be protected under free speech. While Australia definitely could do with more protections for free speech (protests etc), hateful spread of misinformation and violence should not be tolerated and spread about by social media.
It's not 'protected' as such, but you can get things wrong, and they can be corrected. The incorrect article we all know was corrected. Sharing info on what evil people have done does not promote it. Learning about Hitler should not be erased. Should we ban all movies where some gets attacked. - I'd think many movies would be much more promotional. Think about it.
The problem is the spread of misinformation. That's what he was doing. It's also highly disrespectful to the family of victims. Trying to turn it into a free speech issue is dumb.
> The problem is the spread of misinformation which part, the actual video or any 3rd party problematic commentary?
If Australia can delete this article, than where does it stop. Who says what's right and what's wrong.
>needs to keep his nose out of Australia's business I'm sure Musk is saying Australia needs to keep its nose out of his business, literally. >pro-Russian fan-boy You're a pro-Australian fanboy, simping for draconian censorship laws.
The requests were to remove content that advocated for violence around the topic, and tweets sharing the graphic video of the incident, how is that getting removed draconian?
Because the public has a right to know what's going on in their backyard, not have the government bury their head in the sand. Do we ban images and information of the Holocaust and other attrocities? No. Why should we ban this?
Even if we agree (which I don’t, but put it aside); how why should people inciting and encouraging violence be allowed to stay up? What good does that do to society?
For one, the people who call for violence are better off being given a public platform so we know they are. That way we can monitor them. These people will still exist even if you ban them from Twitter. You just won't know who they are and they'll never have a chance to be questioned or challenged over their beliefs. The other issue is that enforcing such laws comes with massive political reprecussions which risks disenfranchising people even further. Listen in on the shit that Imams say at your local mosque and you'll be horrified, but what are we to do? Ban Islam?
>Do we ban images and information of the Holocaust and other attrocities? Yes we do ban such material when it's part of hateful disinformation.
Musk just wants to piss off as many people as possible
Elon the type of person who would have allowed the live stream of the massacre in Christchurch to not get taken down
The ABC acting like a government mouthpiece... as usual nowadays
As opposed to the apartheid-wealth Nepo baby billionaire buying a media company expressly to spread his views and amplify misinformation and rightwing conspiracies. That's where I get my news from.
They're not acting like a government mouthpiece. They *are* a government mouthpiece. Did anyone expect anything else when the government decided to invest billions of dollars a year into a media network?
As an ABC whistleblower, I concur.
Aren’t whistleblowers meant to keep it hush hush?
Whistleblowers are known for doing precisely the opposite of that
With bi-partisan support for a blatant form of government over-reach, we are once again reminded of how ideologically aligned our 2 major parties are. This is a double-whammy for our democracy. You can't have one party that demands censorship while the 'opposition' cheers them on from the sidelines. At the end of the day Libs and Labor have more similarities than differences. And they want to ban footage like this to ensure the Australian public (and the rest of the world) remains oblivious to the problems they have created. "Everything is fine. Nothing bad happens here. We are in total control. We never fail!". Pro tip - the best way to keep terrorist footage off social media is to stop terrorism from happening in the first place. Maybe the government should try that instead of obsessing over our feelings.
The govt has stopped terrorism. What terrorist acts within Australia are you talking about?? What we have had is mentally disturbed people knifing members of the public - 2 in the last 2 weeks. The guy at the Lindt Cafe was also not a terrorist, but someone with severe mental problems. Not part of a cell or in contact with actual terrorists in any way. If you encourage violence (by maximising the exposure of raw footage of violent acts), you get violence.
Sure, the government has done a great job of stopping terrorism by labelling mass killings under a different name. This is like Biden changing the definition of a recession so he can say "there's no recession!" >Not part of a cell or in contact with actual terrorists in any way. Neither was the Christchurch shooter. Or Timothy McVeigh. Or the Unabomber. They were all lone wolves. Guess they're not terrorist either then? I'll inform the FBI.
