What exactly is the government trying to hide here? Do they truly care that Australians might be exposed to violent content? I don't know how many here have seen the actual banned footage, but its rather tame - the sort of thing you'd find 20 times a night on the usual cop show extravaganza that is commercial TV. Struth, you can go onto YouTube right now and watch a bloke get his head blown off... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdwVUBlK-Y0&rco=1

So are they trying to suppress the violence?

No, they are trying to suppress the visual evidence of the failure of the great multiculturalism experiment. They are trying to keep a lid on the ethnic unrest that emanates from those who see violence as a fair debating point. That's why both sides of politics are supporting the censorship - because both sides supported the multicultural experiment and need to suppress the evidence of its failure.

Australians have shown that they'll supinely accept censorship and authoritarian anti-democratic enforcement - eg the lockdowns. But now we are trying to impose that on the rest of the world and the defenders of freedom who won't supinely accept censorship are fighting back.

The sheer arrogance of unelected and unrepresentative censors to think that they can decide what the rest of the world is allowed to see is breathe-taking. How disconnected from reality are these people?

Imagine if the CCP decided it didn't want its citizens to ever see evidence of the Tiananmen massacre and to ensure no Chinese with a VPN was similarly censored, that the entire planet had remove all such content from the WWW. Would the fascists of the left be good with that?

Sadly, probably, they would.

The Dutton Liberals are on the same side as Labor and the loony Left on censorship. They love their Big Sister.

The polls now have Dutton at 45% to 37% for Albanese.

Just because Dutton isn't Albanese.

What a sorry state Australia is in. Disastrous.

The Liberal Party has torched its chances of election, and Australia's chances of pulling out of the downward spin into totalitarianism.

The UAP Senator Ralph Babet and One Nation are the only ones standing up for freedom and opposing an imported public ‘servant’. But, the majority of Australians apparently prefer slavery to voting for them, having been brainwashed into thinking that anything not loony Left is ‘far right’.

mhaze,

Good onya.

Eight year olds today have
FACEBOOK, TWITTER, IPHONE and IPOD.
When I was 8 I had a colouring book,
crayons, and an imagination.

I didn't need eSafety. But perhaps today's
kids do?

Mhaze took us back to the horrors of Covid mismanagement as the tipping point when Australians showed how "supine" they had become; how accepting they were of undemocratic lockdowns and removal of human rights.

That period in our history will go down as the turning point when the political class, elected and unelected, found that they could get away with ruling Australians, not serving them.

And, it also reminds us of the truism that people deserve the governments they vote for. They showed a bit of courage in turning away from the main parties, but too many of them gave their first preference to the Greens, and look how that turned out: nincompoops with less than a third of the vote propped by our version of Communists.

Tony Abbott, still naively thinking that the Liberals would save us (more women will get them back on the track, he thinks), recently said:

“A majority that stays silent does not long remain a majority. Too many Australians have been quiet for too long, either through politeness or lack of conviction”.

True. But it is also true that there has been no majority or, at least, the majority has been worn down since multiculturalism, cultural relativism, race-based grouping, self-hatred - you name it: if it's bad, we have it.

Maoist-style grouping has left us ripe for totalitarianism.

Enter Big Sister - for starters.

Isn't it time for the technology industry to take
a lead from the car industry and start prioritizing
safety so that every online experience that people take
is a safe one?

We know that cars today are equipped with safety features.
From seat-belts, rear-view cameras, parking and crash
sensors. Surely Australian adults expect tech companies to
take responsibility for their online safety. According to
the research done by banks - we're told that eSafety is not
alone in calling for this.

Dear Foxy,

I have no objection that those who prioritise online safety organise themselves and create a body, call it "government" or by any other name, that will do its best to provide them with technological and administrative solutions for having as-safe-as-possible online experiences.

But why impose their preferences on the rest of us and threaten our freedom to communicate with each other?

«We know that cars today are equipped with safety features.
From seat-belts, rear-view cameras, parking and crash
sensors.»

Disgusting indeed, that is why I only use old cars. It is also, for example, why I am prevented from having an electric vehicle.

My ideal car would be from around the 1970's (yet I don't mind what powers it), but unfortunately they now get too rusty.

You know, when safety belts were invented and came onto the market, my parents were excited about it and bought it for our family car. It was not a legal requirement and we didn't need anyone to tell us to do so, it just made sense to have them!

«Surely Australian adults expect tech companies to
take responsibility for their online safety.»

Some do - I certainly don't.
I don't want tech companies to interfere with my essential means of transportation: while I don't mind safety mechanisms, I want a vehicle, not a computer. Computers and similar electronic gadgets are limited to one room in my home, and should stay right there (and it is from this room that I am now typing). I went to great lengths to disable some electronic components in my car just so I don't have to carry electronic chips (inside the car keys) while I am out and about outside this room.