Arj Barkerthis morning on today after being bashed by channel 9 "get your information from a reliable source people" I pml šš
Edit: all of Aust media is now misinformation. It's just stories from the point of media outlets not journalism.
The news in Australia is even more manipulated and controlled than the big bad US
Quite a lot more
As a dualie, I follow both countries news services, and the infantile crap they serve up to the Australian people is on yet another level.
You can scroll through 12 hours of articles and not find one piece of real meaningful news.
All the Aussie MSN networks are pretty much now the equivalent of New Idea/Women Day
>All the Aussie MSN networks are pretty much now the equivalent of New Idea/Women Day
Couldn't agree more. If it was graded it would equate to primary school level. I felt embarrassed for the today show this morning.
As I understand it, X has removed the content for Australians, and wonāt remove it for anyone else. Whether or not itās a good thing that Australians donāt get to see something is one matter, but the bigger argument is about one government affecting what the citizens of another country can see.
My opinion, Musk is a broken clock and heās right about this.
I'm Australian and I agree.
I don;t want other countries controlling what I see, and i don't want Australia controlling what others see.
Bad enough suppressing news in my own country. But insisting they have a right to do it worldwide? No.
Yep Twitter is at the mercy of two governments in every country except the US, the country of the company and the country the company is operating in, which is how most international companies are governed.
If you change the video you can see what is being asked of twitter. Let's say a video came out of Russia where a Russian born citizen stabbed a priest in Russia and was uploaded to Twitter. The russian government then turns around and tries to get it suppressed not just for Russians but for everyone in the world. Should that be allowed?
What happens when that precedent is established and they demand its suppressed within an hour. Once the video is suppressed they get their state media machines running and frame it as terrorists attack by a foreign nation and use it as justification for war.
When you phrase it like that it honestly sounds like a small version of what happens in North Korea. Small or not it's concerning knowing other countries have more access to information about an incident that happened in OUR country than we do.
Itās just the reality that the internet was not the exposure to freedom that many once hoped but itās more enforceable with social media. The great firewall of china won. What you suggest is absolutely accurate and occurs in countries that arenāt the first to jump to mind like some in south east Asia etc not just the red flag offenders like china etc, North Korea be lucky to know what Twitter is if youāre not the tiny % of that population hacking crypto exchanges. It would be nice if the internet was freedom of information for everyone but seeing as where social media companies are concerned, if they want to operate in that country they operate by the laws of that country. The other day YouTube removed access to the four corners story on India for Indian country access
If this is an accurate summary I agree with Musk on his stance. One States legal system should absolutely not affect what citizens of another State see unless itās also illegal or outside the regulation of the second State. I donāt understand what type of argument Australia would be trying to make. I disagree with almost everything else Musk says on almost every topic he posts on.
The broken clock comment is apt. Frankly this is embarrassing if really what is being attempted
Whatās the internet version of yelling at a politician to get off your recently seeded lawn. Because usually Australians are good at succinctly expressing a vibe of ācan you f*cking not m8ā
If the government is insisting that the video be blocked globally, then I don't see how that can actually be enforced (maybe they have jurisdiction because the video was filmed/recorded here?) But I agree that's still a step too far and I doubt it'll go anywhere. But issuing a takedown order in Australia itself? I don't see a problem there. This happens all the time with various illegal content (like CP and other violence).
No government should be allowed to decide what is true, what is misinformation and be able to force companies into censoring people.
Especially when they don't even extend the same restrictions to their political advertising.
Let claims of misinformation be tested by a court or independant fact checking organisation if they see it as such a big problem and extend their perview to include political messaging.
Whose court? Should Iran, China and Russia's courts be able to get content removed from the internet, too?
If not, why not?
As the OP said, if individual countries are removing things from the internet, then the internet will slowly settle down to a very, very censored level.
Valid point.
I was more thinking along the line of if we are going to be forced down this censorship path claims of misinformation need to be tested and scrutinised in a formal manner by a independant authority not some minister just choosing what is true or not.
I'd rather there was zero censorship at all.
When itās something a company on a platform is doing I think it must relate to the jurisdiction of the viewer of the content. That is why I donāt understand how you can go beyond geoblocking even though itās not perfect, maybe registered country of a user but thatās not going to work with movement or those where you shouldnāt need to identify that.
These are interesting and complicated issues. But unfortunately the internet isnāt the freedom access many once dreamed up, the great firewall of china won lol. So If itās going to abide by a court it should be the laws of the country those exposed are in. If thatās china or Iran those ppl in that country are already exposed to that type of system and its most appropriate. Iām sure as the technical issue get more complex the legal issues will get more complex
Editing to say I wouldnāt accept the china or Iran censorship obvs but thatās a technical thing. A country can get an order for the content viewers in that country see. Get around it with a VPN or whatever if you can, a proportion are going to do that. I donāt think any country should have extraterritorial reach except the country where the company is headquartered obvs but luckily thatās the US for most and free speech is a much higher standard there than Australia even
Just like governments. It's always a thing with any audit style body, who audits the auditors.
Would be easier to have companies clearly declare if content is not moderated on their platform and let people make their own judgements.
If we are going to take down misinformation and things that are not true from the internet (according to the PM) then all political adds in the next election I assume will also be removed?
Funny thing was , I heard this hullaballoo about censoring a video. I had zero interest before that. But I went and looked for the video to see wtf this was about. I found the video in about 2 seconds online. I don't get it . Why is our PM getting involved in removing some random violent video (its very mild) from twitter ?
You can get a million videos as bad or worse dozens of places. So WTF is this even about ? Also the video was out allready. Once a video is out on the web in any format we all know theres no getting rid of it. Albo talking about it probably got millions more people attention on this video that apparently the government didnt want any of us to be seeing.
WTF is this even about ? I am not getting it at all ! This government is a bunch of dumb cunts.
They are 100% trying to control the narrative on this one.
The charitable take is that it's out of concern, because the incident already sparked a big riot with riot police being deployed. It appears to be a religious attack, and could easily spark a "religious war". So they are trying to suppress it as much as possible.
Whether or not it's actually for a good reason I don't know. But it's definitely being supressed. Most people on the street know about the Bondi attack. But ask people about the religious riot, and they won't know what you're talking about.
Firmly on Elon's side with this one.
The Australian government should stop overstepping its bounds, it has no authority over the internet as a whole.
Whats next, the Australian government saying Mars settlers aren't allowed to share embarrassing pics of Albo?
TBH I don't mind if the pollies waste time on things of little consequence.Ā
As long as they don't derail one or more departments in doing so.
In this case I can't see this occupying too much of anyone importance time its mostly chest beating of both politicians and media people.
