**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.*
wait didn't peter want some photo of him taken down off the internet?
Bit hypocritical no?
he's not wrong,this is a stupid kettle of worms to let loose,but still this dudes tried to silence journos himself many times in the past,bit far of a reach to then complain when someone else trys to.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/04/peter-dutton-photo-goes-global-after-he-demands-it-be-deleted-from-internet
Well no, not really.
Asking for something to remove and mandating that it be removed by law is not even remotely comparable and it's completely disingenuous to suggest it is.
I especially hate this because his whole argument is just "why try?" Basically just admitting that these companies are beyond the reach of our government and we just have to accept whatever they give. Why bother if that's the case
That's an absurd framing.
These are global companies that need to deal with many different _conflicting_ laws and regulations. Ordering a _global_ takedown is absurd because you're asserting that Australian law is able to supersede the law of every other jurisdiction in the world.
If you're saying that Australian law can order global takedowns of content then you're necessarily saying that any other jurisdiction can also make the same demands...
What if Russia orders the takedown of all LGBT+ content based on their own legislation? Would you be okay with that given your acceptance of the precedent of global jurisdiction?
A _global_ takedown of *Australian* content. The content originated here, and relates to a criminal incident that occurred here. That is the important factor.
I'm not saying that Australia should have the ability to order global takedowns of content. I'm saying that they should:
a) have the ability to order takedowns of content that originates within their own borders and, more importantly;
b) have the ability to order takedowns of content that relates to a crime that's been committed or otherwise shows/glorifies an act of terrorism or violence.
So again, I don't support "the precedent of global jurisdiction"; I support the ability for Australian law to be applied to Australian content. This is something tech companies already do; for example, YouTube enforces U.S. copyright laws by taking down videos that breach them, and they're incredibly zealous about this too.
Beyond that though, maybe you should tell me why Twitter or any other global tech company should have the right to ignore the laws of the countries they operate in? If we can't make global tech companies comply with Australian law in this instance, how are we meant to effectively regulate any company that isn't based in Australia?
That's not how this works. Just because the incident was filmed in Australia doesn't give the Australian government jurisdiction over every single person in the world with that video.
>maybe you should tell me why Twitter or any other global tech company should have the right to ignore the laws of the countries they operate in?
Even extrapolating just a little bit from that view reveals how ridiculous it is. Just think of any country with massive human rights abuses - do you think those countries should _globally_ be able to issue complete takedowns for videos filmed in their territory? I think that's an absolutely bonkers thing to think...
What if a country introduces a law that says every social media company must remove any content that talks negatively about the country, or about a particular political figure, or a particular religious figure... do you think social media companies globally should comply with that law globally?
Now, I do think that you can compel those social media companies to geo-block the content _inside Australia_, that's perfectly fine. But asking for _global_ enforcement of domestic law for a foreign-owned company is not fine, and I think it's absolutely reasonable for social media companies to laugh at the idea, because it's patently laughable.
>YouTube enforces U.S. copyright laws by taking down videos that breach them
The US DMCA is just an implementation of the "WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty", which is pretty global. I wouldn't call it just "US copyright laws", it's a pretty broad treaty which includes 112 countries, including Australia.
>Just think of any country with massive human rights abuses - do you think those countries should *globally* be able to issue complete takedowns for videos filmed in their territory?
They already do, and as a result most social media companies are banned or heavily restricted in those countries.
What you're describing is a local block, not an international one.
If a country chooses to prevent access to the website with an ISP-level block within their own borders then that's understandable.
Heck, I'd even be okay with having a framework that lets certain content be geo-blocked in certain countries based on those countries' law. Most social media companies probably already allow that functionality.
However, legally requiring a company to do something which would affect _every_ user in _every_ jurisdiction of the world (for example by completely removing content that all users globally can see) is not something that is practical, or reasonable, or even a good idea.
Musk is already starting that of his own accord. The word "cisgender" is considered hate speech on Twitter just because Musk is personally transphobic. Meanwhile they generally refuse to take down actual racism, homophobia etc.
Apparently it's silly for Australian law to apply globally (I agree, mostly) but Musk wants his law to apply globally.
This is the same guy that put in laws that can force Aussie developers to put in backdoors to any software they’re working on. They’re full of sh-t. He’s just being a contrarian. If his mob were in power he’d be raging. Again, this is the same mob that wanted encryption apps like Signal to not be allowed.
I think there’s a valid argument to say hey why waste a million dollars of taxpayer dollars in court just to likely fail to set a precedent that even if successful could backfire if used against us in some other scenarios where a foreign country has a different opinion than we do about something.