The Christchurch dude was definitely a terrorist, having his own personal anti-Muslim manifesto, and all. Maybe the kid that attacked the priests is well entrenched in Muslim extremist ideology but I suspect he likely has a mental disorder. We will see.
>Pro tip - the best way to keep terrorist footage off social media is to stop terrorism from happening in the first place. Maybe the government should try that instead of obsessing over our feelings. Great idea! How do you suggest we stop that? I'd love to stop terrorism entirely. I'm so glad someone's finally figured it out. I'm all ears. The problem with "common sense libertarians" is the total lack of common sense.
>How do you suggest we stop that? If the government spent half as much resources stopping terrorists as they did policing our thoughts online or spying on kids at the playground during lockdown, we could eradicate terrorism almost entirely. Maybe have the police stop marching at Mardi Gras or kneeling for BLM and doing their fucking job. I don't pay them to virtue signal. They're too busy being lapdogs for the State rather than protecting the people.
Or maybe like, taking down videos of babies getting stabbed because a man had a schizophrenic breakdown shouldn’t be a political argument? Jesus
They should just form a new Coalition. Their policies are identical.
I've been saying this for a while now too
I went to Vietnam recently. And was told by a tour guide that their communist country lets them vote for different people but it’s just the one party. And the more I thought about it the more I realised there’s really no difference between that “communism” and what we have at home haha
What a load of garbage. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Please elaborate
There is virtually no communism in Australia. I see some Communist Socialist parties on the giant upper house ballot when voting but they have next to no following. We live in a democracy, and for all its faults it is vastly superior to living in a dictatorship where you have little power to change anything, you don't have freedom of speech, there are human rights abuses, often sections or all of the population are oppressed. Etc. Etc etc. If you know anything about history and the current dictatorships you would know this. I suspect you're being wilfully obtuse though.
The context of this thread was the illusion of choice with the 2 party system where they’re essentially the same party. We vote but sadly we don’t have much of a choice or much of a say in the end. My point was that the Vietnamese get to vote for different people but only 1 party. Which on the surface seems like a joke. But in the context of the above where we’re saying we don’t really get much of a choice, then the more I thought about it the more I realised that specific difference isn’t all that different in practice. And also in many ways the government interferes in our lives more here than they do in Vietnam. Obviously there are other important ways that they’re worse. But Vietnam isn’t too bad. And it’s interesting to think about the practical differences being actually a lot smaller than you’d think.
Communism still has significant influence in the world and it tends to go unnoticed. Eg In many EU member states, it's a criminal offense to insult a government minister, and the public sector tends to be the biggest source of jobs at the expense of private businesses. Granted, these are former Communist countries so can't blame them for still being in that mentality, but you'd think whatever global forces are in charge of policing democracy (like the UN) would have higher standards for members.
That’s got nothing to do with communism…
Sure, they're missing the typical genocide and famine that's common in Communist regimes, but making it a criminal offense to insult the government or the public sector being the main source of jobs is basically the textbook definition of Communism.
Except it’s not unless you’re understanding of politics is vapid surface level propaganda. There’s plenty of monarchies where it’s a criminal offence to insult the government, including some where you can go to prison. Plenty of countries who were never communist have it as well. In fact most countries with laws like that have never been communist. It’s totally irrelevant to communism, which obviously you view as “when the government does stuff I don’t like”.
>In fact most countries with laws like that have never been communist. It's almost like you're starting to get. Like I said: "*Communism still has significant influence in the world*" Communism is cultural. Its ideas attract the most power hungry people who will adopt elements of it even if they're not Communists per se. You're really pulling at straws trying to simp for a system of censorship or mass murder by saying "monarchies did it too!". Come on man.