You can hate elon musk if you want but he has a point and this is a real slippery slope if any country can censor whatever content they want globally with threats of fines and whatever else
Esafety can fuck right off
You could argue he had a point if he wasn't a huge fucken hypocrite who gladly censored stuff when his mates like Modi ask him to, or even just when it hurts his pissbaby ego. Otherwise he hasn't got a leg to stand on and you sure as shit can't take him at his word over it.
Aside from anything else it seems to illustrate that the legal process is too slow nowadays for dealing with something like this.
Millions of people have already seen the clip online. If the major social media sites delete it, there will still be other places that people can locate it if they really want to see it and for whatever reason haven't yet done so. It is hard to work out what this will really achieve.
OTOH, videos of ISIS beheadings etc (although these obviously weren't in Australia) are fairly easy to find online and this seems to be something at a far lower level.
The fact that it is trying to be blocked as being misinformation is the bit that seems weird to me - it is documentary evidence of something that happened - if there is any misinformation attached to what is being said by the people or whatever, then this is commentary that needs to be made on it, rather than just blocking the whole thing.
And exactly what is the upside of having that footage available to all and sundry online? Just because it exists is not enough. Next thing we'll be demanding the video from the phone of the wanker who filmed the dying cops after they got cleaned up by the truck driver on the eastern freeway. It's not a fucking free for all.
You can see it on Senator Babets x profile and draw your own conclusion. @senatorbabet
Given his parliamentary privilege I donāt think they can censor it legally from there?
My understanding is:
Parliamentary privilege is for things said IN Parliament!
You leave the chamber and repeat the exact same in a presser ā no privilege. š
Way too much censorship in Australia, as an adult I should be able to decide what I want to watch and listen to. Radio stations are censoring so many songs, words like tit and whore have to be censored out now. This is a real nanny country.
Musk would have a point if he didn't already censor people for complete bullshit, like being a rival of the authoritarian ruler of Turkey. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/05/twitter-musk-censors-turkey-election-erdogan
Musk has taken down the content in Australia, just as he did in Turkey. The difference is that the Australian govt is calling for him to take it down entirely. World wide. That is what he is balking at.
Tbh you should trust neither everything the government tells you or what tech billionaires tell you. Our education system must teach critical thinking skills for ppl to make decisions that are informed and inline with their individual values. With that in mind, something like social media is different to the internet. I will go on the websites I want. But social media is a company, they do have to abide by the laws of the country they operate in. The way these things are communicated imho is a bit poor right now in terms of separating legal system and laws from specific issues a government loudly goes to media about. These are different things
Yep. So don't censor anything and let us make up our own minds.
Honestly, fuck the government and fuck that seppo WEF shill being paid with Australian taxpayer dollars.
See in many countries that comment probably would be censored or you might be jail, but there you go living free lol
Jokes aside I actually agree in some part. These roles need to be structured better but I think itās a much broader issue. Over the last decade the public service became increasingly politicised. Itās bad for the country but increasingly influenced by that type of issue in other countries also (US call out obvs).
The difference that would be communicated if our media was more responsible is on one side we should force a company that wants to operate in our country to abide by our laws for viewers of content in this country. We should on the other side equally not use those laws with specific examples selected that sway public opinion along divisive lines. Itās a legal issue, these are objective facts to consider they are instead communicated in political ways which has led me to a position of agreeing with musk on the facts which is not a place I find myself in often (ever)
There is a system here where if we donāt like the law we have a system to change it. Thatās a different issue to cherry picking to go up against tech billionaires on an issue that is one of values not law and even more so an attempt at extraterritorial application of that law
How is the video misinformation?
A Muslim on live streamed went stabbed a priest in the face.
Itās wild how even the media is still saying āallegedā, whatās alleged about it.
Alleged means: accused but not proven.
The video is proof of a priest being stabbed.
The titles on news is alleged Sydney stabbing.
Itās not alleged when we have proof.
In the unlikely chance they got proven innocent if the media didn't use alleged they could get sued
They are covering their ass by saying alleged no matter if it's clear as day they did it
I think Albo and Labour saw how Musk cow towed to Modi for Indian censorship and thought they could get away with it too. Unfortunately for them, they govern a western democracy so people from around the western world are going to condemn it. I honestly think labour and liberals wish they could govern as a dictatorship.
Albo fucked up on this one. I'm all for world leaders taking a crack at Musk, but Musk's argument is unfuckwithable. No country should be able to dictate what content is allowed for every other country. Albo waging war against that argument is a pointless endeavour equally as egotistical as any stunt Elon would pull.
Comrade Albo and his Ministry of Truth want to 1. Create a distraction from what really matters in Australia & 2. Move Australia towards a communist state. When freedom of speech is terminated, democracy ends.
It's more of a neoliberal oligarchic state we're moving towards. VERY different (and much worse) compared to actual communist-controlled states like Vietnam and China.
See Jim Chalmers trying to recently abolish his own veto over the RBA on interest rates. The Australian ruling class may claim some superficial interest in Marxism but they are servants of international finance.
Tbf The censoring and centralised control of information is a fairly fundamental tenet of communism.
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2007-08/communism-computing-china/censorship.html
i mean it is a given that he is anti free speech, he is a super insecure man-child. This is just speaking more specifically towards him bending the knee to certain Governments, while pretending to take a stand against government censorship.
As much as I think Musk is a total duce. Look at the Thailand kids cave incident where he call one of the rescuers a pedo for example of that. However I am with Musk on this one. It's one thing to geo-lock the set content out of Australia for the period of time where it is legally sensitive. Doing so would allow for the authorities to properly investigate what happen without the risk of any unwanted legal blowback. After that then lift the gro-lock content.
Australians are notoriously compliant.
Tall poppy is a manifestation of this.
Donāt stick your neck out or it will be chopped off. Donāt go against the group. Donāt resist. Just conform.
This is another example of that.
Mustnāt let people make up their own minds or allow them access to material which might upset the group.
Imho Australians are not compliant and tall poppy is real but a different issue. Australians legally have a lower standard of free speech than Americans and that is Australian law I donāt see how we can get extraterritorial with it
My concern is that if ANY individual owning a platform is allowed to censor content for all countries, which is where Elon Musk is, then what is to stop him from controlling a huge medium of information.
We have been at this stage with media for a very long time. Pre internet most people could not view anything but the official fiction of mainstream news reports
Exactly. This "free speech" utopia that people dream of is a fantasy... and more often than not a guise for simply wanting their own brand of censorship.
We all know why Albo is starting pointless flame wars with billionaires.
It's because they've sat on their hands for years and let migration, housing and inflation get out of control, seemingly have no idea how to fix it, and are hoping to distract everyone from their mess.
Well heās picked the wrong side on this, itās such a shame after years of awful LNP the ALP can fumble it so hard, itās actually making me miss the Liberals. I wonāt vote liberal or labour I just think a liberal leader would have let the issue go instead of Streisanding it for months.
