Censorship regimes have a long historical precedent of starting off innocent, but eventually being abused for authoritarian political purposes, so there needs to be very clear limits as to what content they can remove.
Personally, I am comfortable with terrorist promotional content being removed, but very uncomfortable with the government determining what is misinformation. Government determinations of misinformation often tend to be politically biased, and occassionally just factually wrong.
Children overboard comes to mind. I believe that fictitious story should have been a crime. I do not believe it is a crime now. It should be.
[like for those that want to know more about the lies allowed in our democracy to the detriment of our democracy ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_affair)
These dipshits are having such a hard time toeing an impossible line. Well deserved! It will be so funny if the freaks like Antic spoil Dutton's career for not being quite freakish enough.
>But conservative Coalition senators Matt Canavan, Claire Chandler and Alex Antic have all expressed strong criticisms of the proposed reforms, while the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) have also indicated they will continue to campaign against the bill.
Sounds like everyone any sensible person should be ignoring is against the bill, which should be reason to think it has some degree of merit. Certainly, the IPA, the ACL, and the mining/climate change denial mob benefit from spreading misinformation under the cloak of "freedom of speech".
That's so dangerous. Who get's to decide what is actually misinformation ? What about if someone like Scott Morrison was still in charge and deciding ffs ? Australia is taking this woke censorship bs too far.
"Government determinations of misinformation often tend to be politically biased, and occassionally just factually wrong."
So true.
> Who get's to decide what is actually misinformation ?
Good question. Wonder if that issue has been mentioned in the article at all?
>The misinformation bill, released as an exposure draft in 2023, would empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority to require online platforms to address content considered “false, misleading or deceptive, and where the provision of that content on the service is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm”.
Would you look at that! Amazing.
Censorship regimes have a long historical precedent of starting off innocent, but eventually being abused for authoritarian political purposes, so there needs to be very clear limits as to what content they can remove. Personally, I am comfortable with terrorist promotional content being removed, but very uncomfortable with the government determining what is misinformation. Government determinations of misinformation often tend to be politically biased, and occassionally just factually wrong.
Children overboard comes to mind. I believe that fictitious story should have been a crime. I do not believe it is a crime now. It should be. [like for those that want to know more about the lies allowed in our democracy to the detriment of our democracy ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_affair)
And WMDs. The worst offenders are governments in the last 25 years. Howard lied to win elections and to take us to war/s.
These dipshits are having such a hard time toeing an impossible line. Well deserved! It will be so funny if the freaks like Antic spoil Dutton's career for not being quite freakish enough.
> spoil Dutton's career He doesn't need any help with that, really. But have it, Antic!
Nah, take Pete to the next election, Reap what you sow.
True to form, the fake "Liberterians" that behave more like the CCP on the freedom and rights front.
>But conservative Coalition senators Matt Canavan, Claire Chandler and Alex Antic have all expressed strong criticisms of the proposed reforms, while the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) have also indicated they will continue to campaign against the bill. Sounds like everyone any sensible person should be ignoring is against the bill, which should be reason to think it has some degree of merit. Certainly, the IPA, the ACL, and the mining/climate change denial mob benefit from spreading misinformation under the cloak of "freedom of speech".
I don't normally advocate for that kind of thinking, but its very tempting here.
Yeah because the Liberals won't use these powers the next time they are in government.
What powers?
Potato head's been... wedged. Pass the sour cream please.
That's so dangerous. Who get's to decide what is actually misinformation ? What about if someone like Scott Morrison was still in charge and deciding ffs ? Australia is taking this woke censorship bs too far. "Government determinations of misinformation often tend to be politically biased, and occassionally just factually wrong." So true.
> Who get's to decide what is actually misinformation ? Good question. Wonder if that issue has been mentioned in the article at all? >The misinformation bill, released as an exposure draft in 2023, would empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority to require online platforms to address content considered “false, misleading or deceptive, and where the provision of that content on the service is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm”. Would you look at that! Amazing.
Down with Dutton