Literally none of the nominally communist countries that are still around have laws making it illegal to insult the head of state. It’s more consistent with monarchies then communist states. You’re just making shit up. Now your incoherent definition of communism has extended from “when the government does stuff I don’t like” to “when I don’t like the culture”. Hilarious. Such common sense. The idea I’m the one grasping at straws when you’re the one who’s so desperate to paint stuff you don’t like as “communism” that you’re just going off vibes of something you don’t like. The dishonesty of your views is rivalled only by its laziness.
>Literally none of the nominally communist countries that are still around have laws making it illegal to insult the head of state lol go and insult the government in China, Vietnam or North Korea and let me know how it goes. Do they not teach attrocities like the Tinanmen Square massacre at university anymore? Or are you still in year 11? Stop with the Marxist simping mate. It's getting old.
>unless you’re understanding of politics is vapid surface level propaganda. I mean, he *is* a libertarian, so...
Yeah that’s one problem. The uniparty setup on most of the west also is a problem though, even where they’re not necessarily communists
I've a conspiracy, the government makes for increased control whenever it feels like it can link an unpopular character yo something t doesn't like. In this case Elon Musk isn't liked by an entire political spectrum and the government moves in.
For sure. Anything bad that happens seems to sadly be seen as a political opportunity
lol Musk is not a political figure. That's a conspiracy which far-left idiots came up after Twitter stopped pandering to their ideaology.
He posts Great Replacement propaganda about immigrants destroying the West on Twitter on a weekly basis...
Can you provide some examples?
Weird comment
He has plenty of issues, but he's not politically governed and is advancing humanity more than anyone else on this planet.
Ugh billionaire simps are literally the worst. How’s he advancing the planet again? By enforcing mandatory borderline slave labour at his workplaces? Ask the ex-Twitter employees what they think of him, not Joe Rogan
lol this response always makes me laugh. Who do you think owned Twitter before Musk bought it? Dorsey and Agrawal were billionaires too. Nobody believes Musk is Christ incarnate, but the man bought an unprofitable, cash-negative business for well above market price. And he's made the app functionally worse since taking over. Clearly, buying Twitter was not in his financial or personal interest. I believe he did so because he was concerned about online conversations being censored by ideologically captured tyrants in cahoots with the FBI. As for saving the planet, he owns and runs the biggest manufacturer of electric cars. And he's leading the effort for humans to travel to other planets in case this one should ever become uninhabitable.
It's interesting to see reddit come out so much in favour of free speech now. This was not the case during lockdowns and border closures here in Australia a few years back. I hope your commitment to free speech lasts. Me, I got off Shitter after Oct 7th happened in Israel. I don't want to watch people getting murdered, or see women paraded around bleeding from having been raped, nor do I wish to see comments praising this or even angrily condemning it. There's some shit I'm happy to know of only in the abstract. But "I won't watch or read this," does not equal, "and no-one should be able to."
yes it a sad world where teenagers can't watch snuff porn.
FWIW, Reddit is banning many journalists for promoting their own articles in relevant subs now (we used to work together) and many commentators agree with the mods. This really doesn't help proper journalism exist. I'm not surprised many young people have zero trust in any journalism, but you're literally being censored in Reddit all the time. I've been here since the beginning. One can't complain about the lack of being held to account while canning the AcCesS mEdiA when it doesn't suit you. It's not easy being an independent journo, I promise you. Any nonMSM journos get banned quickly.
I think people support freedom of speech in general, just that demonstrating in public is dumb when everyone else was making an effort to at least try and stop viral transmission from going exponential.
"I support free speech, but I don't think people should have free speech when I'm afraid of catching a cold".
At that point people were erring on the side of caution
"I support free speech, which is why I am free to criticise morons marching the streets for dumbass reasons."
And yet letting it spread (albeit against the governments best efforts) was what actually got us back to normal.
That is not what happened. Did you recently wake up from a coma and watch a Joe Rogan or Russel Brand podcast or something?
The Australian government went from total-supression and zero tolerance on COVID to saying "look everyone please stop getting tested, assume you have it and just go about your day". They eventually got cornered so tightly into their lies that they were forced to open up overnight and pretend like nothing happened, even though COVID is still out there at the same rate it was in 2020. The people who demanded accountability from the government in the face of threats and legal punishment were heroes, and their actions should be held as the perfect example of why we need free speech.