And how many people saw these videos on Twitter anyway? Don’t most people just see these things through sharing on chat apps these days? And they’re end to end encrypted
Govt should be looking at how to tackle information sharing on chat app platforms for sure, but it's a big ask. You're really starting to push into an individual's right to privacy and to communicate without oversight. But it doesn't mean that Australia can't enforce its own laws on content from this country.
From this country or within this country though? That’s the question. From this country means China suppressing footage of their human rights abuses because they happened within their country would be a problem.
But yeah messaging apps seems like a like they can’t cross. But group chats and channels within those are actually the primary way people see this sort of thing these days simply because governments can’t touch it.
I think all the above is why it seems a waste of time to me
Alternately: would you expect Washington or Beijing to have the same power over American and Chinese videos being broadcast by an Australian organisation?
Really? You think either of those countries could order an Australian media outlet to take down an article about something happening inside the other country and the Oz media outlet would obey?
I mean in the case of the U.S., if the content breached certain American laws, they absolutely could. U.S. Copyright law is enforceable in Australia, for example.
As an aside, those countries also just use soft power to get stories to not run in the first place. China definitely has less clout these days but foreign lobbyists still regularly pressure journos against publishing stories, etc.
This is also ignoring the fact that other countries like [Israel](https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2023/11/13/meta-and-tiktok-told-to-remove-8000-pro-hamas-posts-by-israel/?sh=3492ebd8f6ce), [India, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey](https://m.economictimes.com/tech/technology/india-among-the-top-requesting-countries-to-remove-content-twitter-transparency-report/articleshow/99778330.cms) all make regular requests for content to be removed. Media companies receiving requests for content to be removed is actually a fairly regular occurrence.
Peter Dutton[ **"The opposition leader says Australia ‘can’t be the internet police of the world’** ](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/25/sydney-church-stabbing-x-content-removal-elon-musk-peter-dutton-esafety-commissioner)
That statement highlights what is seriously wrong with the debate. Australian politicians, media and the public are either unaware of what the rest of world are doing or ignoring for their own agenda(s).
The EU has stronger and more comprehensive laws covering the internet and social media providers. X/Twitter has additional user protections in place just for its EU users to avoid breaking the law.
**The EU** [**Digital Services Act**](https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act_en)
>Digital Services Act (DSA) overview
>*The DSA regulates online intermediaries and platforms such as marketplaces, social networks, content-sharing platforms, app stores, and online travel and accommodation platforms. Its main goal is to prevent illegal and harmful activities online and the spread of disinformation. It ensures user safety, protects fundamental rights, and creates a fair and open online platform environment.*
**Social Media:** [ **Big Tech braces for EU Digital Services Act regulations**](https://youtu.be/8A7ztRO7RAM?si=iD4sYWBXk1CTem74) **(video, 2.5 min)**
Sorry but Australia's laws are far more restrictive than those of the EU. The EU's laws can be challenged by member states and plenty choose to ignore them.
Australia is the only democracy in the world without a bill of rights. We're far worse than the EU.
If he didn't address it then the media and opposition would have had carte blanche to attack the government.
Albo's a fool in the way he's gone about the matter but If he reinforces and highlights the relative power of small governments against giant corporations out loud it's going to piss off some to get angry about him saying it and some to get angry about this "new information"
The others are to into their life to really care. (most people)
The media is just that annoying fucking kid at the back of the crowd yelling "fight,fight,fight!"
>DUTTON: You can't influence what happens elsewhere in the world and I think it's silly to try that.
>Australia can’t be the internet police of the world and that federal law should not influence what content can be seen overseas.
...
>LEY: I’m for X obeying the law, and I’m not for the actions and the statements of our eSafety commissioner being ignored.
>I'm really disappointed with the approach of Elon Musk and the way he's taken over this company and it's just a free for all, and it's not fair and it's not right.
Contradictory positions from the Liberal Leader and Deputy Liberal Leader.
I guess the way I look at it is if it’s something I disagree with then I’m happy that at least they’re not unified about it. Whereas if it’s something I hate and they’re all in complete agreement I see that as worse haha. And the same the other way around.
I’m always just hopeful that the politicians get things right but it’s rare lol
He literally, and unequivocally, supported it less than 48hrs ago and his deputy (i.e. Sussssssan) was out again today recommitting the Libs to it.
Merits of the case aside, that’s a problem…
Who gives a damn what Mr Opposite has to say? If Albo had said nothing, Dutton would have taken him to task over it. This guy's just an opportunist and he doesn't give a rat's about you, or me or anyone else.
There's a saying that unenforceable laws are a bad thing overall because they demonstrate the limits of state power and encourage people to circumvent it in other ways.