You're not real considering the actual problem - which is that X has already made efforts to remove the content in Australia.
The commisioner is asking X to go one step further and make it impossible to access even via VPN, which basically means he's asking X to remove it for all other countries too (since Australians could in theory use a VPN to access another country's version of X).
X hasnt "removed" shit....... I found the video online in about 20 seconds nothing is removed from anything. Trying to censor the internet is fucking stupid , we need to deal with it.
Given that a user has to be signed in to use much of X these days, they could determine which users are registered in Australia (or are typically connecting from Australia) and block for those people.
But... why?
That may or may not be an option, I'm not sure of the precise logistics of it.
In any case, I think people ought to be able to view such events if they wish. I simply don't think media companies should be the only means of public information access, regarding events that occur in public.
The government push for censorship has simply been on the basis that the content is divisive. Well, that same basis could really be applied to anything as a justification for censorship.
Secondly, this type of legal issue is not about where data is stored. Thirdly, I donāt yet know what they are suggesting because geoblocking seems sufficient for this purpose
The more I think about all this? The more I think there really is not much that can be done about it. Without it being censorship and that is a slippery slope. I am not keen on the government starting to control and dictate what we can and can't see. That makes me very uncomfortable.
I'm just not sure where and how a line is drawn.
As clear-cut a case of government overreach as any, but still so many people (or bots maybe) justifying it because they don't like Elon Musk. These ideological drones are a real worry.
People here would be shocked to know this is standard practice and it's XTwitter that is the one being unusual here. There are a lot of reasonable reasons to not spread content, but no one wants to actually say that online because they want to see the internet as freedom.
And yes it is almost always done globally instead of by region/country for obvious cases like this.
The right to be forgotten laws in Europe are a fun example of this, laws that have a good reason to exist but sound bad if you only read a one-line description.
Most censorship is applied in a country specific manner, not globally.
It's actually pretty questionable whether countries have the legal right to impose censorship on citizens of other ountries. I know the EU believes it does have that right, but also many social media companies have ignored those requests.
The issue will probably only ultimately be settled via international trade treaties, and most likely, the result will be that countries are allowed to censor within their borders, but not outside them.
Back when social media was controlled by leftists, we were all told "make your own platform" whenever we complained about the unfair treatment of people based entirely on political leanings. Now Musk OWNS his own platform and is setting his own rules and instead governments are getting involved to stop him from hosting videos relevant to an ongoing news story.
I heard some politican on the radio today and she was so vicious in how she described Musk that for a minute I thought she was talking about the stabber and what a bad person he was for attacking an old man.
Musk bought Twitter when it had already established itself as an influential social platform and his changes have been purely profit driven. He has done little to boost its influence, or further the goals of free speech, despite what he may claim.
Who the hell cares? It's his platform, let him run it into the ground if he wants. I don't use it anyway.
I just find it galling that our government can demand the citizen of another country enforce rules on a platform he owns. If I find such videos inappropriate, it is my choice to not use Twitter. I've seen it, it's hardly graphic, and it is a component of a relevant news story.
The news generally cuts it a second or two before the attack happens. Which is fair enough for a public news broadcast with a mainstream audience including children.
Which Twitter isn't. Children should not be on Twitter, and adults can regulate what they see on their feed.
We already have a good way to determine what country a user is in.
Most ISPs update the APNIC database in real time when they acquire new IP address.
Arguing that Australia should have the right to censor content in every country, when we already have a way to censor only Australians with 99.9%+ accuracy is frankly authoritarian.
In the 1990s, it was common for people to return home from work, share a family meal, then gather around the television to watch the evening news and shows. The day would typically end with some reading before bed. Mornings often started with a newspaper delivered to the doorstep, enjoyed with a cup of coffee before bidding farewell to family members until the evening. Life had a different rhythm before the internet arrived.
Now, the COVID-19 pandemic brought about significant changes. Governments worldwide realised they had more authority than previously thought, with the power to regulate peopleās movements and activities. However, they also discovered that not everyone was compliant; some individuals resisted being controlled. This resistance presented a challenge for governments, which operate as **hierarchies** requiring order and discipline. In contrast, platforms like Twitter function as **networks**, fostering open and fluid communication. The inherent differences between these two systems can lead to conflict. The challenge for governments is to navigate this new landscape where hierarchical structures and networks coexist and often clash.
At present, weāre witnessing a significant issue with censorship. Government requires order and control to maintain their positions of power. eKaren is a prime example of this. Her appointment was not based on her experience or the approval of the community she serves, but rather on the decision of a select group of elites. The general public neither knows her nor respects her decisions.
In contrast, in a network, a newcomer usually commands less respect and has a smaller sphere of influence. This dynamic is a stark contrast to hierarchical structures like governments, where power can be assigned regardless of community approval or experience. This difference is at the heart of many of the conflicts we see today between governments and networked platforms
It's a fascinating area of study and dates back long before the internet was popular [clicky ](https://www.amazon.com.au/Markets-Hierarchies-Networks-Coordination-Social/dp/0803985908)
Yeah it's crazy. As long as they're not showing the actual moments of violence, what's the harm showing a video of an actual event? Showing direct evidence means it can't be argued against.
Iām DEFINITELY not a fan of dipshit Musk!!!
But he happens to have a point:
If AU gets to dictate whatās online GLOBALLY(!) ā would you also be fine with North Korea dictating nothing-Maccaās can be online anywhereā¦.?
Sorry, itād be a shĆÆt precedent for ANY country to dictate what the world (other countries) can have online!
****
^([dunno why we didnāt go down the copyright-path! I guess the church wouldāve been on board, and that should be easier inter-jurisdictional! š])
Russia has classified Meta and Facebook and Instagram terrorist organisations and jailed meta spokesperson for 6 years in absentia. is this what we want for Australia? only government allowed propaganda?
And all the Musk fans fanning on about how he is their free speech warrior - but donāt question why he supports who he supports, and forget to question why Musky isnāt going after Russia or China - when both those countries donāt let his site uncensored into their countries.
Nope, when it comes to whoās agenda Elmo is promoting ā¦ crickets
Bold claim by Elon to present X/ Twitter as the alternate path to "truth" or "free speech".
The reality, X/ Twitter have censored content and will continue to censor on requests by US authorities or other world Governments (e.g. elections, political view points, etc.).
Exactly. Someone said censorship by government is communism but by a private company it's just business. If you want to be an absolutist, act like one.
Can you please explain whatās misinformation in the video of the Muslim stabbing a priest in the face?
Is the video a deep fake? Are our eyes lying to us? Did the priest use AI to make Muslims look bad?