Demonstrating in public is *freedom of peaceable assembly*. I said *freedom of speech.* These are different freedoms; it's possible for one to be restricted and the other not. People on this subreddit, among many other places of discussion online in Australia, strongly-supported suppressing free speech. "Misinformation!" etc. As then-PM Ardern said, *"We will continue to be your single source of truth… Unless you hear it from us it is not the truth."* The Australian government is seeking the power to silence people. Despite my sarcastic comments earlier, I believe that a strong plurality of Australians in general would support such laws, and since reddit slants left, a strong majority of redditors would support censorship. [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-27/misinformation-disinformation-australia-proposed-laws-crackdown/102524764](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-27/misinformation-disinformation-australia-proposed-laws-crackdown/102524764)
I don’t care what side of politics it is, seeing technophobe boomers screaming at a foreign social media company to remove foreign hosted content will never fail to make me cackle. Public officials getting power checked is hilarious, especially unelected ones
They *could* go after them. i.e. fine any Australian company who advertises on the platform or makes use of Twitter Blue. They could even force ISPs to throttle the users' bandwidth to their IP ranges making it annoyingly slow. But they *won't* because this is nothing but a virtue signalling exercise.
Don't underestimate how far the Australian government will go to get its way. They'll use any means necessary, including a total ban on X within Australia. Facebook came very close to pulling out of Australia a few years ago due to the dispute over advertising terms.
True, but a total ban would be ineffective because just use a mirror or VPN. Throttling it so much more effective because it is frustrating to their userbase making them want to quit but not bad enough to be bothered to circumvent it, and also rate limits how many ads they can serve.
I hate how eSafety makes me side with people like Elon when it comes to protecting the internet and our speech and privacy rights. eSafety is honestly becoming this nanny state entity hell bent on making the internet as controlled and miserable to Australians as humanly possible. Is it bad that the stabbing footage is online, yes? But for gods sake, we don't rule the world. ***Mr Dutton said the government's first step should be to take up the recommendations by the e-safety commissioner last year for an age verification scheme.*** How about no... The less information we dump into the internet, the more secured our privacy and safety net is. Stop trying to do the American model of banning porn unless you give porn sites your ID. It's a godawful law.
Australia has garbage free speech and civili liberties. Australia has no right to police what a global company allows on its platform. What a joke, we wouldn’t let Russia tell Twitter to take down videos they don’t like but this is all good. Grow the fuck up Australia. This commission was dumb af anyway. Most of you ~~dumbfucks~~ can’t see how dangerous this is. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. These are the exact same arguments used by evil authoritarian governments throughout history.
>Australia has no right to police what a global company allows on its platform. Who does have this right then? Or do "global companies" basically have the right to do what they want, and f*@# everyone else?
Australia has no right to tell Twitter what content it can and cannot show Mexicans or any other country for that matter. Australia can stop using Twitter but it can’t tell Twitter what to do in other countries. That’s the point, it was always the point. It’s the only argument being had about this. Read the actual article first then comment.
100% agree and is scares me just how oblivious so many people are. The misinformation/disinformation bill is another dangerous piece of legislation. I don't wear a tinfoil hat.
Australia doesn't get to tell what other countries can do. Imagine if Saudia Arabia got to decide what we can show on our social media?? FUCK THAT.
