If the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 gets up, it will be an offence to criticise banking institutions. Some of the other things we won't be able to mention are: digital ID, Covid lockdowns and vaccines; nor will be able to criticise LGBTQ+ activism. And whatever Big Brother decides, presumably.

The government will have the power to “shut down free speech and alternative positions” over a large range of topics.

Actions against free speech will be funded by us, the victims of the Bill. We, ordinary people, will probably not be attacked personally, digital media platforms will be, if they allow us to speak, write, post as we do now.

And, as Minny Jackson (‘New censorship and surveillance beast is tabled in Parliament’, Spectator) writes, the material that can be reported (by any activist and offendee presumably) is “insanely broad”, including text, music and “other sounds”, visual images and “other forms of data”.

Given governments’ own iffy reputation with the truth, to allow them to dictate what is true and what is not would be “laughably insane”. But that's what they want.

The Morrison government came up with the idea of censoring speech before they were ousted. Now in opposition, they say they won't vote for this Bill. Maybe. I don't trust them. They are all for the government taking away the rights of parents to decide what their kids can watch or not watch, if they have smartphones or not. But even if they don't support this Bill, there are the Greens who will support anything to keep Australians down, and a few other odd bods in the Senate.

Elon Musk called the Albanese government “fascist “ over this Bill. The Opposition spokesman David Coleman was too prissy to agree, coming up with alternative ‘nicer’ weasel words.

I also watched John O'Sullivan last night talking about European main parties colluding and keeping their jobs with no opposition apart from a few small, itsy-bitsy parties and independents. I think the same thing will happen here.

The heading was Censoring Us To Keep Us Safe. Gremlins!

Everyone likes to be 'safe', but most people can keep themselves, and their children, safe. They don't need the Total State to do it and, thereby, assume even more control over them than is already the case.

We need to remember, also, that this fascist/Communist Bill would not apply to politicians and the mainstream media: the real misinforming, disinforming and lying characters and organisations by far.

I have to say that I had a good feeling when I saw Albanese responding to Elon Musk's criticism with almost the same words he used when Musk slammed the Voice.

He lost the Voice; he should lose on this nasty piece totalitarianism too.

In January the federal government proposed legislation
that sought to curb the online spread of false and
misleading information.

Since then a range of experts and groups have accused the
draft bill of being vaguely worded and encouraging
censorship.

Despite its faults the bill is well intentioned.

Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland says:

"Misinformation and disinformation sows division within the
community, undermines trust and can threaten public health
and safety."

The bill is yet to be debated in parliament, which means
there is still time for amendments to be made. In
particular the imprecision of key terminology - which is
ripe for amendment.

It's a bit too early to condemn things outright.

Foxy

Regurgitating a second hand press release adds nothing. I would have some respect for you if you expressed your own opinions, rather than just parroting what the MSM, the ABC, The Guardian, and your favourite politicians say.

Sounds like a win for democracy, I'm so excited.

The bill is analogous to banning shopping on the basis that some people shoplift. People legitimately buy all manner of things for all manner of reasons. Having a right to express an opinion would seem as fundamental as democracy itself. If you want to buy dried peas you should have a right to do so.

Oh this just isn't fair.
Don't I have a right to free expression?
I feel like I want to practice my goosestep and 'fuhrer' salute, in honour of my the great Commissar Albo.
- But apparently the 'fuhrer' salute has already been outlawed.
Dammit WTF is going on in this country?
Am I allowed to sport a 'fuhrer' mustache, in honour of this great mans achievements?

I demand the right of free expression.
I demand the right to stand outside parliament with an upside down Aussie flag and a green and gold swastika.
I swear it's not meant in an 'anti-Semitic' way and that it's an expression of my true beliefs - which should be covered under 18C,
Maybe I will pull down my pants and expose my bottocks?
Is it ok to swear and offer dual single fingered gestures?
- It's a sign of - well let's say 'mutual respect' towards well, what just may be the best crop of leaders we've ever had.
Is it lawful to display fingers and bottocks?
Are there legal limits on colouful vernacular?
These are the words of the common man.
I have a few carefully chosen ones for them.

ttbn,

I'm not searching for your or any one else's validation.

I present information based on available facts and data.

Foxy

You most certainly will not be swayed by anything I say. That’s a given; and you are entitled to post whatever suits you,

But don't claim to be presenting facts. Repeating what others say doesn't cut the mustard. We know what politicians CLAIM to be doing, but politicians are not known for their honesty.

And, facts are not necessarily what you are gleaning from your favourite sources: merely opinions and ideas that fit with you philosophies. If you must regale everyone with your "facts", need to give evidence as to how those "facts" were arrived at by the person or people disseminating them.

Your latest effort reads like you merely copied it from somewhere. It's too stilted to be your own opinion.

AC,

Sorry. But I can't tell whether you are being serious, subtle or silly. I like to see what people think of any subject I raise, but you make it hard.

The issue is "who decides what's disinformation"

The fascists of the left assume it will always be them. History shows otherwise but the the left are shithouse at learning from history anyway.

These days 'misinformation' is just stuff the rulers don't want you to know about. Oh, we've got video of a deranged mohammedan trying to kill a preacher...well we best ensure that the ignorant plebs don't see that because they might get the wrong idea. Well knowing the truth is often wrong in the eyes of the rulers.

Remember when it was misinformation to say the dreaded wuflu came from a Chinese lab? Well the truth there would have been suppressed. All for the best intentions, mind you, according the the government's flying-monkeys, eh Foxy?

Remember when it was 'misinformation' to say Hunter Biden's diary was anything other than Russian propaganda? Remember how the fascists of the left suppressed all information about the diary? Well Hunter just pled guilty - although in the world our little coterie of leftists exist in, that was probably also suppressed as misinformation.

Well, predators do what predators do, we should not feel surprised.

Whoever created such predators and allowed them to exist in the first place, thinking that oneself may be safer that way, was terribly wrong.

The truth is, nobody can make us safer, ever.
But also, nobody can make us unsafe.

We get what we deserve: if we did anything wrong then we can be absolutely sure to suffer the results: no Chinese wall can ever stand and separate between our wrong actions and their painful consequences.

But if we do no wrong, then nothing can harm us, neither men nor beasts, nor even the elements of nature.

Hence, do away with this folly called "government" - justice is already and always been served unfailingly, there is no need to foolishly try and duplicate the laws of nature, or arrogantly "improve" on God's work.

- And should nevertheless government remain, and keeps oppressing us in 1001 ways, then be sure and gracefully accept that this too is part of our punishment for our earlier wrong actions.

Let us just pray that our previous sins and their inevitable consequences be exhausted, and let us not support violent bodies like governments, deludedly thinking that they can help us protect ourselves by suppressing others, because doing so would only add to our cup of sins for which we must pay.

ttbn,

I've been trained to provide information
on a variety of topics.

I use a variety of sources to provide information.

I'm knowledgeable about how to search, evaluate, cite,
and use information ethically and effectively.

No matter what and how I post - you will never accept any
of it. And that's fine. You are not under any obligation
to continue reading what I post.

Yet you do.

As I said earlier - I don't require your validation.

Get used to the fact that I shall continue to recommend,
organize, and use information resources, to provide the
information, as I see fit.

And, I am used to the fact that you shall continue to
criticize me no matter how and what I post.
We've got a long history on this forum. And I have
accepted a very, very, long time ago - that you will
never have anything positive to say about me.

But that's your problem not mine.

Most of the time, I try not to read what you post - it's
too negative, toxic, and depressing.

And who needs that in their life?

Just once, I'd like to see some positivity come out of you.

Just once.

That would surprise me. I'd probably , be so shocked,
I'd give you a big hug.

Cheers.

Foxy,

There might have been an attempt to train you, but it failed.

I will have to go without the hug because there is nothing positive to say about you. I hope you are not as bad in real life as you present yourself online.

ttbn,

That's the difference between us.

I still prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt.

And, I prefer hugs to spit-balls.

But, that's just me.

Dear Foxy,

Ignoring your quarrel with Ttbn, I come back to your first post
and take most of it (apart from quoting Michelle Rowland) to be truly yours,
because whenever a post does not state "So-and-so said that:",
it should be presumed to be the personal opinion of the poster.

«In January the federal government proposed legislation
that sought to curb the online spread of false and
misleading information.»

You may have heard what they claimed,
but how can you tell what they sought?

«Despite its faults the bill is well intentioned.»

The bills to cleanse Germany of Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals were also well intentioned [for Germany's Aryan population].
The 9/11 attack on the twin-towers was also well intentioned [for Islam].
Putin's invasion of Ukraine was also well intentioned [for Putin's and Soviet glory].

Could you give me an example of a sane person performing an action that is not well intended?

«It's a bit too early to condemn things outright.»

The act is planned to be backed up by violence [against those who do not obey it],
thus intended to join thousands of other violent pieces of legislation by that same body of people.

It is never too early to condemn violence.

Yuyutsu,

The Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland explained that
"Misinformation and disinformation sows division within the
community, undermines trust and can threaten public health and
safety." And, in January 2024 the federal government in
proposing the legislation explained they sought to curb the
online spread of false and misleading information.

From all of this came the assumption that the bill was well
intentioned.

Since then, a range of experts and groups have accused the draft
bill of being vaguely worded and encouraging censorship.

However, as pointed out earlier the bill is yet to be debated
in parliament, which means there is still time for amendments
to be made. In particular of key terminology.

I do think that we should wait and see the results, when the
bill is debated in parliament.

If you are concerned about this bill - perhaps contacting your
federal MP might help to appease your concerns.

“Misinformation’ turns out to be true often enough to make the laws unworkable”. (Anon)

Just the revelations after the Covid scandal bears that statement out. “Misinformation” was found to have been true, very accurate information.

Human Rights Commissioner, Lorraine Finlay tells us that
"striking the right balance between combating misinformation
or disinformation and protecting freedom of expression is a
challenge with no easy answer."

She says that "there does need to be to strong transparency and
scrutiny safeguards to protect freedom of expression."

I'm not sure if these mechanisms are part of the draft bill's
current form.

The Human Rights Commissioner further points out "that
if we fail to ensure robust safeguards for freedom of expression
online, then the measures taken to combat misinformation and
disinformation could themselves risk undermining Australia's
democracy and freedoms."

That's why we need to see what the proposals will be after the
bill is debated in parliament. Hopefully amendments will
be made to rectify people's concerns.

Dear Foxy,

«The Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland explained that
"Misinformation and disinformation sows division within the
community, undermines trust and can threaten public health and
safety."»

No surprise there - we already know that politicians don't like the above.

«in January 2024 the federal government in
proposing the legislation explained they sought to curb the
online spread of false and misleading information.»

Well of course that's what they would say - do you think they will ever just openly admit "We are going to screw you up"?

«From all of this came the assumption that the bill was well
intentioned.»

"THE assumption"? Only YOUR assumption, but where could you come up with such a notion of "Well intentioned politicians"?*^@?%?

- Well intentioned toward whom?!?

«I do think that we should wait and see the results, when the
bill is debated in parliament.»

Wait till the enemy takes aim and makes their move?
Whatever they decide, we ordinary people are going to lose and be screwed up!

«If you are concerned about this bill - perhaps contacting your
federal MP might help to appease your concerns.»

Hehe, do you think he will ever be willing to see me AGAIN?
I can only wait for him to be replaced, even if that means giving my preference to one of the major parties that I wouldn't give my preference to otherwise. By the time he is replaced, I will likely arrive there on a wheelchair, should my brain and tongue still be working...

Yuyutsu,

I shall wait until we have far more information about
this bill.