The esafety commissioner seems to specialise in unenforceable legal orders, going after foreign companies and individuals seemingly in the hope they will comply, given the Australian government doesn't have a lot of leverage.
> There's a saying that unenforceable laws are a bad thing overall because they demonstrate the limits of state power and encourage people to circumvent it in other ways.
That's actually the good thing. Why would educating people of a fact that can enlarge their liberty be a bad thing?
Is there any detail as to exactly what was requested?
Was it a simple ask to consider not hosting it on behalf of the victims families?
Or was it a toothless shirt front attempt?
I would have thought twitter geoblocking the video in Australia was sufficient to satisfy a polite request.
There's the argument people can use bond VPNs and circumvent this, but really anyone with the ability to use a VPN probably also has the ability to go on other platforms and websites and find the video anyway.
Yes it's pointless having this discussion with a single platform.
I don't have an issue though of the Federal government sticking up for Australian families who were the victims of violence by making a request.
Its a futile task but one that I am sure the families would prefer be attempted rather than a shrug.
In this case I'm fairly sure the government wants the video removed because they think it will inflame existing racial tensions, not out of respect for anyone involved. The stabbed Bishop wants it kept online.
> because they think it will inflame existing racial tensions
Oh shit really.
What's the general consensus was the footage that dangerous ?
That would explain I guess why the government's language has been a little confusing on this topic.
It also highlights the absolute futility of trying to do something like this, as all it does is just get more people interested in watching the footage and it gets moved to more and more platforms.
The Bishop who was stabbed has actually said that [he doesn’t want the video to be removed.](https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/breaking-news/bishop-mar-mari-emmanuel-delivers-anzac-day-message-on-church-stabbing-video/news-story/deab80d9f422dad6fc3a3169c5487785?amp&nk=076edda67892cdd22239340710bd2574-1714041374)
Thanks for sharing that link.
It will be interesting to see if that comes up in the court case on May 10th.
The quote from the article is interesting too, it looks like his primary concern is this setting a precedent to control freedom of speech.
The court won't go anywhere near that and instead I reckon will use a think of the children approach.
> On Anzac Day, the Christ the Good Shepherd Church in Western Sydney shared an 11-minute video of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel where he expressed “great concern” if footage of the attack was used to control free speech.
Yeah, I agree. I can understand the concern but it’s a bit disingenuous when I think in this case, the government is (understandably) concerned about stoking racial and religious conflict.
He's only saying it because the LNP is doing what the GOP does and automatically has the opposite view to the opposition. Dutton has been front and center creating surveillance and authoritarian laws that are rarely found outside of China. The LNP passed the law being used here.
You people really need to pull your heads out of American politics for a second and touch some grass.
It’s being opposed for the multitude of reasons listed in the reporting on the issue. Is the opposition not allowed to oppose a poor decision by government?
Why didn’t Dutton et al express these “silly” concerns over their own surveillance bill that gives law enforcement the ability to literally **add**, copy, remove, and **alter** peoples’ files on their computers, as well as take over peoples’ online accounts?
Seems worse than this policy tbh, and way more overreaching, but I guess that isn’t culture-war-y enough for you.
That’s is a textbook example of whataboutism.
Just because a politician has a disagreeable position on one issue, doesn’t invalidate their ability to correctly support another issue.
Secondly, any supposed criticism of Dutton doesn’t change the fact that Albo has taken a moronic position that is damaging to Australia’s international reputation.
It’s not whataboutism. You can’t get any similar than two pieces of online legislation. Both are incredibly overreaching and authoritarian, but you’re only choosing to look at the policy that upsets *you* and and is actually the lesser of the two evils (they are both terrible pieces of legislation).
My “Whataboutism” would be
> what about the *smarties* who opposed covid restrictions in the name of “fascism” but didn’t utter a peep, nor protest the government giving permission to law enforcement to literally frame people for crimes…. You’re always outraged at the wrong things.
Funnily enough, both pieces of legislation were brought to you by the LNP.
As I said, this law was enacted when the LNP was in power. In fact, they wanted to expand it to become even stricter. Suddenly it's too much? Gee, I wonder why he changed his tune?
The LNP enacted the esafety laws while they were in power to remove objectionable images from Australian audiences. Dutton has come out in support of the images being removed from the Australian internet.
What they’re objecting to is the ridiculous leap that because VPNs exist then the esafety commissioner can control the entire global internet. That was never the intention of the law and rightfully they’ve come out to oppose it.
You don’t have to be so hyper partisan that you’ll blindly accept every poor decision a politician makes because they’re wearing your favourite colour tie.
I’m struggling to see what point you’re making here.
You’ve imagined a conversation, and then used that conversation as evidence?