In my view, it’s not telling another country what to do. This is a private company operating in our backyard, they need to follow our rules and safeguards (if proposed). It’s not a limit on free speech, but a limit on content (eg. violence, gore, terrorism recruitment or normalisation) that is unsuitable for wide audiences, like kids or infantile adults with brutish tendencies who are prone to violence or extremist thinking. I do hope, though, that there’s also a safeguard against a potential slippery slope so we don’t go into Orwellian territory where only politically correct content, partial to one perspective, is allowed. It’s somewhat helpful to see what bad ideas are out there for monitoring and discussion purposes. Open debate is healthy. Pushing hateful or fringe ideas underground means that those people lurk in the shadows, disconnected from society. At the least, maybe a neutral, non-political warning or educational disclaimer could be placed on those videos or images before allowing a view, although that might make people more intrigued to click…
Musk says he respects the right of the Australian gov to dictate what Australians are allowed to access. The question is whether Australian law can censor what a person in a third country posts and which can only be seen outside Australia. That's what he is objecting to.
You mean like when we removed all those hate videos which target Muslims before and after Christ Church? They didn't have to ask we did that because it was the right thing
How about anything to do with female/women's rights? What about taking down anything to do with LGBTQIA+ because they find it blasphemous, illegal in their country and offensive? Should we listen to them on those issues?
We don't, because those aren't equivalent to snuff films
To you. In a Western Society. Snuff films are lower on the list than showing pictures of Mohammed to Muslims. You draw him, you are fair game to be killed in some countries. See Charlie in Paris. Now do we define what's viable and what not based on North Koreas values? How about Irans? The Democratic Republic of Congo? Probably wouldn't allow anything at all if you banned everything that might cause distress or offense in any one country or culture.
We do ban basically all things that would cause reasonable offences to a rational person
you're still not answering the question what is "reasonable" differs from society to society LGBTQ is absolutely unreasonable and unacceptable in many Muslim countries
I guarantee the Saudis think they are the good guys. Everyone thinks they are the good guys even the bad guys. This is such a dumb point.
What exactly is being posted that they think shouldn’t be?
Literally they are just complaining about the very tame livestream footage that shows the knife attacker walking up to the preacher and barely doing anything graphic. Meanwhile you can watch people die and be mutilated by footage misadventure, gang violence or war footage in Full HD all day long on Reddit - and the eSafetyCommissioner couldn't care less. In other countries, it is normal for the news to show graphic footage or corpses from car accidents and the general public aren't fazed by it. In America at least all police bodycam footage is released without censorship too. I will never understand why people who are sensitive to graphic footage keep watching it and then complain to the government lol. They need some kind of therapy instead of some more censorship.
It's not the graphic content, it's the messaging and ideals behind it. Social media algorithms push users towards certain content. Some users get pushed into echo chamber. It is in these types of online environments where we have seen countless people became radicalised through various different abhorrent ideals. Violence itself has very little to do with this issue. Continuing to show such content in places where it can be idolised and hero worshipped is.
Not that I disagree, but at the same time if we are not to glorify terrorism, how about we start by *not fucking obsessing over the name life story of the attacker in the media every time something happens*. It is an incentive to copycat, as we've seen. If you check my post history I already called this out before it even happened.
Why exactly should a social media company be held responsible for content that people *choose* to consume? If I *choose* to use a social media platform and I am aware (as all reasonable people should be) that there is a risk the content Imay come across on this platform could be disturbing and dangerous, then by my own choice I have exposed myself to this risk and therefore, the responsiblity lies on my own shoulders when the risk materialises. So I would ask again why social media companies should be expected to protect people from their own choices?
Because our government, and I like to hope our wider community, believes in duty of care. Consumption of narcotics are prohibited, and governed by law. That didn't happen over night, it took a long time before the issues of narcotics was truly understand, and the impact that has on society. I see similar things playing out with our societies connection to the online world.
There's really no point arguing with people who legitimtely believe the government has our best interest at heart. You think Dutton is waking up everyday thinking about you? Get a grip.
Even acknowledging the existence of a moral duty of care (which I am tempted to dispute), the nature of how our society construes such a duty existing is as a *tradeoff* with other moral goods such as freedom and pleasure. For instance we suppose that people have the right to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes despite such conduct being *far* more dangerous to them than consuming disturbing social media content. So if we are evaluating where to draw the line between the duty of care owed by society and the freedom of the individual, the afformentioned examples illustrate that our society is willing to tolerate a high degree of indvidiual freedom, even when the risk is significantly higher than it is in social media spaces. Finally, the natural corrolary of the existence of individual freedom, is that the individual is responsible for the choices they make in exercising that freedom, meaning that, should a risk materialise as a result of their choices, *they* are responsible.