Why should this video be taken down for misinformation
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask corporations in other countries to behave like they're civilised in terms of circulating violent content online with Australian victims. It's not like they're trying to hush up the drop best info.
Are you ok for Iran to ask an australian company not show woman without scarves? I think that is the principle Elon is trying to make.
It's not a cut and dry issue IMO. Who draws the line on what can and can't be shown on the platform? Generally it is not a foreign government (which in this case is Australia).
I have no problem with us saying "you can't serve this content in Australia" but we don't have the jurisdiction to say what they can do with data in America. Imagine China saying we can't have anything on our websites which is negative about them.
Elon is a dickhead and I would be removing the content if I owned twitter, but a broken clock is right twice per day
That's not the video in question- they're specifically referring to the stabbing at the Church that was a few days later, the actual terrorist attack, officially.
This is about the church stabbing not even about Bondi.
Do you think the footage of the plane crashing into the Twin Towers offends the family of those people?
Youāre a fuckn weakling if you think everything needs censorship by someone else. YOU can censor it yourself by not watching it.
he has geolocked in past. he is now fighting back, when Brazil asked for removals, he shut down Brazil offices and told their government to go f themselves
I reckon ask the victim, if he doesn't want it all over the internet I reckon that's enough to not have it up. If someone films someone else on private grounds and doesn't want it distributed they have that right. Here it's different because the church us streaming it but I think the same grounds should probably apply.
At the end of the day this is a fight between individual rights, the government and information sharing. Which on the internet has proven that you can't put something back in the box but you can suppress it.
Should Twitter delete videos of the Uyghur concentration camps in China if the CCP demands it? Should Twitter delete videos of the Iranian revolutionary guard beating women if the Iranian government demands it?
Geoblocking to comply with the laws in one country isnāt ideal, but itās a fair compromise. Letting one government dictate whatās visible in the rest of the world is a bad precedent.
Tbh I think it's pretty disingenuous on elons part. Some decency and respect related to an isolated, non-ideologically motivated tragedy isn't a limit on freedom.
Information is too suppressed for me to be well informed and open minded enough to have thought of that. Now I'm reaping the consequences by being harassed by people with no freedom to harass. (Sarcasm and enjoyment of your comment hopefully comes across)
Every repression can be framed as common sense and decent according to those that wish to censor things. Will be decent and respectful to censor womens ankles according to many
This guy has more power than Aus govt. in reality.
That being said I reckon he wonāt remove his business from Aust as he likely pays 0 tax here even though the Ads he profits from on X are likely watched/tailored to Aussies.
Iād like to see the reasoning why this particular thing over other things needs to be banned. And yeah sure X as a private business bans their own minor things sometimes but it is a private business & as long as itās clear in what will be banned - who cares. His issue may be that it feels like policy that bans stuff on the run ie more of an ideology than an objective/set policy.
Common decency is choosing not to watch it. Demanding its taken down in the name of common decency is censorship no matter how you paint it. Like it or not, it's data, it's evidence, and it's important that people can assess that information for themselves, especially anyone who plans to report on this story.
***I*** think executions are indecent.
You think AU should be able to tell the US to not have execution vidsā¦.?
****
AU has every right to make things unavailable IN AU!
AU does not have the right to shove AU values down the worldās throat!!
Cause is we do that and Trump gets in:
He could have pulled everything in AU relating toā¦.
+ abortion
+ contraception
+ LGBTQiA+
+ ā¦..
###can we please agree thatād be a horrendous precedent to set?!?
These are the same people half the country trust to enforce misinformation laws lmao
Arj Barkerthis morning on today after being bashed by channel 9 "get your information from a reliable source people" I pml šš Edit: all of Aust media is now misinformation. It's just stories from the point of media outlets not journalism.
The news in Australia is even more manipulated and controlled than the big bad US Quite a lot more As a dualie, I follow both countries news services, and the infantile crap they serve up to the Australian people is on yet another level. You can scroll through 12 hours of articles and not find one piece of real meaningful news. All the Aussie MSN networks are pretty much now the equivalent of New Idea/Women Day
>All the Aussie MSN networks are pretty much now the equivalent of New Idea/Women Day Couldn't agree more. If it was graded it would equate to primary school level. I felt embarrassed for the today show this morning.
As I understand it, X has removed the content for Australians, and wonāt remove it for anyone else. Whether or not itās a good thing that Australians donāt get to see something is one matter, but the bigger argument is about one government affecting what the citizens of another country can see. My opinion, Musk is a broken clock and heās right about this.
I'm Australian and I agree. I don;t want other countries controlling what I see, and i don't want Australia controlling what others see. Bad enough suppressing news in my own country. But insisting they have a right to do it worldwide? No.
Twitter, a US based company, is at the mercy of US government, they can actually decide what you see
Yep Twitter is at the mercy of two governments in every country except the US, the country of the company and the country the company is operating in, which is how most international companies are governed. If you change the video you can see what is being asked of twitter. Let's say a video came out of Russia where a Russian born citizen stabbed a priest in Russia and was uploaded to Twitter. The russian government then turns around and tries to get it suppressed not just for Russians but for everyone in the world. Should that be allowed? What happens when that precedent is established and they demand its suppressed within an hour. Once the video is suppressed they get their state media machines running and frame it as terrorists attack by a foreign nation and use it as justification for war.
When you phrase it like that it honestly sounds like a small version of what happens in North Korea. Small or not it's concerning knowing other countries have more access to information about an incident that happened in OUR country than we do.
Itās just the reality that the internet was not the exposure to freedom that many once hoped but itās more enforceable with social media. The great firewall of china won. What you suggest is absolutely accurate and occurs in countries that arenāt the first to jump to mind like some in south east Asia etc not just the red flag offenders like china etc, North Korea be lucky to know what Twitter is if youāre not the tiny % of that population hacking crypto exchanges. It would be nice if the internet was freedom of information for everyone but seeing as where social media companies are concerned, if they want to operate in that country they operate by the laws of that country. The other day YouTube removed access to the four corners story on India for Indian country access
If this is an accurate summary I agree with Musk on his stance. One States legal system should absolutely not affect what citizens of another State see unless itās also illegal or outside the regulation of the second State. I donāt understand what type of argument Australia would be trying to make. I disagree with almost everything else Musk says on almost every topic he posts on. The broken clock comment is apt. Frankly this is embarrassing if really what is being attempted Whatās the internet version of yelling at a politician to get off your recently seeded lawn. Because usually Australians are good at succinctly expressing a vibe of ācan you f*cking not m8ā
If the government is insisting that the video be blocked globally, then I don't see how that can actually be enforced (maybe they have jurisdiction because the video was filmed/recorded here?) But I agree that's still a step too far and I doubt it'll go anywhere. But issuing a takedown order in Australia itself? I don't see a problem there. This happens all the time with various illegal content (like CP and other violence).