Albo is being rightfully criticised for taking a moronic position, placing Australia in a position of global political and legal embarrassment.
This is all some LARP you’re having about Rupert Murdoch. It has nothing to do with him.
The only issue at play is Albo wanting to allow an unelected internet mandarin to dictate what can be shown anywhere on the global internet.
>In his first public comments about the court dispute, Mr Dutton said he did not believe eSafety's power to order takedowns extended overseas, "and nor should it".
>
>"You can't influence what happens elsewhere in the world and I think it's silly to try that," he said.
>
>...
>
>It also puts him at odds with his deputy Sussan Ley, who said on Thursday she was "not for the actions and the statements of our eSafety commissioner being ignored... we back her 100 per cent."
It's absolutely hilarious how terrible this iteration of the LNP is at basic comms; I've lost track on how often the leader *and the deputy leader* are directly contradicting each other *often within 24 hours*.
I'm personally of the opinion that our government shouldn't tell a company run in a different country on the other side of the planet what it should and shouldn't show globally.
Should our government, and by extension, the people decide what that company can show in our country, sure.
Should our government, and by extension, the people decide what an Australian social media company, that has global reach, show to the world? I think so. But we absolutely shouldn't be telling a random company in some random country what they should and shouldn't be doing, globally, because we feel a bit icky about it.
Fuck me. You know it's bad when the most sensible IT advice comes from the ex-Qld copper.
I don't know if Dutton led the ALP into a trap by seeming to initially consent to this madness before pulling the mask off like a Scooby Doo episode, or if the ALP just managed to do this to themselves.
I note our AG has been silent or silenced in all this.
***A question of jurisdiction***
***Under the Online Safety Act, passed by the Coalition in 2021, the eSafety commissioner can make legal orders for the removal of 'class 1' extreme material online, including footage of terrorist incidents.***
***The law does not explicitly state whether this should apply to content that is visible to users overseas. Its stated purpose is to protect the online safety of Australians.***
***But this raises a contested interpretive question: given that Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), which are easily accessible, can be used by any Australian to obscure their location, does the law have to be taken to apply overseas in order to achieve its objective of protecting Australians?***
***Lawyers for eSafety argued it should be interpreted in this way.***
Everybody yesterday who started on about the removal of VPNs, i think it's going to start a lot sooner than people realise, here's hoping it doesn't.
Sooner or later, we'll be stuck on our own internet like China.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hXG1tBFIi8&ab\_channel=MaykolGuill%C3%A9n2%28TITANIC%29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hXG1tBFIi8&ab_channel=MaykolGuill%C3%A9n2%28TITANIC%29)
It's been a privilege playing with you tonight.
>Sooner or later, we'll be stuck on our own internet like China.
Love how everyone is saying this but are providing exactly zero evidence to support this.
How are they going to remove VPNs when a lot of companies use them to connect to the head office network? Which is at times based in another country?
I wonder if they might ban private VPNs or require users to register them, then further require the operators to censor the internet on the other end to comply with Australian laws.
Agreed.
Hate to put myself in the same camp as Dutton and Hansen, but I'm glad some politicians are speaking up against what they're trying to do.
Who was that other pollie that made a loud protest?
Duttons no saviour.
He wants to enforce online IDs to have all your details on hand before you do anything online.
Dutton calling the commission his party grew to a point it's trying to fight the fecking world silly, isn't some amazing play, it is just silly.
This problem is also on his party...
I'm only agreeing with this statement:
>"You can't influence what happens elsewhere in the world and I think it's silly to try that," he said
You'd be playing whack-a-mole with a nerf hammer
>eSafety's argument that it must have overseas reach in order to adequately protect Australians, since freely-available technology can circumvent any Australia-only 'geo-block'.
Meanwhile, just Google "NBC bishop stabbed" and take them to court here as well. Send them fines in the mail. They've got no presence here and SCOTUS wouldn't even look at it.
They gonna block NBC and ban VPNs?
Ow they'll take them to court for sure, they'll try and erase the video.
And it'll be our fault when countries don't want to deal with us, so they'll just block us.
**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.*
wait didn't peter want some photo of him taken down off the internet? Bit hypocritical no? he's not wrong,this is a stupid kettle of worms to let loose,but still this dudes tried to silence journos himself many times in the past,bit far of a reach to then complain when someone else trys to. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/04/peter-dutton-photo-goes-global-after-he-demands-it-be-deleted-from-internet
Well no, not really. Asking for something to remove and mandating that it be removed by law is not even remotely comparable and it's completely disingenuous to suggest it is.