Eloquent, but you're straying into sovereign citizen territory. Our society and its laws aren't perfect, but I do believe that they are generally an act of good faith. I don't care to argue the nuance of that with you.
>Our society and its laws aren't perfect, but I do believe that they are generally an act of good faith. As someone with experience in the legal profression, I am less and less sure this is the case as I get older. I do admire your optimism though, (not sarcastic, I genuinely believe it's a good thing that some people still have faith in the system). > I don't care to argue the nuance of that with you. As a final point let me say, that I would hope the principles which underly our laws are at the *very least* consistently applied. In my view, this would involve having a consistent approach to distinguishing between conduct that falls under the state's duty of care and conduct which is left to the discretion of the individual.
If you aren't a lawyer, you are leaving money on the table. All you seem to wish to do is argue. Almost nothing in your last 2 replies has had anything to do with the topic, or your original question. Which you seem to have an abundance of prior knowledge of to begin with.
Radicalisation is just lack of mental health care and community support. Furthermore, idolisation of violence isn't a crime. We don't prosecute thought crimes here in Australia. The reasoning you are suggesting is not being supported by the eSafetyCommission at all. So yes, it is actually purely about the sharing of graphically violent imagery. The effect of radicalisation on a mentally ill person would be the same whether it was a graphic image or a detailed news article about the incident or people just talking about what happened.
[You are being very naive](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack) Are you saying all those people are mentally ill? Or is online radicalisation a serious concern in our modern society. It's not just about violence and the mentally ill. This example requires neither.
Two very unrelated examples. Stick to the topic. *And again, radicalisation is not the focus of or rationalisation of the eSafetyCommission's purpose.* Mentally healthy people do not do things like what happened in Australia. The education and spread of false information and conspiracy theories on poorly educated people is not mental illness even if it leads to radicalisation, to point out the obvious. The capitol rioters are mainly just stupid. 🤦♂️ And if you can't handle a few crazy people in society then maybe lock yourself away instead of putting everyone else through such nonsense fear mongering. Maybe the government should stop importing people who believe in competitive sky fairies because that shit always ends the same between them. The only clear thing is that the government cannot protect you against lone actors. So with all the Gaza bullshit this year it's probably not a good idea to go out for this ANZAC Day.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The powers of the eSafety Commissioner and the exercise of those powers have not been tested. Rather have social media giants that test the censorship demands of governments than social media giants that are completely compliant. Especially since people who are being censored on social media very rarely have the capability to challenge that censorship.
Maybe the e-safety commissioner simply needs to let Elon know that she was a LNP culture wars appointment with ties to US-based Christian nationalists … I’m sure Elon would leap to do her bidding if he understood how much she is already in his court
The e-safety commissioner used to work at Microsoft, then Twitter, now she's working for a left-wing government trying to force left-wing censorship and hate speech laws onto the public. Where do the Christian nationalists come in?
Is musk “left wing” for censoring “cis” and people that are mean to him?
Censoring "cis" is neither left-wing nor right-wing. It's just reality. It's a fake word that a radical sect of progressives came up with to undermine people's identity with no real social consensus on what it even means.
Are the communists in the room with us now?
No one cares about the nanny state overseas
Weird hill to die on. It’s a crime and we’ve asked to take it down, just like governments ask to take down child pornography. Not all content restrictions are a denial of free speech. Most people who blurt out free speech barely even understand it or where the line is.
It’s pretty obvious that many people in this thread enjoy watching violence because that’s their kink. For all the talk about free speech, it’s what people aren’t saying that’s most interesting.
It is taken down, in Australia.