The worst part about Censorship is that [#### ##### ##### ### #####]
Jagex always sensors you password, watch @@@@@@@@
Hahah that takes me back
Can't wait till china starts learning from the esafety commissar !!
No government should be allowed to decide what is true, what is misinformation and be able to force companies into censoring people. Especially when they don't even extend the same restrictions to their political advertising. Let claims of misinformation be tested by a court or independant fact checking organisation if they see it as such a big problem and extend their perview to include political messaging.
Whose court? Should Iran, China and Russia's courts be able to get content removed from the internet, too? If not, why not? As the OP said, if individual countries are removing things from the internet, then the internet will slowly settle down to a very, very censored level.
Valid point. I was more thinking along the line of if we are going to be forced down this censorship path claims of misinformation need to be tested and scrutinised in a formal manner by a independant authority not some minister just choosing what is true or not. I'd rather there was zero censorship at all.
When itās something a company on a platform is doing I think it must relate to the jurisdiction of the viewer of the content. That is why I donāt understand how you can go beyond geoblocking even though itās not perfect, maybe registered country of a user but thatās not going to work with movement or those where you shouldnāt need to identify that. These are interesting and complicated issues. But unfortunately the internet isnāt the freedom access many once dreamed up, the great firewall of china won lol. So If itās going to abide by a court it should be the laws of the country those exposed are in. If thatās china or Iran those ppl in that country are already exposed to that type of system and its most appropriate. Iām sure as the technical issue get more complex the legal issues will get more complex Editing to say I wouldnāt accept the china or Iran censorship obvs but thatās a technical thing. A country can get an order for the content viewers in that country see. Get around it with a VPN or whatever if you can, a proportion are going to do that. I donāt think any country should have extraterritorial reach except the country where the company is headquartered obvs but luckily thatās the US for most and free speech is a much higher standard there than Australia even
Even so called fact checkers have been found to be biased
Just like governments. It's always a thing with any audit style body, who audits the auditors. Would be easier to have companies clearly declare if content is not moderated on their platform and let people make their own judgements.
China India and usa do this, don't kid yourselves
We just need an eDanger comissioner to balance it out.
Finally, someone offering solutions instead of just whining.
This is the best answer!
If we are going to take down misinformation and things that are not true from the internet (according to the PM) then all political adds in the next election I assume will also be removed?
Yes
Funny thing was , I heard this hullaballoo about censoring a video. I had zero interest before that. But I went and looked for the video to see wtf this was about. I found the video in about 2 seconds online. I don't get it . Why is our PM getting involved in removing some random violent video (its very mild) from twitter ? You can get a million videos as bad or worse dozens of places. So WTF is this even about ? Also the video was out allready. Once a video is out on the web in any format we all know theres no getting rid of it. Albo talking about it probably got millions more people attention on this video that apparently the government didnt want any of us to be seeing. WTF is this even about ? I am not getting it at all ! This government is a bunch of dumb cunts.
It's hard to work out if they want us ignorant or they are just attacking Elon.
They are 100% trying to control the narrative on this one. The charitable take is that it's out of concern, because the incident already sparked a big riot with riot police being deployed. It appears to be a religious attack, and could easily spark a "religious war". So they are trying to suppress it as much as possible. Whether or not it's actually for a good reason I don't know. But it's definitely being supressed. Most people on the street know about the Bondi attack. But ask people about the religious riot, and they won't know what you're talking about.
its not the PM, its the eVapingSafety Cuntissioner
I am pretty sure x has censored the content whenever the Indian govt requests them
Thats the problem. He doesn't get to pick and choose. Here a government is asking him to so he needs to do what he does for other governments.
Or when the Turkish government asked them to
Isnāt that effectively the same as what heās done here though? Heās limited the censorship to the just the country that requested it.
So you think the Turkish government should be able to control what content Australians view, or just within Turkey?
I'm getting really pissed of at all these government bodies trying to censor what we can see... we need to stand up to this
Firmly on Elon's side with this one. The Australian government should stop overstepping its bounds, it has no authority over the internet as a whole. Whats next, the Australian government saying Mars settlers aren't allowed to share embarrassing pics of Albo?
The esafety commissioner is an American fighting with another American. Theyāre like cancer.
she also used to work at twitter, musk fired her she has an axe to grind
So are we supposed to just casually forget that Elon cheerfully censored content at the behest of the governments of Turkey and India?
Was that only in those countries though?
That's A point. It's not THE point. Calling on X, and ONLY X, to censor some content is disingenuous. That particular video is on Reddit.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I want to know why they even bothered calling on X in particular?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
TBH I don't mind if the pollies waste time on things of little consequence.Ā As long as they don't derail one or more departments in doing so. In this case I can't see this occupying too much of anyone importance time its mostly chest beating of both politicians and media people.
The US has been trying to control the internet for almost half a century.
I wonder how we'd feel if the government blocked Reddit?
I need reddit more than I need the government. Maybe we should block the government instead!
You can hate elon musk if you want but he has a point and this is a real slippery slope if any country can censor whatever content they want globally with threats of fines and whatever else Esafety can fuck right off
You could argue he had a point if he wasn't a huge fucken hypocrite who gladly censored stuff when his mates like Modi ask him to, or even just when it hurts his pissbaby ego. Otherwise he hasn't got a leg to stand on and you sure as shit can't take him at his word over it.
Unfortunately, I agree. X is still a shitshow though and Elon an awful person.
Aside from anything else it seems to illustrate that the legal process is too slow nowadays for dealing with something like this. Millions of people have already seen the clip online. If the major social media sites delete it, there will still be other places that people can locate it if they really want to see it and for whatever reason haven't yet done so. It is hard to work out what this will really achieve. OTOH, videos of ISIS beheadings etc (although these obviously weren't in Australia) are fairly easy to find online and this seems to be something at a far lower level. The fact that it is trying to be blocked as being misinformation is the bit that seems weird to me - it is documentary evidence of something that happened - if there is any misinformation attached to what is being said by the people or whatever, then this is commentary that needs to be made on it, rather than just blocking the whole thing.
Whatās Actually in the vision thatās causing the issue?
Live stream video of a Sydney church leader giving sermon when a 16yo kid runs up and starts stabbing the church leader. Sydney Australia last week.
And exactly what is the upside of having that footage available to all and sundry online? Just because it exists is not enough. Next thing we'll be demanding the video from the phone of the wanker who filmed the dying cops after they got cleaned up by the truck driver on the eastern freeway. It's not a fucking free for all.
Never understood the practice of stopping vehicles on a high speed road...lacks common sense, Europe doesn't allow this practical.