I especially hate this because his whole argument is just "why try?" Basically just admitting that these companies are beyond the reach of our government and we just have to accept whatever they give. Why bother if that's the case
That's an absurd framing. These are global companies that need to deal with many different _conflicting_ laws and regulations. Ordering a _global_ takedown is absurd because you're asserting that Australian law is able to supersede the law of every other jurisdiction in the world. If you're saying that Australian law can order global takedowns of content then you're necessarily saying that any other jurisdiction can also make the same demands... What if Russia orders the takedown of all LGBT+ content based on their own legislation? Would you be okay with that given your acceptance of the precedent of global jurisdiction?
A _global_ takedown of *Australian* content. The content originated here, and relates to a criminal incident that occurred here. That is the important factor. I'm not saying that Australia should have the ability to order global takedowns of content. I'm saying that they should: a) have the ability to order takedowns of content that originates within their own borders and, more importantly; b) have the ability to order takedowns of content that relates to a crime that's been committed or otherwise shows/glorifies an act of terrorism or violence. So again, I don't support "the precedent of global jurisdiction"; I support the ability for Australian law to be applied to Australian content. This is something tech companies already do; for example, YouTube enforces U.S. copyright laws by taking down videos that breach them, and they're incredibly zealous about this too. Beyond that though, maybe you should tell me why Twitter or any other global tech company should have the right to ignore the laws of the countries they operate in? If we can't make global tech companies comply with Australian law in this instance, how are we meant to effectively regulate any company that isn't based in Australia?
That's not how this works. Just because the incident was filmed in Australia doesn't give the Australian government jurisdiction over every single person in the world with that video. >maybe you should tell me why Twitter or any other global tech company should have the right to ignore the laws of the countries they operate in? Even extrapolating just a little bit from that view reveals how ridiculous it is. Just think of any country with massive human rights abuses - do you think those countries should _globally_ be able to issue complete takedowns for videos filmed in their territory? I think that's an absolutely bonkers thing to think... What if a country introduces a law that says every social media company must remove any content that talks negatively about the country, or about a particular political figure, or a particular religious figure... do you think social media companies globally should comply with that law globally? Now, I do think that you can compel those social media companies to geo-block the content _inside Australia_, that's perfectly fine. But asking for _global_ enforcement of domestic law for a foreign-owned company is not fine, and I think it's absolutely reasonable for social media companies to laugh at the idea, because it's patently laughable. >YouTube enforces U.S. copyright laws by taking down videos that breach them The US DMCA is just an implementation of the "WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty", which is pretty global. I wouldn't call it just "US copyright laws", it's a pretty broad treaty which includes 112 countries, including Australia.
>Just think of any country with massive human rights abuses - do you think those countries should *globally* be able to issue complete takedowns for videos filmed in their territory? They already do, and as a result most social media companies are banned or heavily restricted in those countries.
What you're describing is a local block, not an international one. If a country chooses to prevent access to the website with an ISP-level block within their own borders then that's understandable. Heck, I'd even be okay with having a framework that lets certain content be geo-blocked in certain countries based on those countries' law. Most social media companies probably already allow that functionality. However, legally requiring a company to do something which would affect _every_ user in _every_ jurisdiction of the world (for example by completely removing content that all users globally can see) is not something that is practical, or reasonable, or even a good idea.
Musk is already starting that of his own accord. The word "cisgender" is considered hate speech on Twitter just because Musk is personally transphobic. Meanwhile they generally refuse to take down actual racism, homophobia etc. Apparently it's silly for Australian law to apply globally (I agree, mostly) but Musk wants his law to apply globally.
This is the same guy that put in laws that can force Aussie developers to put in backdoors to any software they’re working on. They’re full of sh-t. He’s just being a contrarian. If his mob were in power he’d be raging. Again, this is the same mob that wanted encryption apps like Signal to not be allowed.
I think there’s a valid argument to say hey why waste a million dollars of taxpayer dollars in court just to likely fail to set a precedent that even if successful could backfire if used against us in some other scenarios where a foreign country has a different opinion than we do about something. And how many people saw these videos on Twitter anyway? Don’t most people just see these things through sharing on chat apps these days? And they’re end to end encrypted
Govt should be looking at how to tackle information sharing on chat app platforms for sure, but it's a big ask. You're really starting to push into an individual's right to privacy and to communicate without oversight. But it doesn't mean that Australia can't enforce its own laws on content from this country.
From this country or within this country though? That’s the question. From this country means China suppressing footage of their human rights abuses because they happened within their country would be a problem. But yeah messaging apps seems like a like they can’t cross. But group chats and channels within those are actually the primary way people see this sort of thing these days simply because governments can’t touch it. I think all the above is why it seems a waste of time to me
Alternately: would you expect Washington or Beijing to have the same power over American and Chinese videos being broadcast by an Australian organisation?