Until then, I have nothing more to say.

Cheers.

Hi Foxy,

It reaks of "We will be the arbiters of what is true and what is not thank you.". Just like the Catholic Church, and where did that take them?

I also note that the poo and wee throwing protesters have no problem with the government limiting our right to express an opinion. I think they are annoyed about the Ukrainians and Israelis having weapons to defend against their genocidal attackers.

Maybe, if they had been able to curb the fanatical lies of Adolf Hitler WWII could have been avoided. Maybe if they can curb the fanatical lies of Donald Trump, WWIII can be avoided. The paths of Hitler and Trump are very similar, Hitler falsely riled against the Jews as a scapegoat to make Germany Great Again, Trump falsely riles against people of colour as a scapegoat to make America Great Again!

Of course the Useful Idiots are all behind the Dangerous Doctor Donald!

Fester,

Just above you, Foxy said that she had nothing more to say on the subject. Don't you believe her?

ttbn,

"I have nothing more to say on the matter." is always an invitation to further discussion.

Fascists moaning about dis/misinformation whilst being responsible for most of it ! Pretty darn idiotic !

Oh Dear, the bill will exempt the government from its rules,
surprise surprise !
You can guess what that will mean at election time.
Lies will be officially condoned. Albo will have a great time of it !

Just had a thought;
Now that the ABC has been found out altering a video of an action
in Afghanistan by adding 5 more gunshots to a video; after
the bill is passed would the ABC be protected because it is owned by the government ?
Such a situation would be an absolute gift to government.
I notice the ABC is refusing to discuss or admit their guilt.

The only possible conclusion we can take from this is that you can
NEVER believe ANYTHING on the ABC.
Perhaps not even footy results!

Dear Bezz,

«Such a situation would be an absolute gift to government.

That makes no difference,
governments already can and do whatever they like.
On earth, that is, here we do not count.

But soon as we pack up and go to heaven, they cannot reach us there!

So do we have Australian State-Sponsored Propaganda,
And the idea that anyone who publicly points out government lies,
is thus engaged in disinformation for going against the official government narrative.

What a lovely future.
I thought this was supposed to be the lucky country.
- Not feeling it.

Fester

Yes. That's certainly right. She often says it when she's being done like a dinner (that's very often); but it's just a matter of time before she's banging on about the topic again.

Baz,

Right on about the ABC. The reporters should have been sacked for what their employer called a “error”. They should also be personally responsible for the $400,000 compensation that taxpayers have to pick up because the ABC is a public service, not an independent, commercial self-funding business like the other networks who have to be a lot more careful about what they say and do than the scandalous ABC does.

I hope that one day we get a government with the courage to drag the ABC's snout out of the trough for ever. The ABC and the people who work in it are bad.

We have 2.6 million shouts in the trough collecting aged welfare, several on this forum, probably pissed it away in their working life, or as one admitted, he hadn't worked since 1972! ttbn what's your excuse?

Your well-known hatred for people not as rich as you say you are has nothing to with ABC "shouts" in the trough. Shouts? Not snouts? You certainly didn't get your massive superannuation for being literate.

What did you do a job that made you wealthy? Your son is a bus driver. Kids are usually better off than their parents, so your not needing a pension is probably as much bullsh.t as the rest of you.

The 300 women claiming misogyny and discrimination by the Greens is on the agenda again today, by the way. Even Albanese thinks the people you mix with are rubbish.

As George Orwell wrote, “to make sure that all written records agree with the orthodoxy of the moment is merely a mechanical act”. That's what Albanese wants to do with his rotten Bill. The bureaucrats are going to restrict/stop freedom of speech by the ‘mechanical act’ of legislation.

The thing is 70 pages long, and complex. Will anyone have the time, energy, and money to fight this monster if it passes? ACMA has as much of our money it needs to apply the screws of tyranny.

Faceless bureaucrats making arbitrary judgements.

Albanese is making a brazen attempt to destroy democracy in Australia.

Hmmm, we may need to setup an encrypted web site.
The problem is to let us all know where it is.
I am pretty sure such software is already available.
There are ways to do it so that by the time it is broken we will all be dead anyway.

If the Bill is passed, bang goes the ability to verbalise our feelings and opinions. We have seen what happens in countries that don't have freedom of speech to release frustrations: death instead of discussion

TTBT So when do you offer any alternatives of your own, it's just criticising other persons scripture. That is not opinion. it's a nothing comment. Put up your alternate proposals so everybody can see how you fare. It's to easy to disagree about anything without further information of why you disagree without the wisdom of a crystal ball.

Dog,

OK if I call you Dog because you called me TTBT, genius?

I started the bloody thread, gave my opinions, and responded to posters. What more do you want?

How about you start a thread, smartarse? Give it a go; and try to smarten up your grammar and style. Using correct monikers would also be good.

http://blackagendareport.com/uhuru-3-free-speech-trial-century-week-one-reveals-government-has-nothing

>>Their other “expert” witness was a counterintelligence and cybersecurity consultant and professor. The government referenced the witness’ writings in their response to the Uhuru 3’s Motion to Dismiss , arguing that “the term ‘disinformation’ does not refer to information that is necessarily false.” Rather, the government said, it refers to information that makes the government look bad.<<

I wonder how it would work. Will some topics be banned? Will some comments be removed and others left?

I despair the Albo cult. One abominable decision after another. A bashing of the common man and the machinery of western prosperity form go to woe.

For example, would we be able to discuss Chairman Dan's history of road use? As a regular cyclist I'd like the assurance that the roads are policed and the law applied equally to all.

Have they sacked that video editor at the ABC yet ?

No, the ABC video editor is currently making a rap piece with gunshot sound effects for Raygun.

'One abominable decision after another.'

Do you think it's a coincidence that all western leaders are making the same abominable decisions one after another, or do you think that maybe, occums razor might adequetely explain that these 'leaders' were not actually on our team to begin with?

It seems no one here understands what’s being proposed. There are many questions being asked that are answered with a simple internet search.

So far as I can tell, all this amendment does is require large social media platforms to tackle deliberate misinformation and disinformation, and document the steps they’ve taken to do this for auditing purposes. This was spurned by the misinformation campaigns during the covid lockdowns, which almost certainly would have cost lives.

The amendment wouldn’t affect individuals, so you will all still be free to post comments denying or downplaying covid, vaccines, evidence-based Western medicine, and climate change.

John,

That's great that the legislation won't change anyone's ability to express an opinion, but if that is true then why do anything. It sounds like the argument for the Voice: "No, nothing will change at all. Really.".

I have a question. Being old and not a user of social media - Facebook, X and others I've never heard of, I don't understand this "bullying" always talked about, and needing some stern action from the Albanese regime and that American woman who couldn't make it in her own country.

What form does the "bullying" take? Is it really bullying, or is it just some poor things facing reality for the first time in their lives? Mummy's and Daddy's little darlings finding out that they are not the apple of everyone's eye. Ooh, other people don't all agree with me like my Mummy, my best friend, does. Dummy spits all round. Where's the closest therapist?

How can anyone be bullied by an entity that exists only on a computer screen using a silly, made up name?

Fester,

There’s more to misinformation and disinformation than, say, the occasional bogan on Facebook reposting some misleading viral post about electric cars.

The spreading of misinformation and disinformation can extend to large, organised campaigns by groups who make a career out of it. This is what seems to be the main and ultimate target of the legislation.

And given the real-world harm that can result from such campaigns, it makes sense to ensure that social media platforms are required to at least document their efforts to tackle them.

--

ttbn,

Good question. Bullying on social media isn't just about someone disagreeing with you or bursting some bubble of self-esteem. It's often large-scale, organised, and relentless.

People can face harassment, threats, doxxing (having their private information shared), and defamation from strangers or groups. It's not just a matter of seeing something you don't like; it's about being targeted in a way that can lead to harm (e.g. job loss, depression and even suicide.)

Social media extends the reach of bullies and allows them to organise harassment campaigns. It's not about "facing reality," it's about preventing coordinated abuse that can have devastating effects on people.

John,

If that's the case then why doesn't ASIO just issue public warnings when organized campaigns of malice on social media are detected? Leaving the peanut gallery alone is good, but such assurances are no guarantee.

Hi AC,

I find it easier to believe Albo to be making his own decisions. Conspiracy theories require too much complexity for the scale you suspect.

JD

Of course there are bad-mouthed people trying to put other people down. But, how about the old stick-and-stones adage; or giving back as good as you get; or just ignoring it; or, better still, shunning social media.

But, please tell this ignorant old bloke who isn't involved in modern hair-shirt and poor-me stuff, how do these “bullies” get the “private information” of people without help from the “victims “ themselves. I know only what I see being lamented by worry warts and therapists advertising themselves on TV news; and some of the “victims” behave stupidly online, do they not?

I appreciate your response, but you have just made the same comments the usual moaners and groaners make; the sorts of people that Big Brother rushes in to “help” without knowing anything about what is really going on. ‘We'll save you’, sounding like that fat bloke who used to sell mortgages.

On the very sad issue of suicide, I understand from a person working in that area, that most suicides occur in the 65 plus, white male cohort. There are many tangible reasons there, surely more believable than a few nasty words online.

May I suggest that the online angst originates in parents treating their offspring like little princes and princesses instead of imbuing them with the facts of life and the idea of things not always going their way.

If there is a clear need for this legislation then the government should demonstrate it with examples.
What are the top 5 examples of misinformation and disinformation in Australia in the last 12 months?

'We need to be protected from misinformation and disinformation'
- This coming from the same people who literally shake in fear, wet themselves and enter an actual state of shock when asked 'What is a woman?'

Well what the hell are we going to do about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus?
Are we going to censor Christmas for disinformation too?
Send fines out to parents who lie to their kids?

Australia’s social media ban for minors: Has this worked elsewhere?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/19/australias-social-media-ban-for-minors-has-this-worked-elsewhere

>>In May, Australia passed the Digital ID Bill 2024, aimed at establishing a national digital identity verification system – a voluntary system for individuals to verify their identities online. The launch of the programme is scheduled for December 1, 2024.

“So some people, very cynically, are saying the ban around social media is just to push the government’s decision to implement a digital ID system,” said Lisa Givens, professor of information sciences and director of Social Change Enabling Impact Platform at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, spoke to Al Jazeera.

“Because if a ban comes in place and we say no one under the age of 16 can have access to a social media platform, that really means that every single user is going to have to prove that they are over 16.” In the process, they would have to join the digital ID system of the Australian government.<<

Fester,

ASIO’s focus is on national security threats. They might act if a disinformation campaign rises to the level of foreign interference or a serious security threat, but their mandate doesn’t cover the kinds of everyday misinformation that can spread rapidly online, like false claims about vaccines or climate change.

Relying on ASIO alone would mean only high-level threats were addressed. The day-to-day spread of misinformation would still occur and these can still cause significant harm, especially when it influences public health or undermines democratic processes. Far-right hate groups, as extreme example, feed off the holocaust denial that circulates social media.

Social media platforms, on the other hand, can monitor and manage content in real time, and act much faster to prevent disinformation from going viral before it can cause widespread damage. That’s why the legislation targets platforms, ensuring they take responsibility for the content shared on their sites and document their efforts for transparency and accountability.

The other problem with saddling ASIO with such a burden is that their efforts would often only be reactive. The aim of this bill is to be more proactive, ensuring that harmful disinformation is tackled at the source by the platforms that host it, reducing the need for government or security agencies to step in after the damage is done.

By requiring platforms to act, the legislation strengthens the overall defence against disinformation without having to wait for intelligence agencies to issue warnings, which may come too late to stop harm.