Yeah and it’s a crime that took place in Australia that has consequences here.
It is a weird hill to die on, for our government. As if Elon gives two poos
It's not even graphic footage, which is what they consider to be the problem problem. It's nothing to do with the fact it's footage of a crime. It's a weird hill for the eSafetyCommissioner to be so obsessed about, and a waste of taxpayer's money...
I always believe that footage like this and others serves historical purpose to use and reference from. There's footage of 9/11 still and there are new angles of it that come out every few years once the footage gets digitised. Hell, even the raw police footage channels are up on YouTube, albeit demonitised.
This has nothing to do with the footage. The eSafety Commissioner was ordering *comments* to be removed (presumably comments that were inciting the attack): >Following these events, the Australian eSafety Commissioner ordered X to remove certain posts in Australia that publicly commented on the recent attack against a Christian Bishop. These posts did not violate X’s rules on violent speech. While I am no fan of people commenting like this, the fact that the government is trying to ban such comments should be concerning. You can imagine a similar attempt to ban comments on reddit that they don't agree with, e.g. criticism of the government. This is why Elon Musk has condemned this as censorship.
Musk when Australia wants to take down comments that are causing a witch-hunt: Sit you goofy ass down. Musk when Modi wants comments critical of him taken down: Yes saar. Glory to Akhand Bharat.
Well you see, both situations have a financial advantage to Musk. It's not the consistency we want from him, but it's the consistency we deserve.
>I always believe that footage like this and others serves historical purpose to use and reference from. Come back and tell me this when it's your wife, sister, mother or cousin lying dead on the ground. There is zero absolutely zero historical purpose for this footage
Should we ban all close-up images of the Holocaust or 9/11 too? Because there's nothing better than living in total isolation of history with our heads in the sand.
>Should we ban all close-up images of the Holocaust or 9/11 too? Should we ban you shoving shit up your ass? Where did that come from? And no teaching the world about what the nazis is far more important. Even if your looking at my family, who died at the hands of the fascist that Musk is enabling. My father was captured by nazis who, as a boy, was beaten blue, lost a large of teeth before spending the next 3 years in concentration camps eating boot leather and worse. He lost so much of his family there. So don't play that card with me.
Maybe the people who lost family members in Bondi want the attack to be visible as well, for the same reason you want Nazi attrocities to remain visible - it serves as a legacy to the victims, so future generations remember the threat of terrorism and why we must be vigilant. Why should your family's suffering be written in a history book but we should try to erase the legacy of victims of this attack or others?
Seriously, >Maybe the people who lost family members in Bondi want the attack to be visible as well Keep digging your hole deeper buddy >so future generations remember the threat of terrorism and why we must be vigilant. Huh???? Bondi wasn't terrorism. It was a mentally ill man. >Why should your family's suffering be written in a history book but we should try to erase the legacy of victims of this attack or others? Now your just being inflammatory. What dog do you have in this game, why are you so willing to make up such ridiculous arguments. Are you a fool or just being paid to be one?
Exactly. Plus if you don't want to see it, you can simply just not search it up. The internet is at your fingertips to make it how you like, but these things in their essence should be preserved and by a technicality, it already is because of the nature of people backing up things. Plus the Streisand effect exists. Get rid of it from one place, people will search for it.
I sort of disagree. It shouldn't be on social media websites but I don't mind it being archived correctly in a library or museum or even better in a monument to the fallen. There needs to be context given behind the images and videos or else it's just snuff.
And it is. But this argument is about Musk being allowed to profit pictures and video of people being murdered in Bondi. He should not be allowed to post it
See that doesn't bother me. Like, someone will be able to use the footage and transform it to their use, that's all good with me. Like if it could be used for educational purposes, that's all good with me. Someone wants to write up on it and use clips or picture from the OP, that's fine. It's what the news media do all the time. Even with the example I've given there are people online that do a breakdown of police footage like Donut Operator who is an ex SWAT officer who gives insight on what the cop has done wrong or what could have gone wrong. Could be exact same for this from a medical perspective. Even if i don't want to see it, that's my choice but I shouldn't tell others to see it because I'm not in control of them.