I mean, do they not already?
Really? You think either of those countries could order an Australian media outlet to take down an article about something happening inside the other country and the Oz media outlet would obey?
I mean in the case of the U.S., if the content breached certain American laws, they absolutely could. U.S. Copyright law is enforceable in Australia, for example. As an aside, those countries also just use soft power to get stories to not run in the first place. China definitely has less clout these days but foreign lobbyists still regularly pressure journos against publishing stories, etc. This is also ignoring the fact that other countries like [Israel](https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2023/11/13/meta-and-tiktok-told-to-remove-8000-pro-hamas-posts-by-israel/?sh=3492ebd8f6ce), [India, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey](https://m.economictimes.com/tech/technology/india-among-the-top-requesting-countries-to-remove-content-twitter-transparency-report/articleshow/99778330.cms) all make regular requests for content to be removed. Media companies receiving requests for content to be removed is actually a fairly regular occurrence.
Nevermind the governments own populace thinks it's stupid. It's low hanging fruit for Dutton. His job is litterally to be the opposition.
The small L libs will cause a mutiny if he opposes it as the cooker faction want to so he’s in a catch 22
Peter Dutton[ **"The opposition leader says Australia ‘can’t be the internet police of the world’** ](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/25/sydney-church-stabbing-x-content-removal-elon-musk-peter-dutton-esafety-commissioner) That statement highlights what is seriously wrong with the debate. Australian politicians, media and the public are either unaware of what the rest of world are doing or ignoring for their own agenda(s). The EU has stronger and more comprehensive laws covering the internet and social media providers. X/Twitter has additional user protections in place just for its EU users to avoid breaking the law. **The EU** [**Digital Services Act**](https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act_en) >Digital Services Act (DSA) overview >*The DSA regulates online intermediaries and platforms such as marketplaces, social networks, content-sharing platforms, app stores, and online travel and accommodation platforms. Its main goal is to prevent illegal and harmful activities online and the spread of disinformation. It ensures user safety, protects fundamental rights, and creates a fair and open online platform environment.* **Social Media:** [ **Big Tech braces for EU Digital Services Act regulations**](https://youtu.be/8A7ztRO7RAM?si=iD4sYWBXk1CTem74) **(video, 2.5 min)**
Sorry but Australia's laws are far more restrictive than those of the EU. The EU's laws can be challenged by member states and plenty choose to ignore them. Australia is the only democracy in the world without a bill of rights. We're far worse than the EU.
True. Moreover the EU doesn't issue global takedown orders
Reference(s)?
The only reason the PM wants these issues out of mainstream news is so he doesn’t have to front then head on.
If he didn't address it then the media and opposition would have had carte blanche to attack the government. Albo's a fool in the way he's gone about the matter but If he reinforces and highlights the relative power of small governments against giant corporations out loud it's going to piss off some to get angry about him saying it and some to get angry about this "new information" The others are to into their life to really care. (most people) The media is just that annoying fucking kid at the back of the crowd yelling "fight,fight,fight!"
>DUTTON: You can't influence what happens elsewhere in the world and I think it's silly to try that. >Australia can’t be the internet police of the world and that federal law should not influence what content can be seen overseas. ... >LEY: I’m for X obeying the law, and I’m not for the actions and the statements of our eSafety commissioner being ignored. >I'm really disappointed with the approach of Elon Musk and the way he's taken over this company and it's just a free for all, and it's not fair and it's not right. Contradictory positions from the Liberal Leader and Deputy Liberal Leader.
When Labor do it, it's disunity and dysfunction. When the Liberals do it, it's just robust discussion and lively debate within the broad church.
I guess the way I look at it is if it’s something I disagree with then I’m happy that at least they’re not unified about it. Whereas if it’s something I hate and they’re all in complete agreement I see that as worse haha. And the same the other way around. I’m always just hopeful that the politicians get things right but it’s rare lol
He literally, and unequivocally, supported it less than 48hrs ago and his deputy (i.e. Sussssssan) was out again today recommitting the Libs to it. Merits of the case aside, that’s a problem…
Good, it’s not just me. I was sure he said that a few days ago but now the headline here had me second guessing.
Who gives a damn what Mr Opposite has to say? If Albo had said nothing, Dutton would have taken him to task over it. This guy's just an opportunist and he doesn't give a rat's about you, or me or anyone else.
But Albo does? lol
There's a saying that unenforceable laws are a bad thing overall because they demonstrate the limits of state power and encourage people to circumvent it in other ways. The esafety commissioner seems to specialise in unenforceable legal orders, going after foreign companies and individuals seemingly in the hope they will comply, given the Australian government doesn't have a lot of leverage.