Managing high level threats seems a good reason to employ ASIO to warn people and requires no special legislation. As for the lesser misinformation that concerns you, how might it be determined as such? For people like anti-vaxers, they have always been part of the mix, so why persecute them for holding opinions that are very unlikely to change? Gosh, some even believe that powering Australia with wind and solar is not only possible, but can be achieved economically and without trashing the environment. Should those people be persecuted too?

What happened to the idea of using argument to counter misinformation? Isn't the Voice a good example of sound argument prevailing over misinformation?

Bringing in ASIO on censorship of opinions is well beyond overkill.

ttbn,

What if there were a national (or international) campaign of disinformation by Russia or China? Wouldn't you think it appropriate for ASIO to alert Australians to such conduct?

Fester,

ASIO manages high-level threats. Disinformation often operates below the national security threshold but still causes harm. We saw this during the covid pandemic when vaccine misinformation led to lower vaccination rates and preventable deaths. In such cases, waiting for ASIO to step in wouldn’t be effective because the damage is already being done by the time an official warning is issued.

The legislation isn’t about persecuting individuals for holding contrarian opinions. It would target large, organised campaigns deliberately spreading harmful falsehoods. The anti-vaxxer movement is a good example of this. Widespread campaigns of disinformation during the pandemic endangered public health. People will still be free to question vaccines, but there will ideally be less misinformation for them to sift through in their quest to do this.

The bill would ensure that social media platforms are held accountable for allowing such content to spread unchecked. They'd only need to implement checks and balances to avoid any penalties.

Using arguments to counter misinformation, in theory, that’s ideal. But in practice, disinformation spreads much faster than facts, especially on platforms where algorithms prioritise sensationalism over truth. It’s not about silencing debate - it’s about stopping deliberate disinformation campaigns from overpowering the truth. Sound argument should always prevail, but without platform accountability, disinformation can drown out facts.

As for climate change, all the evidence supports the reality of human-caused climate change, and advocates for renewable energy rely on data and evidence to support their positions, so they're not analogous to anti-vaxxers or climate deniers.

If implemented correctly and ideally, the legislation would provide a safeguard against harmful disinformation without infringing on personal opinions or stifling genuine debate. Platforms are asked to step up their transparency and accountability, which helps ensure that the space for public discourse remains protected from dangerous falsehoods.

The Bill is designed to censor ordinary Australians from saying things that the government doesn't like. Simple. How ASIO, which has much more important things to do than concern itself with than harmless, mundane waffle, was brought into the discussion is beyond my ken.

Anyone wanting ASIO to “alert” him to misinformation or disinformation about Russia or China is thinking well above his pay grade. ASIO deals directly with the government, not with the great unwashed. The day our senior security service bothers itself with gender, pronouns, political opinion, climate change, vaccines etc, the country will be well and truly effed.

John and ttbn,

So the issue is important enough to warrant its own legislation, yet far too trivial a matter for ASIO? And God forbid anyone in the peanut gallery should ever be stopped from getting on a soap box, yet the legislation will target the social media organisations that allow us plebs to get on our online soap boxes and proclaim that the Earth is as flat as a tack? Am I the only one thinking the advocates of this legislation are being as duplicitous as they were with the Voice?

John,

Covid was very much a national security issue as there was a risk of public hospitals failing.

"advocates for renewable energy rely on data and evidence to support their positions, so they're not analogous to anti-vaxxers or climate deniers."

That's a matter of opinion. I think a belief in powering Australia with wind and solar analogous to a belief in perpetual motion.

ttbn,

You have no evidence for that claim. You're just speculating. I’ve given sufficient reason to believe that’s not the case.

Further to what I’ve said previously, independent bodies would be doing the auditing. It would be incredibly short-sighted for a sitting government to assign themselves the role of auditor and dictators of what constitutes misinformation, given that a change of government could see pseudoscientific beliefs codified as fact.

Your fears and claims are the stuff of dystopian novels. I’m sorry to break it to you, but the real world just isn’t that exciting.

--

Fester,

It’s not a question of the issue being too trivial for ASIO or too significant for platforms.

Disinformation operates on a spectrum - sometimes it rises to the level of national security, but more often, it undermines public trust, safety, and health on a day-to-day basis. That’s why both ASIO and social media platforms have complementary roles. ASIO tackles serious security threats like foreign interference or terrorism, while platforms are better equipped to manage the constant flow of online content, some of which has the potential to cause real-world harm without triggering a national security crisis.

Yes, people have the right to share their opinions - even wacky creationists and flat-Earthers. But, once again, this legislation wouldn't target the opinions of individuals; only organised disinformation campaigns intended to manipulate public opinion on important issues, and sometimes even with malicious intent. It’s not about silencing individual voices but holding platforms accountable for the spread of disinformation on a large scale.

Similar standards already exist for broadcasting standards on television. Platforms need to ensure they’re not amplifying falsehoods that could harm society.

Fester,

Yes. It has absolutely nothing to do with ASIO. The Albanese shut-your-mouth Bill is aimed at Australian citizens: or should I say ‘some’ Australian citizens; certainly not Russia and China, who are always putting out misinformation, and always will.

And “the issue” does not “warrant” any legislation. There should be no legislation against free speech in Australia or any other democratic country - if we want it to continue being democratic, which Albanese quite clearly does not want Australia to do. Albanese is making a blatant attack on democracy.

And, anyone thinking that Australian politicians are not as malignant as I suggest they are should cast their mind back to the Covid period, when the threat of cancellation had a chilling effect on free speech, with the loss of many of our basic rights that are STILL YET TO BE RETURNED.

The bottom line - government wants more tools which it could use to quash any rebellions.

This lame excuse of "protecting my safety" - well what have they to do with my safety? who ever asked them to care for my safety? who ever even asked them to exist? It is THEIR safety, the safety of their absolute power which they want to maintain.

ttbn,

Can you be more specific? What are these basic rights that are still yet to be returned?

--

Yuyutsu,

“Protecting our safety” (that's a strange way to word it) is half a government’s job. But this bill is more about holding large organisations to account for the (often harmful) misinformation their platforms can help to spread.

There are plenty of other countries you could move to where the ruling regimes don’t care at all about your safety. I hear Somalia is currently a libertarian’s dream.

I’m sorry to break it to you, too, but the real world really isn’t as exciting as you think it is.

You and ttbn remind me of myself as a teenager - idealistic and always looking for an evil to oppose. But then I got out into the real world and realised that it was far more chaotic than I had ever imagined: the people in it were too incompetent to pull off a grand conspiracy, and far too selfish to devote their lives to something much bigger than themselves like an evil plot.

Largely unnoticed, International Democracy Day popped up while Albanese’s anti- democratic Bill was being resurrected and discussed. The usual suspects pretended to believe in democracy, just like Albanese.

The EU, one of the nastiest bunch of bullies in the world after the UN, postured that they “... must double down on our efforts to defend democracy through participation and leadership”.

Hypocritical, the European Parliament is busting a gut to regulate free speech on social media with their Digital Services Act; and trying to goad Elon Musk into taking legal action against their anti-democratic bastardry.

The UN itself - that wonderful organisation that put Saudi Arabia in charge of women's rights - riddled with despots, preached how “Democracy enables people to have a say in their futures”, and chuntered on about “individual” freedoms.

That’s the mob that wants to run the whole world on its terms with no questions asked, and no resistance.

The UN, also on International Democracy Day, imperiously declared that “Artificial Intelligence is a tool for good governance”.

And, how about the UN's declaration that criticism of pharmaceutical companies during Covid was “a harm”. Free speech about people's opinions on their own health "results in real world harms" according to this mob.

Sounds a lot like Albanese, whose Bill, if successful, will ban political communication and dissent.

More and more, democracy is becoming just a word in the mouths of despots.

ttbn,

You've gone off the rails now and are jumping at shadows. Either that or you're just digging your heels in.

The bill doesn't ban anything and will only strengthen democratic processes by making it more difficult for China an Russia to interfere and by promoting transparency.

Rest assured, you will still be able to access all the fake news sites you seem to get your information from.

John,

It sounds like the Voice all over. Social media platforms will be targeted. Think about that. What it means is that we will all be entitled to our crazy opinions, but we won't be able to share them on social media due to the site owners fearing legal repercussions for letting people express an opinion.

You relate a nebulous view of harms that the legislation will curtail, nebulous because you cannot clearly define the origin of those harms. Like ttbn, I suspect that the legislation is just more common man bashing, the activity which has been an ongoing theme of cult leader Albo's term as PM.

Fester,

I understand the fear that platforms like Facebook might over-block content out of fear of legal consequences, especially in light of controversial debates like the Voice referendum. The legislation, however, would be specifically designed to tackle organised, harmful disinformation campaigns, not to censor everyday opinions or controversial debates.

During the Voice campaign, for example, we saw plenty of misinformation about apartheid claims or distorted financial figures. In this case Facebook would simply need to show that they had mechanisms in place to limit this spread of such misinformation. The focus would be on factually wrong campaigns that have the potential to harm public trust or safety. Simply altering their algorithms so that they didn’t favour sensationalism (as opposed to what they're currently doing) would possibly be enough.

There will always be contentious debates, like the one around the Voice, but this legislation is focused on accountability for deliberate harm, not limiting speech that contributes to the democratic process. But it’s still in its drafting stages. So, even as it stands, it’ll probably be watered down.

Personally, I like what Facebook was doing for a while there: everytime someone in my friends list shared an anti-vax post, or a post on climate change denial, or rubbish about how the Muslims will take over if we don’t all say we’re Christians in a census, a little warning appeared linking to fact-checking sites debunking the claims. This should be plenty to cover their arses.

Dear John,

«“Protecting our safety” (that's a strange way to word it) is half a government’s job.»

Government has no real job, it is a predator... unless you consider oppression, making us suffer and live in fear, to be a proper job.

«But this bill is more about holding large organisations to account»

I was not looking at this particular bill in separation, but as an addition to thousands of other laws and regulations that make our lives miserable.

I was shopping for clothing today and they asked me whether I want a bag, I said 'yes please' but the store could only offer me different bags that are useless for me, not the usual thick and strong big plastic bags that I need for holding my music. They said that government no longer allows them to provide my bags. That is bad, I still have a little stock, but I will now have to ask my family in Israel to send me more of these extremely useful bags, or go to the black-market/dark-web to obtain them.

Just a tiny example how they disrupt my life while I don't want anything from them, certainly not protection.

«I hear Somalia is currently a libertarian’s dream.»

You better check your ears - Somalia enforces Sharia law.

«but the real world really isn’t as exciting as you think it is.»

It seems that besides your ears, your 6th sense is also wanting, attempting unsuccessfully to read my thoughts.

«You and ttbn remind me of myself as a teenager»

Each person to their own free associations. I don't know Ttbn.

«idealistic and always looking for an evil to oppose.»

Far from "always", only when I am called to it.
And one instance when I am called to oppose evil, is when evil is pretending to operate in my name, as if they do their thing "on my behalf", then it becomes my DUTY to say it loud and clear: "Do what you want, I cannot stop you, but NOT IN MY NAME - I have not asked or authorised you to do that".

[continued...]

[...continued]

«But then I got out into the real world and realised that it was far more chaotic than I had ever imagined»

This is where you miss it all - we live in a cosmos, not in chaos.

Everything is already taken care of, perfectly without fail.
Everything that happens to us is for a purpose and it is only because you cannot see the divine logic and the "wheels" turning behind the scene that you might mistakenly believe the world to be chaotic.