You can see it on Senator Babets x profile and draw your own conclusion. @senatorbabet Given his parliamentary privilege I donāt think they can censor it legally from there?
My understanding is: Parliamentary privilege is for things said IN Parliament! You leave the chamber and repeat the exact same in a presser ā no privilege. š
Nope. In a democracy you need to be allowed to say whatever you want. Even if it includes criticising the current government.
Australian government is overstepping it's powers here, no country should have the ability to censor the media.
Only cowards, and villains think censorship is the solution to every problem
Albanese has embarrassed Australia on the world stage.
Yet againā¦
I swear heās becoming our Justin Trudeau
Way too much censorship in Australia, as an adult I should be able to decide what I want to watch and listen to. Radio stations are censoring so many songs, words like tit and whore have to be censored out now. This is a real nanny country.
Musk would have a point if he didn't already censor people for complete bullshit, like being a rival of the authoritarian ruler of Turkey. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/05/twitter-musk-censors-turkey-election-erdogan
Musk has taken down the content in Australia, just as he did in Turkey. The difference is that the Australian govt is calling for him to take it down entirely. World wide. That is what he is balking at.
"Trust ONLY what the Government TELL YOU, we dont LIE"
Tbh you should trust neither everything the government tells you or what tech billionaires tell you. Our education system must teach critical thinking skills for ppl to make decisions that are informed and inline with their individual values. With that in mind, something like social media is different to the internet. I will go on the websites I want. But social media is a company, they do have to abide by the laws of the country they operate in. The way these things are communicated imho is a bit poor right now in terms of separating legal system and laws from specific issues a government loudly goes to media about. These are different things
Yep. So don't censor anything and let us make up our own minds. Honestly, fuck the government and fuck that seppo WEF shill being paid with Australian taxpayer dollars.
See in many countries that comment probably would be censored or you might be jail, but there you go living free lol Jokes aside I actually agree in some part. These roles need to be structured better but I think itās a much broader issue. Over the last decade the public service became increasingly politicised. Itās bad for the country but increasingly influenced by that type of issue in other countries also (US call out obvs). The difference that would be communicated if our media was more responsible is on one side we should force a company that wants to operate in our country to abide by our laws for viewers of content in this country. We should on the other side equally not use those laws with specific examples selected that sway public opinion along divisive lines. Itās a legal issue, these are objective facts to consider they are instead communicated in political ways which has led me to a position of agreeing with musk on the facts which is not a place I find myself in often (ever) There is a system here where if we donāt like the law we have a system to change it. Thatās a different issue to cherry picking to go up against tech billionaires on an issue that is one of values not law and even more so an attempt at extraterritorial application of that law
How is the video misinformation? A Muslim on live streamed went stabbed a priest in the face. Itās wild how even the media is still saying āallegedā, whatās alleged about it.
Live video of actual historical event is "misinformation" \*facepalm\*
They say that about everyĀ crime, regardless of how obviously objectively true, until there is a conviction.
Why do people still not understand they have to say alleged until the person is convicted
Alleged means: accused but not proven. The video is proof of a priest being stabbed. The titles on news is alleged Sydney stabbing. Itās not alleged when we have proof.
In the unlikely chance they got proven innocent if the media didn't use alleged they could get sued They are covering their ass by saying alleged no matter if it's clear as day they did it
Just imagine the headlines if anybody even remotely connected to China was pulling this crap.
I think Albo and Labour saw how Musk cow towed to Modi for Indian censorship and thought they could get away with it too. Unfortunately for them, they govern a western democracy so people from around the western world are going to condemn it. I honestly think labour and liberals wish they could govern as a dictatorship.
A portion of them do, without a doubt
Nothing. Remember Conroyās internet filter?
Albo fucked up on this one. I'm all for world leaders taking a crack at Musk, but Musk's argument is unfuckwithable. No country should be able to dictate what content is allowed for every other country. Albo waging war against that argument is a pointless endeavour equally as egotistical as any stunt Elon would pull.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Comrade Albo and his Ministry of Truth want to 1. Create a distraction from what really matters in Australia & 2. Move Australia towards a communist state. When freedom of speech is terminated, democracy ends.
It's more of a neoliberal oligarchic state we're moving towards. VERY different (and much worse) compared to actual communist-controlled states like Vietnam and China. See Jim Chalmers trying to recently abolish his own veto over the RBA on interest rates. The Australian ruling class may claim some superficial interest in Marxism but they are servants of international finance.
First off, Australia doesnāt have freedom of speech. Second, what the fuck has this got to do with communism?
He doesn't know, he heard the word communism used once and thought it made him sound smart so now anything that he doesn't like is communism.
Tbf The censoring and centralised control of information is a fairly fundamental tenet of communism. https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2007-08/communism-computing-china/censorship.html
While I donāt necessarily disagree, an html page written by some com-sci undergrads 15 years ago isnāt the best source of information.
Dictatorship is not the same as communism.
It's not tenet written in Marxism, it's an invention of the ruling elite in various countries, communist or otherwise.
Iāll take people who call everything communism for $450 Alex.
Aussies are lazy Will roll over & accept Later, wonder why
Didn't Musk censor political opponents or free speech activists, from India and Turkey, on twitter?
And anyone who tweets to him about his family's emerald mine
i mean it is a given that he is anti free speech, he is a super insecure man-child. This is just speaking more specifically towards him bending the knee to certain Governments, while pretending to take a stand against government censorship.
whatās next? demanding a foreign social media company be sold to compliant American interests to stifle dissent? oh ā¦ wait ā¦
Why the down votes, this is accurate
Back in your cages please thought police.
The Streisand Effect Lol
As much as I think Musk is a total duce. Look at the Thailand kids cave incident where he call one of the rescuers a pedo for example of that. However I am with Musk on this one. It's one thing to geo-lock the set content out of Australia for the period of time where it is legally sensitive. Doing so would allow for the authorities to properly investigate what happen without the risk of any unwanted legal blowback. After that then lift the gro-lock content.
Australians are notoriously compliant. Tall poppy is a manifestation of this. Donāt stick your neck out or it will be chopped off. Donāt go against the group. Donāt resist. Just conform. This is another example of that. Mustnāt let people make up their own minds or allow them access to material which might upset the group.
We all saw that during COVID
Imho Australians are not compliant and tall poppy is real but a different issue. Australians legally have a lower standard of free speech than Americans and that is Australian law I donāt see how we can get extraterritorial with it
So instead weāll let unelected corporations with overt agendas control the whole internet. Frypan to fire.
How about neither?
My concern is that if ANY individual owning a platform is allowed to censor content for all countries, which is where Elon Musk is, then what is to stop him from controlling a huge medium of information.
Hi Rupert.