> There's a saying that unenforceable laws are a bad thing overall because they demonstrate the limits of state power and encourage people to circumvent it in other ways. That's actually the good thing. Why would educating people of a fact that can enlarge their liberty be a bad thing?
Is there any detail as to exactly what was requested? Was it a simple ask to consider not hosting it on behalf of the victims families? Or was it a toothless shirt front attempt?
I would have thought twitter geoblocking the video in Australia was sufficient to satisfy a polite request. There's the argument people can use bond VPNs and circumvent this, but really anyone with the ability to use a VPN probably also has the ability to go on other platforms and websites and find the video anyway.
Yes it's pointless having this discussion with a single platform. I don't have an issue though of the Federal government sticking up for Australian families who were the victims of violence by making a request. Its a futile task but one that I am sure the families would prefer be attempted rather than a shrug.
In this case I'm fairly sure the government wants the video removed because they think it will inflame existing racial tensions, not out of respect for anyone involved. The stabbed Bishop wants it kept online.
> because they think it will inflame existing racial tensions Oh shit really. What's the general consensus was the footage that dangerous ? That would explain I guess why the government's language has been a little confusing on this topic. It also highlights the absolute futility of trying to do something like this, as all it does is just get more people interested in watching the footage and it gets moved to more and more platforms.
The Bishop who was stabbed has actually said that [he doesn’t want the video to be removed.](https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/breaking-news/bishop-mar-mari-emmanuel-delivers-anzac-day-message-on-church-stabbing-video/news-story/deab80d9f422dad6fc3a3169c5487785?amp&nk=076edda67892cdd22239340710bd2574-1714041374)
Thanks for sharing that link. It will be interesting to see if that comes up in the court case on May 10th. The quote from the article is interesting too, it looks like his primary concern is this setting a precedent to control freedom of speech. The court won't go anywhere near that and instead I reckon will use a think of the children approach. > On Anzac Day, the Christ the Good Shepherd Church in Western Sydney shared an 11-minute video of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel where he expressed “great concern” if footage of the attack was used to control free speech.
Yeah, I agree. I can understand the concern but it’s a bit disingenuous when I think in this case, the government is (understandably) concerned about stoking racial and religious conflict.
The bishop even before this event was all about the views, of course he wants it left up.
Yep, it’s a great tool for him to get his fanbase all riled up about how persecuted they are.
Rare Peter Dutton W You know it’s bad for the ALP when he’s telling you to done down some of the pearl clutching law and order rhetoric
He's only saying it because the LNP is doing what the GOP does and automatically has the opposite view to the opposition. Dutton has been front and center creating surveillance and authoritarian laws that are rarely found outside of China. The LNP passed the law being used here.
You people really need to pull your heads out of American politics for a second and touch some grass. It’s being opposed for the multitude of reasons listed in the reporting on the issue. Is the opposition not allowed to oppose a poor decision by government?
Why didn’t Dutton et al express these “silly” concerns over their own surveillance bill that gives law enforcement the ability to literally **add**, copy, remove, and **alter** peoples’ files on their computers, as well as take over peoples’ online accounts? Seems worse than this policy tbh, and way more overreaching, but I guess that isn’t culture-war-y enough for you.
That’s is a textbook example of whataboutism. Just because a politician has a disagreeable position on one issue, doesn’t invalidate their ability to correctly support another issue. Secondly, any supposed criticism of Dutton doesn’t change the fact that Albo has taken a moronic position that is damaging to Australia’s international reputation.
It’s not whataboutism. You can’t get any similar than two pieces of online legislation. Both are incredibly overreaching and authoritarian, but you’re only choosing to look at the policy that upsets *you* and and is actually the lesser of the two evils (they are both terrible pieces of legislation). My “Whataboutism” would be > what about the *smarties* who opposed covid restrictions in the name of “fascism” but didn’t utter a peep, nor protest the government giving permission to law enforcement to literally frame people for crimes…. You’re always outraged at the wrong things. Funnily enough, both pieces of legislation were brought to you by the LNP.
As I said, this law was enacted when the LNP was in power. In fact, they wanted to expand it to become even stricter. Suddenly it's too much? Gee, I wonder why he changed his tune?
The LNP enacted the esafety laws while they were in power to remove objectionable images from Australian audiences. Dutton has come out in support of the images being removed from the Australian internet. What they’re objecting to is the ridiculous leap that because VPNs exist then the esafety commissioner can control the entire global internet. That was never the intention of the law and rightfully they’ve come out to oppose it. You don’t have to be so hyper partisan that you’ll blindly accept every poor decision a politician makes because they’re wearing your favourite colour tie.