It is when people leave and fail to trust in God, that they instead attempt to "improve" their lot wilfully, but no matter how hard they try, nobody can ever protect themselves from receiving the just results of their former actions. Attempting to create mechanisms to duplicate the perfect infallible justice that is already there, is sheer lunacy.

Yuyutsu,

It appears my information on Somalia was out of date. I see that it now has a hybrid legal system with customary law, civil law, and Sharia - depending on the region and local governance - but still no centralised government.

I was thinking of around the early 2000s after its central government collapsed and it was seen as a real-world example of what a stateless society might look like. You would have liked it.

//Each person to their own free associations. I don't know Ttbn.//

You don’t need to know him for the both of you to remind me of an aspect of my teenage self.

//It seems that besides your ears, your 6th sense is also wanting, attempting unsuccessfully to read my thoughts.//

Sorry, I’ll re-word it: …but the real world really isn’t as exciting as you might think.

Thanks for the bag story. I got a lump in my throat reading it. However it seems you may not be familiar with the concept of the social contract - the implied agreement we all enter into when we benefit from the systems and structures put in place by society.

//"Do what you want, I cannot stop you, but NOT IN MY NAME - I have not asked or authorised you to do that".//

Dramatic.

However, it’s not being done “in your name,” so your authorisation is not required.

As for your cosmos vs chao and god talk, you’ll need to provide evidence of that. Hitchen's razor.

John,

When cult leader Albo pushed the Voice, a referendum that would see Australians treated differently on the basis of their ancestry, it showed me that he did not care for the principle of equality, by which all citizens are treated equally. His response to the 60/40 defeat showed me that he had little regard for democracy either. Albo's latest effort shows that he also has no regard for free speech.

I will savour the opportunity to exercise my democratic right in the coming year. Australia has never had such an abomination of a government. Not even Whitlam came close.

"During the Voice campaign, for example, we saw plenty of misinformation about apartheid claims or distorted financial figures."

Would Australians have been treated differently on the basis of their ancestry had the Voice referendum been affirmed? Treating people differently on this basis was the reason the Voice was likened to apartheid.

What I also saw was Albo stand up in parliament and insist that the Uluru statement was a single page. I then saw "Yes" campaigners fall into line with this view in spite of many of them being on the public record saying otherwise. Further, there were "fact checking" reports from supportive bodies saying that the Uluru statement was indeed one page and that people saying otherwise were spreading misinformation. It was at this point that I decided that Albo had more in common with a cult leader than a Prime minister.

My view is that cult leader Albo wants the misinformation legislation as a tool to stop people from calling out his lies on social media platforms.

Fester,

I’m glad you’ve raised these points because they’re good examples of misinformation and disinformation, and the effect they’re intended to have on people who fall for them. Your obvious rage over the Voice will provide us with a good case study.

Apartheid was a legally enforced system of racial segregation and oppression where people were treated as second-class citizens based on their race, whereas the Voice was about providing advisory input to Parliament on matters that specifically impact Indigenous Australians. There is no comparison.

The Voice wouldn’t have had any power to create laws, enforce them, or give Indigenous Australians rights that others wouldn’t have. So, to claim the Voice would have brought apartheid to Australia is a huge stretch and an obvious scare tactic. It's misinformation designed to provoke fear by drawing a false equivalence between two very different concepts.

Albanese was right about the Uluru Statement from the Heart only being one page. There were supporting materials attached to the core one-page statement, but they only provided context. The No campaign seized on this to make it look like Albanese was lying. There was no cult-like effort to suppress the truth. The fact checkers were right.

So, your concern that Albanese wants the misinformation bill to stop people from "calling out his lies," is a good example of how disinformation can distort intentions and interfere with democratic processes.

Covid was a pretty good example of how this legislation might fare in a crisis.
The question is whether or not it was misinformation and disinformation given deliberately by the government, or powered by the regular Joe Blow who smelled bs, and said none of this really adds up or feels right and looked for more answers.

You had censorship of people who were sharing on social media Pfizers own documents regarding side effects and the government treated them like they were engaged in disinformation and misinformation.
And we know the government had too much overreach when it suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story to meddle with the outcome of it's own elections.

It didn't care about the safety of the vaccines, it cared about vaccination rates.

Was vaccine safety not a legitimate concern whilst people were being bullied, coerced and in some cases blackmailed with their ongoing employment and livelihoods?

“Would Australians have been treated differently on the basis of their ancestry had the Voice referendum been affirmed?”

They are treated differently now, always have been, without the Voice. Marxism needs to have people in groups. Respect for individuals, family etc doesn't work for the Albanese anti-democratic regime. It's all about control.

The Voice was apartheid, Fester: of course it was. A watered down version is operating in South Australia.

Speaking of South Australia, the Labor government here is pushing to ban ‘alternative therapies’: that is people, including parents, counselling young people suffering from sexual dysphoria - even if the sufferers have actually asked for help. This is appallingly anti-democratic, especially from a goverment that is working pretty well - apart from their other big mistake - a mini Voice. Hell’s bells, even I voted Labor at the last two elections. Not next time, though.

As usual, JD is singing from the Labor song book, or he has consulted artificial intelligence.

I read of someone claiming that AI advised him that glue was a good topping for pizza.

AC

We should have known what we were in for when Albanese came up with his Voice. 60% of us did, of course, and Albanese has never forgiven us. Sadly, people seem to have forgotten the Covid tyranny, the defamation, police brutality and rubber bullets: and the Voice, with more defamation and shrieks of “racist”.

This time, we get no say. We are reliant on a Clayton's Opposition, and perhaps a few Senators. I am not hopeful. Last night I heard the shadow spokesman, Coleman, described as a wet blanket wrapped in a lettuce leaf. The Coalition wanted to censor us when they were in government; they now support that American hatchetwoman, removing responsibility from parents in what their kids can see and hear, and they seem too scared to oppose anything.

I believe that we are heading for a “democracy” with ‘with Chinese characteristics’, as Xi Jinping has been heard to say about his methods.

ttbn,

How was the Voice like apartheid? You didn't elaborate on this?

http://j.gifs.com/vb20nr.gif

By the way, even if I were using AI, that wouldn't mean you couldn't discredit what I said if I were truly wrong. After all its not hard to discredit glue as a pizza topping. There are holes in your logic.

I think you're just making up excuses and digging your heels in.

Hi AC,

I always appreciate your thoughts on things (and John's too as it happens).

John,

I was gobsmacked seeing all those intelligent and capable people announce one after another that the Uluru statement was a single page, for no reason other than to be in agreement with cult leader Albo. It was Orwellian.

That no one can or should be an arbiter of truth is a great achievement of science and civilisation respectively. Our jurists are arbiters of law, not of truth, yet you would see our politicians, people popularly parodied as pathological liars, not only given counsel to say what is right and what is not, but also the legal means to stop electors voicing a differing opinion on a public forum. That is bonkers.

Fester,

The statement itself was indeed only one page. The supporting documents attached to it provide context but that didn't change the fact that the statement itself was a single, concise call for constitutional recognition.

There was nothing that the government was trying to sneak in through the backdoor.

The additional documentation wasn't there to obfuscate. Its purpose was to provide the public with the necessary context and historical background to grasp the significance of the proposed changes. These types of documents are standard for any large reforms Their purpose is to clarify, not confuse.

Your apparent misunderstanding of the bill falsely equates it with giving politicians the power to determine what is true, but, wtih how it's currently written, can only target factually incorrect information - like false claims about elections being rigged, dangerous health advice, or conspiracy theories - designed to deliberately mislead the public.

You’re probably now asking “But who decides what is factually correct?”

Anyone with the time and solid media and information literacy can do it, but the hard work is done on multiple levels by multiple people from multiple independent bodies. Facts, by their nature, can be proven or disproven, and it’s that verification process that distinguishes truth from misinformation.

Some people are just as angry with the Opposition on the Albanese government censorship Bill as they are with the government itself. They don't trust Dutton: “he waits then delivers a response” is one complaint. His “support of Covid vaccines, Digital ID, eSafety Commissioner, and his 16-year-old threshold for SM accounts”, is another.

This gutlessness and people-in-the- wrong-party goes back to John Howard's “broad church” nonsense. The party currently has 9 wets in the Lower House and 6 in the Senate. Recently we've had Liberal Senators disappearing when a votes came up because they apparently agreed with the government on certain matters, but didn’t have the guts to vote that way. The 15 Liberals identified as wets would have been more comfortable within Labor, even the Greens in a couple cases. As I've said previously, David Coleman has been described as a wet blanket wrapped in a lettuce leaf. He didn't even didn't have the nuts to agree with Elon Musk's ‘fascist’ reference to the Albanese government. He used weasel words that were really pathetic, like “there are a lot of problems with this Bill”; and, “the government is contemptuous of free speech”. Wow! Makes me think of the Zulu impi rattling their assegais against their shields at Rourke's Drift.

Law professor James Allan believes that this latest Bill is even worse for free speech than the “truly awful earlier version”. In the guise of ‘keeping us safe”, it will have a “truly chilling effect on free speech”. He has never seen anything like it in an advanced Anglosphere country!

The Bill basically forces social media platforms to act as government censors or close down in Australia. Think Communist China and Brazil where they ban social media they don't like.

The definition of ‘serious harm’ is now so wide it envelopes ‘harms’ to the Commonwealth, plausibly covers opinions the boffins just don’t agree with, and certainly includes opinions about public health and the economy.

The Bill would cover “all of the disagreements about government policy that swirled around during the pandemic …. all the claims about the government's thuggish rules …. all the sceptical claims (about vaccines) that were later proved correct”. Governments were the biggest source of misinformation and disinformation.

The Bill will be a tool for the government to use against opinions different from their own.

And, Allan reminds us, the legacy media, academics and the government will be exempt.

As for the Liberals, they have caved in on free speech ever since Abbott chickened out on sec. 18c.

The Liberals need to oppose the Bill, and they need to pledge to repeal it if it gets through and they ever form a government again.

ttbn,

You've taking James Allan's concerns way further than what I think he would have intended with your absurd doomsday scenario, which would be virtually impossible under our legal and constitutional framework.

Allan raises concerns about potential overreach, but his focus is more on the risk of government powers expanding later on down the track. The bill itself doesn’t give the government the level of power you're worried about.

Your comparison to China and Brazil seems exaggerated. Australia’s democratic framework is built with checks and balances to prevent the kind of extreme censorship you're describing.

As I've mentioned here once before, the bill includes provisions for transparency and accountability, allowing any misuse of the law to be challenged. While it's healthy to be cautious about potential overreach, Allan's concerns are about risks, not certainties.

Has it ever occurred to you that the Liberals don't oppose reasonable proposals because they understand the law better than you do, and because they know there are no nefarious cabals lurking behind the curtains?

Dear John,

«but the real world really isn’t as exciting as you might think.»

I am indeed capable of thinking almost anything, and different thoughts at different times.

«Thanks for the bag story. I got a lump in my throat reading it.»

Please don't choke - I just found such bags online and ordered 100 of them (that was the smallest quantity available). If strong as the ones I always used, then they should suffice to carry my music for the rest of my life. It's just a pity that they will all be of the same colour (purple) since having different colours helps me distinguish the music, but this I can live with.

They should arrive next week, they tell me.
I suppose you will now go and inform the police on my crime...

«However it seems you may not be familiar with the concept of the social contract...»

I'm quite familiar with that forgery attempt.

Any true contract is signed with the full consent of all parties, without coercion or duress.

«However, it’s not being done “in your name,” so your authorisation is not required.»