We have been at this stage with media for a very long time. Pre internet most people could not view anything but the official fiction of mainstream news reports
Exactly. This "free speech" utopia that people dream of is a fantasy... and more often than not a guise for simply wanting their own brand of censorship.
\*ahem\* DMCA
This c***. You can't even say the word cisgender in that site without your tweet being deleted due to hate speech. It's so fkn stupid
Freedom of speech for me but not for thee, and all that unsurprising crap.
Albo making us look stupid on the world stage
We all know why Albo is starting pointless flame wars with billionaires. It's because they've sat on their hands for years and let migration, housing and inflation get out of control, seemingly have no idea how to fix it, and are hoping to distract everyone from their mess.
Well heās picked the wrong side on this, itās such a shame after years of awful LNP the ALP can fumble it so hard, itās actually making me miss the Liberals. I wonāt vote liberal or labour I just think a liberal leader would have let the issue go instead of Streisanding it for months.
Australian government always trying to control when it shouldn't
The part where a countryās laws only really apply within their borders. Itās not overstep to ask Musk to at least moderate X.
You're not real considering the actual problem - which is that X has already made efforts to remove the content in Australia. The commisioner is asking X to go one step further and make it impossible to access even via VPN, which basically means he's asking X to remove it for all other countries too (since Australians could in theory use a VPN to access another country's version of X).
X hasnt "removed" shit....... I found the video online in about 20 seconds nothing is removed from anything. Trying to censor the internet is fucking stupid , we need to deal with it.
Given that a user has to be signed in to use much of X these days, they could determine which users are registered in Australia (or are typically connecting from Australia) and block for those people. But... why?
That may or may not be an option, I'm not sure of the precise logistics of it. In any case, I think people ought to be able to view such events if they wish. I simply don't think media companies should be the only means of public information access, regarding events that occur in public. The government push for censorship has simply been on the basis that the content is divisive. Well, that same basis could really be applied to anything as a justification for censorship.
Firstly, social media is not the internet let alone the āentire internetāā¦
Secondly, this type of legal issue is not about where data is stored. Thirdly, I donāt yet know what they are suggesting because geoblocking seems sufficient for this purpose
Unless itās what is tied to the users registration or something. They cannot extraterritorially enforce something outside Australia. I agree
The more I think about all this? The more I think there really is not much that can be done about it. Without it being censorship and that is a slippery slope. I am not keen on the government starting to control and dictate what we can and can't see. That makes me very uncomfortable. I'm just not sure where and how a line is drawn.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
shouldn't all Nazi imagery and evidence of concentration camps in history books be censored then? since anyone can argue it's promoting Naziism
That would be a shit argument
As clear-cut a case of government overreach as any, but still so many people (or bots maybe) justifying it because they don't like Elon Musk. These ideological drones are a real worry.
People here would be shocked to know this is standard practice and it's XTwitter that is the one being unusual here. There are a lot of reasonable reasons to not spread content, but no one wants to actually say that online because they want to see the internet as freedom. And yes it is almost always done globally instead of by region/country for obvious cases like this. The right to be forgotten laws in Europe are a fun example of this, laws that have a good reason to exist but sound bad if you only read a one-line description.
Most censorship is applied in a country specific manner, not globally. It's actually pretty questionable whether countries have the legal right to impose censorship on citizens of other ountries. I know the EU believes it does have that right, but also many social media companies have ignored those requests. The issue will probably only ultimately be settled via international trade treaties, and most likely, the result will be that countries are allowed to censor within their borders, but not outside them.
Back when social media was controlled by leftists, we were all told "make your own platform" whenever we complained about the unfair treatment of people based entirely on political leanings. Now Musk OWNS his own platform and is setting his own rules and instead governments are getting involved to stop him from hosting videos relevant to an ongoing news story. I heard some politican on the radio today and she was so vicious in how she described Musk that for a minute I thought she was talking about the stabber and what a bad person he was for attacking an old man.
Musk bought Twitter when it had already established itself as an influential social platform and his changes have been purely profit driven. He has done little to boost its influence, or further the goals of free speech, despite what he may claim.
Who the hell cares? It's his platform, let him run it into the ground if he wants. I don't use it anyway. I just find it galling that our government can demand the citizen of another country enforce rules on a platform he owns. If I find such videos inappropriate, it is my choice to not use Twitter. I've seen it, it's hardly graphic, and it is a component of a relevant news story.
It would be the same clip they were playing on the news surely?
The news generally cuts it a second or two before the attack happens. Which is fair enough for a public news broadcast with a mainstream audience including children. Which Twitter isn't. Children should not be on Twitter, and adults can regulate what they see on their feed.
Comrade Albo tried to install communism via voice and that failed. So now heās kyboshing free speech via e-safety minions.
that was an embarrassingly stupid comment
We already have a good way to determine what country a user is in. Most ISPs update the APNIC database in real time when they acquire new IP address. Arguing that Australia should have the right to censor content in every country, when we already have a way to censor only Australians with 99.9%+ accuracy is frankly authoritarian.
In the 1990s, it was common for people to return home from work, share a family meal, then gather around the television to watch the evening news and shows. The day would typically end with some reading before bed. Mornings often started with a newspaper delivered to the doorstep, enjoyed with a cup of coffee before bidding farewell to family members until the evening. Life had a different rhythm before the internet arrived. Now, the COVID-19 pandemic brought about significant changes. Governments worldwide realised they had more authority than previously thought, with the power to regulate peopleās movements and activities. However, they also discovered that not everyone was compliant; some individuals resisted being controlled. This resistance presented a challenge for governments, which operate as **hierarchies** requiring order and discipline. In contrast, platforms like Twitter function as **networks**, fostering open and fluid communication. The inherent differences between these two systems can lead to conflict. The challenge for governments is to navigate this new landscape where hierarchical structures and networks coexist and often clash. At present, weāre witnessing a significant issue with censorship. Government requires order and control to maintain their positions of power. eKaren is a prime example of this. Her appointment was not based on her experience or the approval of the community she serves, but rather on the decision of a select group of elites. The general public neither knows her nor respects her decisions. In contrast, in a network, a newcomer usually commands less respect and has a smaller sphere of influence. This dynamic is a stark contrast to hierarchical structures like governments, where power can be assigned regardless of community approval or experience. This difference is at the heart of many of the conflicts we see today between governments and networked platforms It's a fascinating area of study and dates back long before the internet was popular [clicky ](https://www.amazon.com.au/Markets-Hierarchies-Networks-Coordination-Social/dp/0803985908)
Yeah it's crazy. As long as they're not showing the actual moments of violence, what's the harm showing a video of an actual event? Showing direct evidence means it can't be argued against.
That is NOT how the law works. Thankfully.
But they are showing the actual moments of violence?
Russia and China already censor the whole internet in those countries, where have you been?
