With the current discourse between the e-comissioner and X over failing to take down vvideos pf the recent events, the e-com is threatening X with $750,000 fines per day if the vids are not taken down globally, to which Elon says get st#$%d.
This BS is replecation of government forcing censoring social media during Covid and 2020 US, where after the events its been proven that Twitter, Facebook and others have proven to sanction the hiding of the truth.
So if X, Meta withdrew all their offices from Australia how would the government contend with them then.
BasilB said
04:45 PM Apr 22, 2024
maybe tolerating superstitious bull**** is the problem.
Peter_n_Margaret said
05:33 PM Apr 22, 2024
Who do you want to run this country?
Elon Musk et al or our elected politicians?
Simple choice.
Cheers,
Peter
smwhiskey said
05:41 PM Apr 22, 2024
Gundog wrote:
So if X, Meta withdrew all their offices from Australia how would the government contend with them then.
An interesting question which seems to have escaped the attention of all those who are currently trying their best to cut social media off at the knees.
My opinion is that if those companies close their offices in Australia, the only action the government can take without involving overseas governments and/or lawyers is to block the sites (X, Facebook, instagram, youtube) so they can't be accessed in Australia. Unlikely to happen and probably a career limiting decision for any government that attempts it.
So I think that the Australian politicians (on all sides and at all levels) (to use a loony tunes analogy) will find themselves stuck in the middle of the road with a large truck bearing down on them.
So purely for your amusement...
-- Edited by smwhiskey on Monday 22nd of April 2024 05:42:01 PM
BasilB said
06:29 PM Apr 22, 2024
with all due respect Peter, do we want the rioters leading us?
Are We Lost said
07:15 PM Apr 22, 2024
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
Who do you want to run this country? Elon Musk et al or our elected politicians? Simple choice. Cheers, Peter
The politicians should not be censoring social media. The world has seen too much censorship in the interests of protecting us. So in this case they should be siding with Elon.
Peter_n_Margaret said
09:22 PM Apr 22, 2024
You can change the politicians if they don't do what you want, this country is a democracy. But you can not change Elon Musk et al.
Cheers,
Peter
Are We Lost said
12:47 AM Apr 23, 2024
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
You can change the politicians if they don't do what you want, this country is a democracy. But you can not change Elon Musk et al. Cheers, Peter
I don't think I want to change Elon Musk but I wish I could change the politicians.
Cupie said
08:40 AM Apr 23, 2024
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
You can change the politicians if they don't do what you want, this country is a democracy. But you can not change Elon Musk et al. Cheers, Peter
X2
dogbox said
08:47 AM Apr 23, 2024
Are We Lost wrote:
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
You can change the politicians if they don't do what you want, this country is a democracy. But you can not change Elon Musk et al. Cheers, Peter
I don't think I want to change Elon Musk but I wish I could change the politicians.
what is the alternative a dictatorship ?
with free speech there should also be some responsibility we do not allow explicide content to be viewed generally but if you wish to find it you do not have to look to hard to find it.
woolman said
09:20 AM Apr 23, 2024
The real problem as I see is the cowards use the anomalies of the internet to spread their abuse.
Make everyone accountable by being identified.
Neil
Dick0 said
11:45 AM Apr 23, 2024
Are We Lost wrote:
The politicians should not be censoring social media. The world has seen too much censorship in the interests of protecting us. So in this case they should be siding with Elon.
X2 and again X2
Dick0 said
11:48 AM Apr 23, 2024
The Lefties loved Twitter but not so much "X" and the owner.
dorian said
03:10 PM Apr 23, 2024
Elon Musk Dead at 52 Says There Is No Need for Misinformation Laws:
I think I might join Donalds Truth Socia, that might be fun.
smwhiskey said
08:03 AM Apr 24, 2024
Personally I don't see a lot of difference between the visions of violence they try to ban and the visions of violence you can see everyday on TV (e.g. MMA)
Must be that one is considered a "crime" and the other a legitimate "sport".
TheHeaths said
09:48 AM Apr 24, 2024
There is a world of difference between Freedom of Speech, which comes with uncomfortable and hurt feelings when radical opinions are expressed against one or other group, but generally no real physical trauma (but some mental trauma certainly), and the Freedom of Action that these sort of actions are, complete with the accompanying physical trauma and often death depicted.
Allowing those sort of actions to be shown only normalises the use of high levels of violence and rewards the perpetrators with notoriety. This can then prompt similarly unhinged individuals to follow suit for the supposed celebrity they see.
I agree with actions taken to try and limit that sort of content.
Dick0 said
10:07 AM Apr 24, 2024
There are hundreds of cinema/video movies depicting graphic killing released each year.
They are censored relative to age groups and allowed to be screened.
Parents can then decide which content minors can view.
The violent/graphic movies are not banned but censored accordingly.
The same should apply to Social Media.
dogbox said
10:30 AM Apr 24, 2024
Dick0 wrote:
There are hundreds of cinema/video movies depicting graphic killing released each year.
They are censored relative to age groups and allowed to be screened.