Whom then is this bill (and all others) presumed to benefit? The kangaroos perhaps?

«As for your cosmos vs chao and god talk, you’ll need to provide evidence of that. Hitchen's razor.»

That will not be necessary for now because I was not attempting to prove anything.
For the purpose of this discussion, it suffices that (but please correct me if I am wrong) you confirm your belief that the world we live in is chaotic.

Having faith that we live in a cosmos leads to certain lifestyle choices and preferences.
Believing that we live in a chaotic world leads to quite different choices and preferences.

How can a "social contract" possibly be implied or even conceived of between those who believe in cosmos and those who believe in chaos?
(that before even speaking of so many other significant divisions that lead people to different choices/preferences).

What we see instead, around the globe, is one belief/faith coercing the others into some fake "social-contract".

Yuyutsu,

We’re all “capable of thinking almost anything, and different thoughts at different times.” So, telling me that you are like everyone else in that regard is rather pointless. It also misses my point entirely.

//I suppose you will now go and inform the police on my crime...//

What you’ve described is not a crime.

//I'm quite familiar with that forgery attempt//

I take it, then that it is the “implied” part that you do not understand. The concept of the social contract is not an attempt at forgery. It is a rationally justifiable implied agreement.

//Any true contract is signed with the full consent of all parties, without coercion or duress.//

This is a false dichotomy.

//Whom then is this bill (and all others) presumed to benefit?//

Whoa, let’s back up here a second. Before, you were talking about a law being drafted, debated, and passed in your name before, now you just want to know who it will benefit?

These are two different concepts, but the answer to your question is ‘everyone.’

//That will not be necessary for now because I was not attempting to prove anything.//

Well, it’s become necessary now because it is foundational to your rejection of the concept of the social contract.

//How can a "social contract" possibly be implied or even conceived of between those who believe in cosmos and those who believe in chaos?//

Easily - by those believing in a cosmos demonstrating, through their actions, that they are happy to benefit from the systems and structures put in place by society when it suits them.

There is nothing “fake” about it. It can be rationally justified quite easily.

John,

"The statement itself was indeed only one page."

Here are some quotes from two of the Uluru Statement authors that contradict your claim:

"Here’s Professor Megan Davis, one of the Uluru Statement’s authors, denying the PM’s claim that it’s just one page:

In her 2018 Parkes Oration: "The Uluru Statement from the Heart isn’t just the first one-page statement; it’s actually a very lengthy document of about 18 to 20 pages, and a very powerful part of this document reflects what happened in the dialogues."
In a 2022 article in The Australian: "The Uluru Statement… is occasionally mistaken as merely a one-page document… in totality (it) is closer to 18 pages and includes… a lengthy narrative called 'Our Story'".
In a webinar for the Australian Institute in August 2022: "It's actually like 18 pages, the Uluru Statement. People only read the first"
At the recent Sydney Peace Prize award ceremony: "It's very important for Australians to read the statement, and the statement is also much bigger it's actually 18 Pages"

Likewise, Barry noted that Uluru dialogue Co-Chair Pat Anderson had gone on ABC 7.30 to respond to Credlin’s claim. But again he failed to mention that Ms Anderson had likewise claimed at Melbourne University last year “the Uluru Statement is in fact 18 pages long”. "

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/abc-media-watch-disputes-rmit-fact-check-finding-on-uluru-statement-from-the-heart-says-facebook-should-have-branded-it-disputed-not-false-information/news-story/30b53950848bc89c12fcb06ae7e9b1d1

Would cult leader Albo have suppressed such reporting if he'd been able to? Argument about the Uluru Statement's length is a good argument against making anyone an arbiter of truth.

Fester,

The first quote you provided is actually just Michaelia Cash paraphrasing Megan Davis, who later clarified the matter confirming that the Uluru Statement is indeed one page - after the No campaign seized on this in a deliberate attempt to sow confusion - and that the additional pages are background documents that provide context about the consultations and dialogues that led to the formulation of the statement:

http://nit.com.au/09-08-2023/7150/megan-davis-slams-misinformation-on-breadth-of-uluru-statement-from-the-heart

The Uluru statement was still only one page. It can be found right here, if you want to see for yourself:

http://ulurustatemdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/UluruStatementfromtheHeartPLAINTEXT.pdf

The additional documentation merely provided clarity and context, which is standard practice for significant reforms. Had the additional documents altered the core message of the Uluru Statement or introduced new obligations, then yes, Albanese would have lied.

So, the second two quotes you provided are false.

//Argument about the Uluru Statement's length is a good argument against making anyone an arbiter of truth.//

As I explained previously, the bill wouldn’t make anyone the arbiter of truth.

The No campaigners read the additional documents and they’re all still accessible. All they were doing was spreading fear and distrust.

http://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/uluru-statement-from-the-heart-is-one-page

"You’re probably now asking “But who decides what is factually correct?”

Anyone with the time and solid media and information literacy can do it"

Really John? You make it sound like a simple fact checking exercise when the reality will be that "what is factually correct" is whatever cult leader Albo says is the case. He gave a Trump like denial of the referendum, claiming the outcome a result of misinformation, something he intends to address with the misinformation bill. Given that cult leader stood on the floor of parliament and equated those questioning the length of the Uluru Statement with Q-anoners and moon landing conspiracists, I would expect the misinformation bill to be a tool of political censorship.

Fester,

No, I definitely didn’t make it sound like fact checking was always simple (although, sometimes it is). You even quoted me mentioning that it could take time, and solid media and information literacy - skills that don’t come easily to everyone.

Albanese did express concerns about the role of disinformation in the Voice campaign, but that doesn't mean he or any politician will be in control of deciding what constitutes truth.

The process outlined in the bill involves fact-checking by independent bodies. It's about verifiable facts, not just opinions or political disagreements.

His statement about the length of the Uluru Statement, that comparison was intended to highlight how some misinformation takes innocuous details (like the supporting documentation) and twists them to sow confusion.

Equating questions about the Uluru Statement’s length to conspiracy theories was hyperbolic, yes, but his point was that these arguments were being used to deliberately mislead the public, much like how QAnon or moon landing conspiracy theories spread.

Dear John,

«So, telling me that you are like everyone else in that regard is rather pointless. It also misses my point entirely.»

Then please state your point.

«What you’ve described is not a crime.»

Ah, that could make you a good defence lawyer,
but does it not imply that should my act been against the letter of the law rather than, as it stands, just against its spirit, then you would inform the police about it?

«It is a rationally justifiable implied agreement.»

Anything can be justified, somehow, but justifications not a truth make.

«now you just want to know who it will benefit?»

No, I asked whom this bill is PRESUMED to benefit.

«but the answer to your question is ‘everyone.’»

Correct, and that includes myself, so either thus believe some idiots in parliament; or they are not such idiots after all to believe it themselves, but want the rest of us to believe so.

And since it includes myself, it becomes my duty to protest, "NOT IN MY NAME".

«Well, it’s become necessary now because it is foundational to your rejection of the concept of the social contract.»

What is foundational is that different people have completely different, if not even opposing, outlooks on life, thus even if there hadn't been this important issue of chaos vs. cosmos, there still would be many other fundamental differences sufficient to prevent a true contract between strangers.

On that specific fundamental difference, nor can you prove that the world is chaotic.

«Easily - by those believing in a cosmos demonstrating, through their actions, that they are happy to benefit from the systems and structures put in place by society when it suits them.»

In other words, by showing any human weakness.

The final weakness that broke Winston's will in Orwell's "1984" was his fear of rats, then the book says that he finally "won", now that "he loves Big Brother". Having in return for his complete surrender happily benefited by not being bitten by the rats, wouldn't that be considered a fair "contract" in your world?

Yuyutsu,

My point was that the world just isn’t that exciting. Personally, I would find it exciting if, say, the Jews really were plotting a New World Order, or if governments were filled with people who were so selfless as to devote their entire lives to grand evil plots.

Some conspiracy theorists actually find comfort in ‘New World Order’ conspiracies because it would at least mean that someone is in control. The idea that no one is at the wheel terrifies them more than evil cabals.

No, I wouldn’t inform the police even if it were against the law to have relatives send you plastic bags from overseas.

//Anything can be justified, somehow, but justifications not a truth make.//

I know. That’s why I said “rationally justified”.

//No, I asked whom this bill is PRESUMED to benefit.//

This is irrelevant nitpicking because my answer would be the same either way.

//And since it includes myself, it becomes my duty to protest, "NOT IN MY NAME"//

Again, it’s not in your name. It’s not in anyone’s name.

The social contract is a mutual agreement where individuals exchange certain freedoms (like absolute autonomy) for the benefits of living in an organised society. It's more practical than philosophical - those who benefit from roads, healthcare, and security inherently accept that they are part of a larger social system.

//What is foundational is that different people have completely different, if not even opposing, outlooks on life …//

The social contract doesn't require that everyone shares the same worldview (chaos vs cosmos), but that we agree on some basic rules to allow society to function. This doesn't mean surrendering to power, as in Orwell’s world, but participating in a system of shared governance where we can challenge laws, influence policy, and protect our freedoms.

The social contract doesn't mean or assume that every law or policy will be universally agreed upon by all; it’s a balance of interests. You may disagree with a law or a bill, but participating in the system also gives you the tools to change it through voting, advocacy, or protest.

John,

"The first quote you provided is actually just Michaelia Cash paraphrasing Megan Davis, who later clarified the matter confirming that the Uluru Statement is indeed one page"

You can view the original instances where Megan Davis and Pat Anderson claimed the Uluru statement was a lengthy document, as I have. The paraphrasing was accurate. The Uluru Statement obtained by Sky News from the NIAA via an FOI request was also a lengthy document:

https://www.skynews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Document-14-1.pdf

The clarifications that the statement was a single page all came after cult leader Albo made his silly claim in parliament and contradict what was said until that time.

As for dredging up the infamous RMIT "fact check", note that RMIT did 100% of their checks against claims of "No" campaigners. This is in contravention of the International Fact-Checking Network’s (IFCN) Code of Principles, to which RMIT is a signatory. According to an IPA report:

"These principles mandate that
signatories uphold commitments to fairness and
impartiality including that they ‘not concentrate their
fact-checking unduly on any one side’."

https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/IPA-Research-The-Arbiters-of-Truth-Analysis-of-biased-fact-checking-organisations-during-the-2023-Voice-Referendum-FINAL.pdf

I have just been reminded that Albanese’s legislation represents the third attempt in Australia, once under the Morrison government and now twice under the Albanese government, to ‘regulate’ digital platforms using the threat of fining them into bankruptcy; to coerce them into censoring anyone who doesn’t toe the official line.

We should pray the there will be no 'third time lucky' for this rotten legislation. And pray is all we can do. No referendum this time. No opposition worthy of the name.

ttbn,

Thanks for starting the discussion. I found it interesting and useful. Further, it led me to a great publication on the matter by John Storey and Margaret Chambers through the IPA. The conclusion included a succinct warning:

"Far from the Voice referendum campaign being
dominated by the misinformation of the No case,
a key feature of the debate was the unprecedented
attempt to silence one side. This process was led and
championed by fact checking organisations, whose
codes of principles explicitly require that they act in
a neutral and unbiased manner.
Correcting this narrative is important. The federal
government has proposed radical new censorship
laws in the form of the Communications Legislation
Amendment (Combatting Misinformation
and Disinformation) Bill 2023. This law would
empower a government agency, the Australian
Communications and Media Authority, to
punish social media platforms that fail to censor
‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’. It is likely that
the blame attributed to misinformation for the failed
referendum will give impetus to censorious new laws.
But the referendum should instead be a cautionary
warning against such laws. The fundamental
problem with censoring ‘misinformation’ is deciding
who determines truth and falsehood. In the case
of the referendum, organisations that purported
to be neutral, and to whom responsibility was
given to determine truth and falsehood, acted in
a demonstrably one sided and biased manner. If
organisations like these were empowered to censor
online communications, the damage done to free
political debate in this country would be profound."

https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/IPA-Research-The-Arbiters-of-Truth-Analysis-of-biased-fact-checking-organisations-during-the-2023-Voice-Referendum-FINAL.pdf

Fester,

So far, it seems that bureaucracy ACMA will decide who can be heard and who cannot, and who will be punished.