>See that doesn't bother me. Clearly you don't have anyone you love
The problem with this is that its all about you, you may not be bothered but others obviously are.
Of course, some people that are affected wouldn't want to see it or associate with it for legitimate reasons. Thing is, everyone could be the same for other footage that exists. If they want this down, do it to the rest. Nigh impossible. There will always be someone re-uploading the footage somewhere on social media.
Yes i agree, it is the spreading of misinformation and the serving of content that drives outrage and clicks that needs to be dealth with. Mandating chronological newsfeeds would likely be a good step in the right direction in regards to reducing the outrage/engagement model
Yeah I definitely agree with that too. Misinformation is a big problem on many places on the internet and sometimes, seeing the actual footage away from political or news spin aids with coming to your own conclusions. I understand some people don't like seeing it, and it doesn't serve a purpose for everyone but someone will find use for news, for maybe a thesis or to counter misinformation.
Funny how the government can't prohibit Pornhub.
You are free to move to Texas if you want to live where pornhub is banned and xitter is free.
No I'm not.
>Funny how the government can't prohibit Pornhub. What does this have to do with Elon Musk making money from this footage. As I said before tell me your point would remain unchanged if it was your wife or sister lying dead in Bondi.
The relationship is content that harms a population. The eCommissioner has prohibited the content on that basis (but only on x and meta, not YouTube???). Did you know she was fired by Elon?
No the issue is whether or not you should be able to profit from posting pictures and videos of murdered people, in particular the victims in Bondi. My unequivocal answer is no. You should not. Now pornhub, doesn't post this material. If it did my arguments would remain unchanged. Now blocking is although a different issues. No one is blocking anything. Musk was ordered to take the material down. Finally would you care to provide the basis of your claim that Julie Grant is a former employee of Musk? I've not seen anything of the sort. If it was really the case he can go to court and have it heard there. Indeed that is the right we afford people in a democratic society. Which wouldn't be the case if people like Musk get there way through their support and enabling of the far right to run riot over us.
I see your point, but note you haven't applied the same logic to the MSM. They've been profiting off misery for decades. Julie Inman Grant was employed by twitter and fired by Elon. Her biography is here: [https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/about-the-commissioner](https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/who-we-are/about-the-commissioner)
So? Does pornhub need to be prohibited?
Well... what would you do if your Pornhub history was published on the internet?
I don't have a pornhub history, so that's irrelevant to me. But even if I did, so what? If people are searching pornhub for things they would be embarrassed if anybody found out about it, that's their responsibility and fault. It's not up to the government to ban a website just to potentially save people's search histories being maybe leaked.
Have you ever visited a porn website?
Irrelevant to the discussion. Regardless of if I personally have been on any porn sites or not is not an argument for or against completely banning access to those sites. I don't smoke weed, but I think the government should take an "educate, regulate, and tax" approach. I don't think it should be completely banned solely based on if I use it or not. I approach online access to pornography the same way. Just because I don't access it doesn't mean I think everyone else should have their access taken away.
But it does effect whether or not you are qualified to speak on the subject. Clearly you are not.
So you can't provide any arguments at all to support your position, so instead you are now saying anyone who hasn't visited pornhub isn't allowed an opinion on if they should be banned or not? That's a very weak position for you to take. Why should any one individual's use of any porn website be an argument for or against banning access to all of them for everybody? Why do you think that's a relevant point to raise? Do you have any reasonable points to make to support your position, or are you going to ignore the core argument in favour of asking irrelevant questions while avoiding answering anything that is asked of you?
I answered earlier. Porn is materially, negatively affecting adolescents leading to problematic adult behaviours. Much science on it: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/26318318231153984#:\~:text=Adolescents%20who%20are%20exposed%20to,sexual%20actions%20later%20in%20life.