Parents can then decide which content minors can view.
The violent/graphic movies are not banned but censored accordingly.
The same should apply to Social Media.
who would be tasked with the job of censorship? who decides the guide lines as what should be censored?
are the social media giants responsible enough for self regulation?
Magnarc said
11:04 AM Apr 25, 2024
Me too.
smwhiskey said
11:20 AM Apr 25, 2024
dogbox wrote:
are the social media giants responsible enough for self regulation?
By the same token should we trust that the Government is responsible enough to decide what to censor and what not to censor? TIme and time again the answer has turned out to be "No".
rmoor said
01:00 PM Apr 25, 2024
The current government love the relatively new terms Disinformation and Misinformation.
Which in effect means, anything other than their dialogue is incorrect.
They are using a form of political gaslighting to put us all in our place and be denied any reasonable form of an opinion.
Peter_n_Margaret said
01:14 PM Apr 25, 2024
Australia has an independent censorship board.
Or would you prefer some Yank whose primary interest is how much money he makes to decide what happens in Australia?
Cheers,
Peter
smwhiskey said
02:06 PM Apr 25, 2024
rmoor wrote:
The current government love the relatively new terms Disinformation and Misinformation. Which in effect means, anything other than their dialogue is incorrect. They are using a form of political gaslighting to put us all in our place and be denied any reasonable form of an opinion.
I think we're all agreed that this example is neither disinformation or misinformation and the reasons given for the take down request border on hypocritical.
If they really want to be serious about the amount of violence our kids are seeing then they need to start removing "sports" like UFC and boxing from our TV screens and mainstream news media.
With the current discourse between the e-comissioner and X over failing to take down vvideos pf the recent events, the e-com is threatening X with $750,000 fines per day if the vids are not taken down globally, to which Elon says get st#$%d.
This BS is replecation of government forcing censoring social media during Covid and 2020 US, where after the events its been proven that Twitter, Facebook and others have proven to sanction the hiding of the truth.
So if X, Meta withdrew all their offices from Australia how would the government contend with them then.
maybe tolerating superstitious bull**** is the problem.
Elon Musk et al or our elected politicians?
Simple choice.
Cheers,
Peter
An interesting question which seems to have escaped the attention of all those who are currently trying their best to cut social media off at the knees.
My opinion is that if those companies close their offices in Australia, the only action the government can take without involving overseas governments and/or lawyers is to block the sites (X, Facebook, instagram, youtube) so they can't be accessed in Australia. Unlikely to happen and probably a career limiting decision for any government that attempts it.
So I think that the Australian politicians (on all sides and at all levels) (to use a loony tunes analogy) will find themselves stuck in the middle of the road with a large truck bearing down on them.
So purely for your amusement...
-- Edited by smwhiskey on Monday 22nd of April 2024 05:42:01 PM
with all due respect Peter, do we want the rioters leading us?
The politicians should not be censoring social media. The world has seen too much censorship in the interests of protecting us. So in this case they should be siding with Elon.
Cheers,
Peter
I don't think I want to change Elon Musk but I wish I could change the politicians.
X2
what is the alternative a dictatorship ?
with free speech there should also be some responsibility we do not allow explicide content to be viewed generally but if you wish to find it you do not have to look to hard to find it.
The real problem as I see is the cowards use the anomalies of the internet to spread their abuse.
Make everyone accountable by being identified.
Neil
X2 and again X2
The Lefties loved Twitter but not so much "X" and the owner.
Elon Musk Dead at 52 Says There Is No Need for Misinformation Laws:
https://theshovel.com.au/2024/04/23/elon-musk-dead-at-52-misinformation-laws/
I think I might join Donalds Truth Socia, that might be fun.
Must be that one is considered a "crime" and the other a legitimate "sport".
Allowing those sort of actions to be shown only normalises the use of high levels of violence and rewards the perpetrators with notoriety. This can then prompt similarly unhinged individuals to follow suit for the supposed celebrity they see.
I agree with actions taken to try and limit that sort of content.
There are hundreds of cinema/video movies depicting graphic killing released each year.
They are censored relative to age groups and allowed to be screened.
Parents can then decide which content minors can view.
The violent/graphic movies are not banned but censored accordingly.
The same should apply to Social Media.
who would be tasked with the job of censorship?
who decides the guide lines as what should be censored?
are the social media giants responsible enough for self regulation?
Me too.
By the same token should we trust that the Government is responsible enough to decide what to censor and what not to censor? TIme and time again the answer has turned out to be "No".
Which in effect means, anything other than their dialogue is incorrect.
They are using a form of political gaslighting to put us all in our place and be denied any reasonable form of an opinion.
Or would you prefer some Yank whose primary interest is how much money he makes to decide what happens in Australia?
Cheers,
Peter
I think we're all agreed that this example is neither disinformation or misinformation and the reasons given for the take down request border on hypocritical.
If they really want to be serious about the amount of violence our kids are seeing then they need to start removing "sports" like UFC and boxing from our TV screens and mainstream news media.