But the High Court might have something to say about that, and I have a dim memory of constitutional lawyer, Professor David Flint, saying at the time the HC inertervened in the Giles/detainees fiasco saying something like 'don't knock it because the High Court might be handy if the government brings out its censorship Bill again'.

Like everything Albanese does (e.g the Voice) there is a lot of secrecy and unknowns about this Bill. What would expect from a regime that wants to interfere with the right to free speech and opinions?

Dear John,

«My point was that the world just isn’t that exciting.»

A new topic then, OK, let me reflect on this, there are many facets to it.

«Personally, I would find it exciting if, say, the Jews really were plotting a New World Order, or if...»

Personally, if I were looking for more excitement in my life then politics and world-affairs would be one of the last places I would be looking for it.

«Some conspiracy theorists actually find comfort in ‘New World Order’ conspiracies»

While others find sexual satisfaction in BDSM - each to their own...

«The idea that no one is at the wheel terrifies them more than evil cabals.»

Since God is already, figuratively speaking, at the wheel, I am neither concerned that this wheel remain unattended, nor welcome others who attempt to mess around with that wheel.

But then, each to their own pleasures, each to their own beliefs and each to their own fears.

«No, I wouldn’t inform the police even if it were against the law to have relatives send you plastic bags from overseas.»

Much appreciated, thank you!

«That’s why I said “rationally justified”.»

I was aware of it and nearly related to this adverb, but then as I was approaching my 350-word limit, I didn't.

Essentially, "rationally" is a relative term which depends on one's prior premises, both conscious and otherwise: Even when one's logic is perfect, should one dig persistently enough into their rationalisation, one is bound to arrive at its underlying irrational roots.

«This is irrelevant nitpicking because my answer would be the same either way.»

My answers to both questions is different:

Who are bills presumed to benefit? Everyone, including myself.
Who do bills actually benefit? Long answer, but not me anyway.

Some short-term benefit? Some temporary comfort perhaps?
But that would not be worth my later suffering which I would experience should I let myself gain benefits/comforts/pleasures from the suffering of others.

If nothing else, enforced laws bring fear. Would I like to benefit from the fear of others? Personally, my answer is 'NO'.

[continued...]

[...continued]

That fear which governments instil in their subjects, is NOT IN MY NAME.
I do pray that God help me and give me the strength, should I somehow find myself in that place (i.e. in parliament), not to act like present legislators, doing unto others what I would have hated being done unto myself.

«It's more practical than philosophical - those who benefit from roads, healthcare, and security inherently accept that they are part of a larger social system.»

So "social-contract" is not a contract, just a name containing the word 'contract', referring to something so nebulous, so vague "part of a larger social system" that we cannot really say anything about it.

That we are all inter-related? Well of course, agreed, but HOW EXACTLY related? - not by contract anyway.

«The social contract doesn't require that everyone shares the same worldview (chaos vs cosmos), but that we agree on some basic rules to allow society to function.»

Even while in reality many do not agree with these "basic" rules?
As the wolf told the lamb before swallowing it: "Your logic is excellent, that you live downstream and therefore cannot contaminate my drinking water... yet I'll eat you anyway!".

«participating in a system of shared governance where we can challenge laws, influence policy, and protect our freedoms.»

Yes, we can challenge till we are hoarse.
I have no influence whatsoever and yes, I tried, I issued petitions on issues painful to me, but usually I don't even hear back, except once when a government-minister exclaimed "interesting!", and that was it.

Anyway, I do not wish to share governance or make laws in the first place, making myself a dictator over others and taking away their freedoms instead of them taking away mine.

«it’s a balance of interests»

So no principles? No right or wrong? Just might-is-right?

«participating in the system also gives you the tools to change it through voting, advocacy, or protest.»

Straight from the signage in Orwell's "animal farm".
I thought we were having a serious discussion...

Yuyutsu,

It sounds like you’re dismissing rationality outright because of it's based on underlying assumptions, but it's the most reliable tool we have for navigating situations.

Regardless of the wide variety of assumptions out there, rationality still remains a powerful tool for finding common ground. Science, law, and moral systems all rely on rational frameworks to determine what’s true or just. Verification, debate, and re-examination ensure their reliability, so arbitrary assumptions aren't a hurdle.

You’re seeing laws as instruments of fear. But without them, society would descend into anarchy, where might would make right. You mention not benefiting from others' suffering, but laws exist precisely to minimise suffering. Functioning societies don’t rely on chaos or gut feelings to make decisions about justice or public safety.

Functioning societies don’t rely on chaos or gut feelings to make decisions about justice or public safety.

Participation isn’t futile as you make it sound. The abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, the suffrage movement - all took time but they got there in the end because people participated even when everything seemed to be stacked against them.

When I say the social contract balances interests, I don’t mean that there are no principles or that right and wrong don’t matter. It’s not a case of "might makes right." It's about finding common ground so that society can function without descending into chaos. You may disagree with certain laws, but the system also gives you the tools to challenge them in a constructive way.

You have some fundamental misunderstandings skewing your perception about some basic very assumptions that most of us take for granted. As a result, you're misinterpreting motives and jumping at shadows.

Dear John,

«It sounds like you’re dismissing rationality outright because of it's based on underlying assumptions»

I don't dismiss rationality - I use rationality myself, I just realise its limited scope and that the truths it can produce are only relative truths - relative to the correctness of the underlying assumptions, which even theoretically with the best of "luck" can never be absolutely true because Reality cannot be condensed into words and concepts.

«You’re seeing laws as instruments of fear.»

This is not a conspiracy theory and I am not claiming that legislators in general do it for the deliberate purpose of instilling fear, but can you deny the fear that laws produce even among the ordinary normative and conscientious population?

That fear, humiliation, upset and sense of helplessness and despair are likely even more prevalent among the innocent normative population than among criminals who flout the law anyway.

«But without them, society would descend into anarchy»

There will not be anarchy because (as a figure of speech, please don't take me too literally) God rules supreme.
But then, as I understood so far, you do not believe the same, you believe in chaos, hence you rationally imply, and with perfect logic, that men must rule over other men, even violently against their will, should that be necessary, even when those being ruled over never wanted anything to do with you in the first place.

Can you see now that since my faith is fundamentally different to yours, there cannot be any social contract between us?

Yes I know, many church-goers may sing on Sundays that God rules supreme, but fail to use rational logic to understand the implications, or maybe they believe in God only on Sundays and in chaos the rest of the week...

«You mention not benefiting from others' suffering»

Not benefiting from being the agent for others' suffering, to be more precise.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«but laws exist precisely to minimise suffering.»

That may be the intention, maybe even a good intention, but in reality nobody can prevent another from suffering. Once someone did something bad, they will have to pay for it accordingly and suffer no matter what: one could say (as a figure of speech) that God sees to it that they suffer the consequences of their actions, that none of which can escape his oversight.

But then, if you believe in chaos, then I perfectly understand why you conclude that laws can reduce sufferings.

«Functioning societies don’t rely on chaos or gut feelings to make decisions about justice or public safety.»

For that you would first need to show me a functioning society.
A society where people are coerced to follow laws (moreover when it is a system of laws they never freely consented to have anything to do with), and live in fear is, in my view, a dysfunctional society.

A society that attempts to produce justice, duplicating the justice that is already inherent in the universe, is as ridiculous as that king who commands the sun to rise and set at the exact times when the sun would do so anyway.

As for safety, the only way to be safe is to refrain from doing evil, nothing else can save you, but those who believe in chaos shrug it as "accidents".

«Participation isn’t futile as you make it sound.»

Things changed historically once majorities opposed slavery and supported suffrage.
However, the majority still believes in chaos and therefore expects or wishes the state to save them (ultimately from themselves), which it cannot, but they believe that it can.

I can't see that changing in my lifetime.


«It's about finding common ground so that society can function without descending into chaos.»

How is common ground possible between those who believe that the default is chaos and those who understand that we live in a God-given cosmos?

The Albanese government and the Greens closed down free speech in the Senate by prohibiting Pauline Hanson from tabling a motion on the the ability of people to tick a box on the next census form gender/sex identification. They prevented any discussion on the matter. This is an alarming precedent.

Dear Ttbn,

The whole concept of a census is pure evil, so much that even the Bible forbade kings to conduct them.

Nevertheless, I just read that these new questions will be optional so one will be able to not respond to them without incurring hefty fines.

Assuming that to be true, what is the fuss about? Why not object instead to the other questions which remain compulsory?

One thing you may consider is taking an overseas holiday to avoid the census - I did it once, I may do so again in 2026.

Hardly a surprise ttbn. I think the referendum taught Albo that intimidation and biased fact checking aren't enough. He needs to censor opposing views as happened to Pauline. Of course, he could try governing well and stand on his merits.

Fester

Albanese has nothing meritable to stand on, in my opinion; no authoritarians do, and that's why they are authoritarians.

Yuyutsu,

I can see this conversation is going to drag on for weeks, and I’m starting to see why. So, to cut through the endless cycle, let’s address the rhetorical tactics and logical fallacies you keep using that are holding this discussion hostage:

Every time we focus on a concrete issue about society or governance, you derail it by bringing up abstract concepts like "absolute truth" or "divine justice." These philosophical ideas are interesting, sure, but they’re not relevant to the actual question at hand - how people, living in a shared society, manage fairness and justice in real terms. You can’t substitute philosophical speculation for practical solutions.

You’ve compared laws that protect people from harm with Orwellian totalitarianism, and frankly, that’s ridiculous. Just because laws exist to maintain order doesn’t mean they’re part of some overarching scheme to oppress people. Laws in democracies are designed to balance individual rights and public safety, not to impose control. Equating that with totalitarian control is either an exaggeration or a complete misunderstanding of how democratic governance works.

Your constant retreat into the chaos versus cosmos debate avoids the concrete issues we’re discussing. Whether you believe in divine justice or not is irrelevant here. We live in societies made up of other people, and we need laws to coexist peacefully. Laws aren’t here to replace divine justice; they’re tools to manage practical realities. This conversation isn’t about grand metaphysical truths, it’s about how to function on a practical level.

Society isn’t an abstract concept. People need healthcare, roads, protection from harm, and basic rights. The social contract isn’t some philosophical trick; it’s a necessary framework that allows people with different beliefs to coexist and function without descending into chaos or constant conflict. The abstract ideals you keep chasing don’t change the fact that people need practical governance.

We can keep spinning in philosophical circles, but my interest is in dealing with the real-world issues we all face - not chasing ideas that don’t apply to actual governance.

Dear John,

Why look for practical governance when you already have it and held it firmly for centuries?

In practical terms, the wolves will keep eating the lambs, never vice-versa.
While they may not enjoy the intellectual justification that "the lamb downstream was polluting my drinking water, but not any more", nothing stops them from still enjoying the warm taste of fresh lamb-flesh.