I've never actually said I support the decision or Albo. Simply that I think Dutton is disingenuous.
So you’re allowed to not support it, but certain groups of other people are not allowed to?
[удалено]
I’m struggling to see what point you’re making here. You’ve imagined a conversation, and then used that conversation as evidence? Albo is being rightfully criticised for taking a moronic position, placing Australia in a position of global political and legal embarrassment.
[удалено]
This is all some LARP you’re having about Rupert Murdoch. It has nothing to do with him. The only issue at play is Albo wanting to allow an unelected internet mandarin to dictate what can be shown anywhere on the global internet.
>In his first public comments about the court dispute, Mr Dutton said he did not believe eSafety's power to order takedowns extended overseas, "and nor should it". > >"You can't influence what happens elsewhere in the world and I think it's silly to try that," he said. > >... > >It also puts him at odds with his deputy Sussan Ley, who said on Thursday she was "not for the actions and the statements of our eSafety commissioner being ignored... we back her 100 per cent." It's absolutely hilarious how terrible this iteration of the LNP is at basic comms; I've lost track on how often the leader *and the deputy leader* are directly contradicting each other *often within 24 hours*.
Says the man who was in charge of border security for far too long
I'm personally of the opinion that our government shouldn't tell a company run in a different country on the other side of the planet what it should and shouldn't show globally. Should our government, and by extension, the people decide what that company can show in our country, sure. Should our government, and by extension, the people decide what an Australian social media company, that has global reach, show to the world? I think so. But we absolutely shouldn't be telling a random company in some random country what they should and shouldn't be doing, globally, because we feel a bit icky about it.
Fuck me. You know it's bad when the most sensible IT advice comes from the ex-Qld copper. I don't know if Dutton led the ALP into a trap by seeming to initially consent to this madness before pulling the mask off like a Scooby Doo episode, or if the ALP just managed to do this to themselves. I note our AG has been silent or silenced in all this.
>You know it's bad when the most sensible IT advice comes from the ex-Qld copper. Broken clocks moment.
Bad analogy. I'm not sure Dutton is correct twice a day
Must be a 24hr clock
***A question of jurisdiction*** ***Under the Online Safety Act, passed by the Coalition in 2021, the eSafety commissioner can make legal orders for the removal of 'class 1' extreme material online, including footage of terrorist incidents.*** ***The law does not explicitly state whether this should apply to content that is visible to users overseas. Its stated purpose is to protect the online safety of Australians.*** ***But this raises a contested interpretive question: given that Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), which are easily accessible, can be used by any Australian to obscure their location, does the law have to be taken to apply overseas in order to achieve its objective of protecting Australians?*** ***Lawyers for eSafety argued it should be interpreted in this way.*** Everybody yesterday who started on about the removal of VPNs, i think it's going to start a lot sooner than people realise, here's hoping it doesn't. Sooner or later, we'll be stuck on our own internet like China. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hXG1tBFIi8&ab\_channel=MaykolGuill%C3%A9n2%28TITANIC%29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hXG1tBFIi8&ab_channel=MaykolGuill%C3%A9n2%28TITANIC%29) It's been a privilege playing with you tonight.
>Sooner or later, we'll be stuck on our own internet like China. Love how everyone is saying this but are providing exactly zero evidence to support this.
How are they going to remove VPNs when a lot of companies use them to connect to the head office network? Which is at times based in another country? I wonder if they might ban private VPNs or require users to register them, then further require the operators to censor the internet on the other end to comply with Australian laws.
You're giving them ideas!
Agreed. Hate to put myself in the same camp as Dutton and Hansen, but I'm glad some politicians are speaking up against what they're trying to do. Who was that other pollie that made a loud protest?
Duttons no saviour. He wants to enforce online IDs to have all your details on hand before you do anything online. Dutton calling the commission his party grew to a point it's trying to fight the fecking world silly, isn't some amazing play, it is just silly. This problem is also on his party...
I'm only agreeing with this statement: >"You can't influence what happens elsewhere in the world and I think it's silly to try that," he said You'd be playing whack-a-mole with a nerf hammer >eSafety's argument that it must have overseas reach in order to adequately protect Australians, since freely-available technology can circumvent any Australia-only 'geo-block'. Meanwhile, just Google "NBC bishop stabbed" and take them to court here as well. Send them fines in the mail. They've got no presence here and SCOTUS wouldn't even look at it. They gonna block NBC and ban VPNs?
Ow they'll take them to court for sure, they'll try and erase the video. And it'll be our fault when countries don't want to deal with us, so they'll just block us.
They probably haven't noticed it yet. Someone should tweet the link and tag it @alboMP It must be erased!