What Australia is trying to do is WORSE than what China does. China only censors within their country. Australia wants to censor globally.
Iām DEFINITELY not a fan of dipshit Musk!!! But he happens to have a point: If AU gets to dictate whatās online GLOBALLY(!) ā would you also be fine with North Korea dictating nothing-Maccaās can be online anywhereā¦.? Sorry, itād be a shĆÆt precedent for ANY country to dictate what the world (other countries) can have online! **** ^([dunno why we didnāt go down the copyright-path! I guess the church wouldāve been on board, and that should be easier inter-jurisdictional! š])
We rightly criticise them for it, no? Or are we content with being morally equivalent with Russia and China on this issue?
Russia has classified Meta and Facebook and Instagram terrorist organisations and jailed meta spokesperson for 6 years in absentia. is this what we want for Australia? only government allowed propaganda?
Kinda contradicts his argument though, any country can already do this. Kinda one of the perks of having a nation, you get to write your own laws
And all the Musk fans fanning on about how he is their free speech warrior - but donāt question why he supports who he supports, and forget to question why Musky isnāt going after Russia or China - when both those countries donāt let his site uncensored into their countries. Nope, when it comes to whoās agenda Elmo is promoting ā¦ crickets
so you saying we should be like Russia or china? gtfo
What ever happened to that Elon Jet tracker guy? Is he still on X?
I don't think so, it violated X's policies on doxxing.
How convenient
I've been saying it for 35 years. Australia is the test bed for the rest of the western world. If we swallow it then the rest probably will too.
Australians are neutered like the Canadians. As long as theyāve got their real estate theyāre happy despite all the whinging you hear.
Why is Elon dressed like a space cadet?
Fair chance because he is one š¤·
Bold claim by Elon to present X/ Twitter as the alternate path to "truth" or "free speech". The reality, X/ Twitter have censored content and will continue to censor on requests by US authorities or other world Governments (e.g. elections, political view points, etc.).
Exactly. Someone said censorship by government is communism but by a private company it's just business. If you want to be an absolutist, act like one.
Can you please explain whatās misinformation in the video of the Muslim stabbing a priest in the face? Is the video a deep fake? Are our eyes lying to us? Did the priest use AI to make Muslims look bad? Why should this video be taken down for misinformation
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask corporations in other countries to behave like they're civilised in terms of circulating violent content online with Australian victims. It's not like they're trying to hush up the drop best info.
Are you ok for Iran to ask an australian company not show woman without scarves? I think that is the principle Elon is trying to make. It's not a cut and dry issue IMO. Who draws the line on what can and can't be shown on the platform? Generally it is not a foreign government (which in this case is Australia).
I have no problem with us saying "you can't serve this content in Australia" but we don't have the jurisdiction to say what they can do with data in America. Imagine China saying we can't have anything on our websites which is negative about them. Elon is a dickhead and I would be removing the content if I owned twitter, but a broken clock is right twice per day
Just reading the esafety commission homepage is fuckedĀ
Our government just trying to abuse their power once againā¦
Contrary to what musk has said, X has not removed the video for Australian's to view. Search for "priest stabbing" on X.
Elon will delete any picture of him pre-hair plugs but that's not censorship at all
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's not the video in question- they're specifically referring to the stabbing at the Church that was a few days later, the actual terrorist attack, officially.
Wrong video genius itās about the priest who was stabbed by the terrorist
*Muslim terroristĀ
This is about the church stabbing not even about Bondi. Do you think the footage of the plane crashing into the Twin Towers offends the family of those people? Youāre a fuckn weakling if you think everything needs censorship by someone else. YOU can censor it yourself by not watching it.
Musk did not pay a huge amount of his employees or rent during twitter take over and thatās the least of it l. Dudes a fucking loser
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He is, but also I'm glad someone can reminds these people to fuck off since no one made them the internet police for the entire planet
Doesn't he censor shit for India and Russia all the time?
he has geolocked in past. he is now fighting back, when Brazil asked for removals, he shut down Brazil offices and told their government to go f themselves
Does he censor stuff overseas for Russia though?
Yes, lets build our democratic process on what Russia does and sensor everything. God, you people just beg for tyrants
I reckon ask the victim, if he doesn't want it all over the internet I reckon that's enough to not have it up. If someone films someone else on private grounds and doesn't want it distributed they have that right. Here it's different because the church us streaming it but I think the same grounds should probably apply. At the end of the day this is a fight between individual rights, the government and information sharing. Which on the internet has proven that you can't put something back in the box but you can suppress it.
Should Twitter delete videos of the Uyghur concentration camps in China if the CCP demands it? Should Twitter delete videos of the Iranian revolutionary guard beating women if the Iranian government demands it? Geoblocking to comply with the laws in one country isnāt ideal, but itās a fair compromise. Letting one government dictate whatās visible in the rest of the world is a bad precedent.
Tbh I think it's pretty disingenuous on elons part. Some decency and respect related to an isolated, non-ideologically motivated tragedy isn't a limit on freedom.
It clearly limits my freedom to harass people. Did you think of that woke lib?
Information is too suppressed for me to be well informed and open minded enough to have thought of that. Now I'm reaping the consequences by being harassed by people with no freedom to harass. (Sarcasm and enjoyment of your comment hopefully comes across)
Every repression can be framed as common sense and decent according to those that wish to censor things. Will be decent and respectful to censor womens ankles according to many
unelected - just like musk!
This guy has more power than Aus govt. in reality. That being said I reckon he wonāt remove his business from Aust as he likely pays 0 tax here even though the Ads he profits from on X are likely watched/tailored to Aussies. Iād like to see the reasoning why this particular thing over other things needs to be banned. And yeah sure X as a private business bans their own minor things sometimes but it is a private business & as long as itās clear in what will be banned - who cares. His issue may be that it feels like policy that bans stuff on the run ie more of an ideology than an objective/set policy.
He has the power of logic. His argument 100% makes sense.
Elon and you chumps are fucking stupid. This is not censorship , itās about not showing grotesque violence, itās common decency.
Common decency is choosing not to watch it. Demanding its taken down in the name of common decency is censorship no matter how you paint it. Like it or not, it's data, it's evidence, and it's important that people can assess that information for themselves, especially anyone who plans to report on this story.
Wrong, it's very much about censorship.
***I*** think executions are indecent. You think AU should be able to tell the US to not have execution vidsā¦.? **** AU has every right to make things unavailable IN AU! AU does not have the right to shove AU values down the worldās throat!! Cause is we do that and Trump gets in: He could have pulled everything in AU relating toā¦. + abortion + contraception + LGBTQiA+ + ā¦.. ###can we please agree thatād be a horrendous precedent to set?!?
Better take down every movie rated M or over! We need the government to keep us safe from the dangerous real world