I rather you be an honest dictator than pretend to rule democratically in a "shared society".

I rather you govern by the sheer might of your arms, rather than send me to the polls to select between you and your twin, along with all the useful idiots who vote only to avoid a fine, thus assuring that one face of you will always be elected to make you look nice.

If philosophy and philosophers stand in the way of your social and material goals, then I rather you shoot the philosophers, including myself, than pretend to have a sound philosophical foundation to justify your violence.

As per this specific discussion, one more law is being proposed, one among thousands already in place.
In practical terms, neither myself nor Ttbn nor anyone else would be able to prevent it - it will soon be legislated regardless of what this forum says, you don't need me for having the satisfaction of seeing the governor-general signing it.

The question remains, will you or will you not have the decency to admit that this law will not serve everyone, because "everyone" includes myself.

«Society isn’t an abstract concept.»

It is a concept nevertheless, so vague a concept that anyone can twist it to serve their own purpose.

«People need healthcare, roads, protection from harm, and basic rights.»

Whatever people need, which is not for you to decide, they can take care of themselves, and would indeed been able to do so had the state not been standing in their way.

«The social contract isn’t some philosophical trick»

Like the tooth-fairy, both simply do not exist.

«...the fact that people need practical governance.»

The fact that YOU want them practically governed.

Yuyutsu,

It’s becoming abundantly clear to me that you are unwilling or unable to grasp nuance, and are only capable of thinking in black and white.

//Why look for practical governance when you already have it and held it firmly for centuries?//

Because we live in a changing world and it needs to continuously adapt to that.

//In practical terms, the wolves will keep eating the lambs, never vice-versa.//

If we truly lived in a society where "wolves" always preyed on "lambs," laws wouldn't exist to protect individuals from harm. You enjoy the protection provided by the rule of law, yet reject the system that upholds it.

//I rather you be an honest dictator than pretend to rule democratically in a 'shared society.’//

This is self-contradictory since you enjoy the freedom to criticise governance, something that wouldn't exist in a dictatorship.

//If philosophy and philosophers stand in the way of your social and material goals…//

They don’t. Your comment here uses hyperbole to sidestep my point.

//In practical terms, neither myself ... nor anyone else would be able to prevent it…//

This argument is both fatalistic and hypocritical. You claim that you have no say, yet you are actively participating in a public forum, voicing your opinion in an attempt to influence others.

//…will you or will you not have the decency to admit that this law will not serve everyone…//

It will serve everyone to some degree, whether it be directly or indirectly. You included. I’m able to say that with my decency intact.

//Whatever people need, which is not for you to decide, they can take care of themselves...//

I didn’t say it was for me to decide. But, no, we wouldn’t have those things without the state. They require large-scale organisation.

//Like the tooth-fairy, both simply do not exist.//

The social contract exists through the very laws, protections, and systems you use daily. You live as though the social contract exists because it does. You rely on it every day.

//The fact that YOU want them practically governed.//

It has nothing to do with what I want.

Yuyutsu,

Save yourself the effort. I’ve got it…

Dear John,

I’m not surprised by your insistence on nuance, but what you call "nuance," I call unnecessary complication. Sometimes, what appears to be black and white is precisely that.

«Because we live in a changing world and it needs to continuously adapt to that.»

Adaptation or survival? You cloak necessity in the language of choice. A system that requires constant adaptation is inherently fragile. Is that truly governance, or is it just survival under a different name?

«If we truly lived in a society where "wolves" always preyed on "lambs," laws wouldn't exist to protect individuals from harm. You enjoy the protection provided by the rule of law, yet reject the system that upholds it.»

And yet, despite these laws, the "wolves" still prey. The laws do not stop them; they only provide a facade of security, a way to manage the chaos rather than solve it. I do not reject protection, I reject the illusion of it. If laws were perfect, there would be no need for wolves, but they exist because the system allows it, and benefits from it.

«This is self-contradictory since you enjoy the freedom to criticise governance, something that wouldn't exist in a dictatorship.»

A dictatorship that does not lie about what it is may be preferable to a democracy that pretends to listen while enforcing its own agenda regardless. The freedom to speak is a poor consolation when speaking changes nothing. You assume I value this freedom, but perhaps its value is inflated when it leads nowhere.

«They don’t. Your comment here uses hyperbole to sidestep my point.»

Philosophers once stood as the conscience of society, questioning its direction. Today, they are trampled by those like you who value material progress over reflection. In practical terms, they have already been sidelined. You speak as though their words still hold sway - they do not.

[Continued…]

[...Continued]

«You claim that you have no say, yet you are actively participating in a public forum, voicing your opinion in an attempt to influence others.»

If I truly had any influence, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. My participation here is more a reflection of my principles than any belief in the efficacy of this platform. I speak because I must, not because I expect change. And therein lies the fatalism you point out - it is a recognition, not a surrender.

«It will serve everyone to some degree, whether it be directly or indirectly. You included.»

"Serve" is a vague word. It may "serve" everyone, but it will not serve them equally or fairly. Some will benefit, some will lose. You can maintain your decency, but that does not change the fact that the law itself lacks it.

«I didn’t say it was for me to decide. But, no, we wouldn’t have those things without the state. They require large-scale organisation.»

The state as the grand architect! Yet history shows that people managed without the overreach of a state. Villages and small communities survived for centuries, far from the shadow of governments, organising their affairs without bureaucracy. You mistake large-scale control for the only method of organisation.

«The social contract exists through the very laws, protections, and systems you use daily. You live as though the social contract exists because it does.»

Does the lamb rely on the shepherd who will inevitably slaughter it when convenient? The social contract is nothing more than a series of compromises to which the weak must agree to survive. And those compromises are always dictated by the powerful. I acknowledge the contract's existence only in so far as I acknowledge gravity, not as something just or ideal.

«It has nothing to do with what I want.»

Perhaps not, but your defence of this system shows that you are comfortable with its flaws, its contradictions. You claim objectivity, but in truth, this system serves your goals well enough that you are content with it.

Dear John,

Thank you for your big effort:
It was a nice try, mostly off the mark,
yet it is a refreshing and humbling experience to learn how little one is understood.

I have never before seen this technique employed and I find it very educational - its strength is not in making correct predictions, but in reflecting back to us how well or otherwise our communications get through (in my case very poorly): we should probably use it more often on OLO.

Coming back...

«It’s becoming abundantly clear to me that you are unwilling or unable to grasp nuance, and are only capable of thinking in black and white.»

Any examples, please?

«Because we live in a changing world and it needs to continuously adapt to that.»

Your full control which you (or the regime you support) firmly held for centuries, already includes the ability to adapt [should you wish to]. That is not anything new that you still struggle to acquire or that I am capable of stopping.

«If we truly lived in a society where "wolves" always preyed on "lambs," laws wouldn't exist to protect individuals from harm.»

Such laws, for example, exist even in Russia's constitution.
They make Putin look better.

«You enjoy the protection provided by the rule of law, yet reject the system that upholds it.»

The rule of law does not provide protection, not truly, that is an illusion... but then you don't like me to explain philosophically why that it is the case.

That system you mentioned being violent, if and when (hopefully not too often) I actually allow myself to enjoy violence-born "protection", then that is due to my human weaknesses, then my seeming safety is only short-lived and I must then pay dearly for it in the long run.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«you enjoy the freedom to criticise governance, something that wouldn't exist in a dictatorship.»

My freedom to criticise was not granted by laws/governments, nor is a product of violence - I was born with it and for now it still exists.

«They don’t. Your comment here uses hyperbole to sidestep my point.»

Good to hear they don't. I used "IF", so that not applying means that you don't need to shoot me, I don't object...

«You claim that you have no say, yet you are actively participating in a public forum, voicing your opinion in an attempt to influence others.»

Yes I thought I could influence other OLO members (less so after your experiment showed me how little they understand me), just not government. Also, my participation here helps me reflect and sharpen my own views.

«It will serve everyone to some degree, whether it be directly or indirectly. You included. I’m able to say that with my decency intact.»

It could have served me had we lived in a chaotic world,
but in a God-given cosmos, violence can never end well.

You already learned that I believe in cosmos, not in chaos;
You have the intelligence to imply that forcing laws that are meant for a chaotic world on me against my will, is likely to at least hurt my feelings;
Yet where is your decency to admit it?

«But, no, we wouldn’t have those things without the state. They require large-scale organisation.»

Suppose so, fair enough, but why then not allow people to decide for themselves what things they are to have and what other things they are happy to sacrifice in order to live in a smaller society of relatively like-minded people?

«The social contract exists through the very laws, protections, and systems you use daily.»

While there exists some complex dynamic relationship between us, that does not amount to a contract.

«It has nothing to do with what I want.»

Could you prove that by allowing people to freely choose their own society, big or small as they wish?

allowing people to freely choose their own society, big or small as they wish?
Yuyutsu,
I'd have no problems with decent folk doing that but imagine you gave such freedom to Leftists, Woke & Greens ?
Imagine the minority groups carrying on ? Even the Animal World has guidelines & discipline so why would we want to let lesser mentality have a free reign ?
We're staring annihilation in the face because of greedy & power crazy & narcissistic from every society yet some still entertain the though of giving them more ?

Dear Indyvidual,

Yours is an excellent question, but I will refrain from descending into petty politics and rather speak of the principles.

I am not interested in giving anyone their freedom,
God has (as a figure of speech) already given everyone freedom even before they were born,
and all I care here is not to rob it away from others.

Yes, people and animals in nature have limitations,
but let me at least try not to be the one who imposes limitations on others -
for my own sake, not theirs, so that I can remain a decent person, let me refrain from violence,
and robbing someone else's freedom, is violent.

Now should some others form a society that seriously and physically threatens my own, then I maintain the option of self-defence. It is not ideal perhaps, but it is acceptable.

How do I defend myself, my family and my society from hostilities?
With guns, bombs and the like, no more than the minimum required of course.
But what I should not do in that case, is to try imposing my own society's internal laws on them, punish them for breaking them or otherwise try to make them feel guilty for following their own norms rather than mine.

It may look subtle, but is very important: whatever I do is for protecting myself, not to punish or teach them - my focus should always be on myself and my people rather than on "them".

For example:

Greenpeace was targeting whaling ships and endangered them on the high seas.
Their act was violent and it was completely reasonable for the whaling ships to defend themselves with water-cannons, eventually sinking the Sea Shepherd.
Does that mean that I support whaling?
No, I am vegetarian and do not support fishing of any kind, yet what others eat is none of my business, and since the Japanese whalers have never asked for my spiritual guidance, it would not be my place to advise them.

On top of the censorship Bill, the Albanese Party also has the 'Hate Crimes Bill' coming. It's all about upsetting the alphabet people.

Yuyutsu,

I’m glad you’ve taken my attempt to respond as though I were you so well and so constructively. It was meant to be a fun attempt to avoid/reduce any talking past each other that may be going on here.

//Any examples, please?//

I’ve provided several already. Your insistence on dismissing governance as inherently violent, or your rejection of the rule of law as an illusion, for example. These are clear signs of black-and-white thinking, where you refuse to acknowledge the complexity and necessity of governance in societies.

//That is not anything new that you still struggle to acquire or that I am capable of stopping.//

The need for continuous adaptation isn’t about acquiring something new. The fact that we’ve managed to adapt doesn’t mean we can stop now. Your fatalistic approach assumes that nothing more can be done.

//Such laws, for example, exist even in Russia's constitution.//

The fact that laws exist on paper doesn’t mean they’re implemented fairly or effectively. The existence of laws that protect individual rights is necessary for justice, but they’re not enough on their own. This doesn’t negate the importance of laws, it simply shows that enforcement and governance matter.

//The rule of law does not provide protection, not truly, that is an illusion...//

This is exactly where your philosophy disconnects from reality. The rule of law does provide protection. It’s not perfect, but without it, we'd have total chaos. Philosophical musings on the illusory nature of protection do nothing to address the real threats people face daily.

//My freedom to criticise was not granted by laws/governments…//

Yes, you were born with it, but that freedom is protected and enforced by the rule of law. It’s the very existence of those laws you berate that ensures your ability to speak out without fear of persecution.

//Also, my participation here helps me reflect and sharpen my own views.//

That’s not the only reason:

“...my responses here are for all the readers, not just for you, alerting them to be careful with comments which defy logic so they don't blindly fall for them.”
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10466#364108)

(Cont’d)

(Cont’d)

That you engage in systems of governance and debate while claiming they don’t work is a paradox you’re unwilling to confront.

//In a God-given cosmos, violence can never end well.//
Belief in a divine cosmic order doesn’t negate the necessity of laws in the material world. Even if we accept your premise that violence leads to destruction, that doesn’t provide a framework for preventing harm or ensuring social order.

//You have the intelligence to imply that forcing laws that are meant for a chaotic world on me against my will, is likely to at least hurt my feelings; Yet where is your decency to admit it?//

There’s nothing to admit. If laws were about individual preference, we’d have anarchy. Governance isn’t about whether you personally feel hurt by laws - it’s about creating a system that balances the needs and rights of everyone. Your personal discomfort is not the measure of the law’s validity.

//…but why then not allow people to decide for themselves what things they are to have and what other things they are happy to sacrifice in order to live in a smaller society of relatively like-minded people?//

This sounds nice in theory, but in practice, societies are interconnected. What happens in one community can affect another. The idea of smaller, isolated societies is impractical in a world where resources and communications cross borders.

//While there exists some complex dynamic relationship between us, that does not amount to a contract.//

The social contract isn’t just a theoretical construct; it’s the basis for the laws, protections, and systems we all rely on. You benefit from the system every day, whether you acknowledge it or not.

//Could you prove that by allowing people to freely choose their own society, big or small as they wish?//

People do choose their societies - through democratic processes. What you’re asking for is absolute autonomy, which simply isn’t feasible in a complex, interconnected world. The real challenge is navigating the balance between individual freedoms and societal responsibility, something you continually refuse to engage with.

Dear John,

Your last posts showed me again what a poor communicator I am.

When others do not understand me here, which I can tell because they continue to argue a point even after I told them that I agree with them (yes, this often happens here, especially with a particular person I will not mention by name), I may conclude that "too bad, they just don't have the capacity to understand".

But when that happens even with someone as intelligent as yourself, then I must conclude that the fault is mine.

I still intend to respond in full to your last double-post, but since I have no time right now to go back, analyse and trace back each and every response of yours, let me limit myself for now and concentrate on just one:

«The need for continuous adaptation isn’t about acquiring something new. The fact that we’ve managed to adapt doesn’t mean we can stop now. Your fatalistic approach assumes that nothing more can be done.»

Thus you were arguing in support of adaptation even after I tried to tell you (obviously unsuccessfully) that adaptation was not the issue. In my own words:

{Your full control which you (or the regime you support) firmly held for centuries, already includes the ability to adapt [should you wish to]. That is not anything new that you still struggle to acquire or that I am capable of stopping.}

Somehow I was trying to convey to you that adaptation of legislation to present conditions had little to do with anything we discussed earlier, that this whole mention of adaptation was taking us on an unnecessary new tangent.

This was in reply to you earlier claiming:

«Because we live in a changing world and it needs to continuously adapt to that.»

Which was in reply to me saying:

{Why look for practical governance when you already have it and held it firmly for centuries?}

[continued...]

[...continued]

What I was trying [unsuccessfully] to convey to you was that if, as you said in your preceding post, you were only interested in the practical aspects of governance rather than in having some philosophical backing for your actions, then you can do whatever you like already, then my contrary views do not stand in your way anyway (because government does not and will not listen to me anyway).

You see, I mentioned nothing about adaptation, neither positively nor negatively, so when you introduced it, I was only trying to tell you, "please stay on the subject"... but I failed. :-(

Now since you did introduce adaptation, let me state again that the issue I have is with legislation in general, with this whole concept, not particularly with new laws.

To demonstrate my position, suppose I was somehow magically transported into parliament as a member and you (another parliamentarian) wanted to pass a new law, such as the law which started this thread of discussion, then we could possibly be able to make a bargain deal: I would help you to pass this new bill, provided you agreed in return to repeal two old ones!

I will endeavour to respond to the rest of your posts either today or tomorrow, but obviously not in such great detail.

Misinfo and disinfo
Well I guess were going to have to ban all the corporate media then.
I haven't read one article today the told the unbiased truth.

Dear John,

«Your insistence on dismissing governance as inherently violent»

Non-violent governance is possible, and I wouldn't mind it at all, but statistically the more people are involved, the smaller probability it can happen.

Also possible is governance that limits its violence to essential self-defence: I could elabourate if you like.

«your rejection of the rule of law as an illusion»

Illusive just like a father placing their toddler's hand on the car's wheel to make them believe they drive the car.

«you refuse to acknowledge the complexity and necessity of governance in societies.»

Uh-Oh, governance is complex indeed, more than humans can handle well.

«The existence of laws that protect individual rights is necessary for justice...»

You are saying so because you believe in chaos where justice doesn't otherwise already exist.

«The rule of law does provide protection.»

Re the father placing their toddler's hand on the wheel: The toddler does not drive, governments do not protect.

«It’s not perfect, but without it, we'd have total chaos.»

There, you said it yourself, that is your faith.

«Philosophical musings on the illusory nature of protection do nothing to address the real threats people face daily.»

I agree. Only abstention from harming others can address these threats.
(and states are not known to abstain from harming others)

«...It’s the very existence of those laws you berate that ensures your ability to speak out without fear of persecution.»

You say that because you do not share my faith, nor believe that I can have any other protector.

«That you engage in systems of governance and debate while claiming they don’t work is a paradox you’re unwilling to confront.»

Some unfortunate people engage with cancer even while they never invited it. What other choice do they have?

«Belief in a divine cosmic order doesn’t negate the necessity of laws in the material world. Even if we accept your premise that violence leads to destruction, that doesn’t provide a framework for preventing harm»

Divine cosmic order already contains the necessary laws that ensure that no harm befall anyone unless they harmed others first.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«or ensuring social order»

Within a society I never got to freely choose? No thanks!

«There’s nothing to admit...»

So you wouldn't even admit, let alone apologise, that your laws bring pain to other people, including those who were never even asked whether they wish to participate in your society?

«societies are interconnected...»

And may remain interconnected if so they choose.
Don't you trust people's choices, or does the faith in chaos includes the belief that humans are ultimately evil in nature?

«The idea of smaller, isolated societies is impractical in a world where resources and communications cross borders.»

Perhaps so, "impractical" in the sense of not serving your personal aspirations.

«The social contract isn’t just a theoretical construct;»

It isn't anything, certainly not a contract.

«it’s the basis for the laws, protections, and systems we all rely on.»

Please speak for yourself: "we" includes myself too.

«You benefit from the system every day, whether you acknowledge it or not.»

In other words, "Shut up, I know better than you".

So long as I can still speak, so long as I am not choked, I will say it again: I DO NOT benefit from the system, I suffer from it.

«People do choose their societies - through democratic processes.»

First, there is no true democracy anywhere.
Second, even if there were democracies, this is no consolation for minorities - even the purest democracy does not allow you to select in advance who be the people whose majority is to determine the laws.

«What you’re asking for is absolute autonomy, which simply isn’t feasible in a complex, interconnected world.»

Suppose so, that's an interesting but deep and wide topic in itself - is this your excuse to refuse people even a relative autonomy?

«The real challenge is navigating the balance between individual freedoms and societal responsibility»

And who is to determine what are those societal responsibilities (if any)? Not the people who freely chose to belong in that society?

And responsible to whom? Not for the same people? to that whole "complex, interconnected world" as perhaps you wish?

Yuyutsu,

I suspect the misunderstanding stems more from the philosophical gap between our perspectives than any failure on your part.

//Your full control which you (or the regime you support) firmly held for centuries, already includes the ability to adapt [should you wish to]. That is not anything new that you still struggle to acquire or that I am capable of stopping.//

I never claimed adaptation was something governments struggle to acquire. It is something they must continually do to address new challenges. Your view that governments have "full control" and that I support such a regime oversimplifies how governance functions. It’s not about control.

//Adaptation of legislation to present conditions had little to do with anything we discussed earlier.//

Adaptation is relevant to governance because the world is constantly evolving and you had made it sound like the job has been completed, requiring no further work. You dismiss this by assuming governance is static and that decisions are made from a position of control.

//Non-violent governance is possible, and I wouldn't mind it at all, but statistically the more people are involved, the smaller probability it can happen.//

So how do we govern a complex, interconnected world without some form of enforced order then? It's one thing to believe in an ideal, but the reality is that large societies cannot function on moral or philosophical ideals alone.

//Illusive just like a father placing their toddler's hand on the car's wheel to make them believe they drive the car.//

Your analogy implies that governance is a mere illusion of control, but laws and governance do shape society in tangible ways. Individuals may not always directly drive the outcomes, but they do influence them through voting, public discourse, and activism.

//Governance is complex indeed, more than humans can handle well.//

Yes, but that’s not a reason to abandon it. The challenges societies face are also complex and cannot be resolved through faith in a cosmic order alone.

(Cont'd)

(Cont'd)

The imperfections of governance reflect the imperfections of humanity, but rejecting governance entirely would lead to anarchy and exploitation.

The small communities of like-minded people that you suggest would naturally start communicating and sharing ideas to the point where they'd slowly intermingle and sometimes even merge over generations. History shows this. As communities interact, their differences can soften, and their shared interests could bring them together. Governance is an inevitability that naturally emerges out of this; it’s not just a power grab by a greedy few.

This, I think, goes to the heart of your misunderstanding.

//You are saying so because you believe in chaos where justice doesn't otherwise already exist.//

Justice doesn't exist in a vacuum, nor is it guaranteed by faith alone. It needs to be actively pursued, and that pursuit requires governance, laws, and enforcement. You may view this as a belief in chaos, but it is more accurately a recognition that without structures to protect rights and maintain order, chaos fills the void.

//Divine cosmic order already contains the necessary laws that ensure that no harm befall anyone unless they harmed others first.//

This presumes a level of moral perfection that humanity has not demonstrated. If divine laws are so effective, why then is human history filled with violence, injustice, and harm? Even if we accept the premise of a cosmic order, human beings clearly need systems to manage their interactions and prevent harm where possible. Laws and governance exist precisely because we cannot rely on perfect moral behaviour.

//So you wouldn't even admit, let alone apologise, that your laws bring pain to other people, including those who were never even asked whether they wish to participate in your society?//

There is nothing to admit. They’re also not “my” laws. Governance will never satisfy everyone, but that doesn’t mean laws are inherently unjust. In a society, individual desires and needs must be balanced against the collective good.

(Cont'd)

(Cont'd)

No system is flawless, but dismissing the whole structure because some people find it painful ignores the broader benefits of governance - such as the prevention of harm and the protection of basic rights. It’s not about apologising for the system but improving it through participation and reform.

//Don't you trust people's choices, or does the faith in chaos include the belief that humans are ultimately evil in nature?//

I don’t believe humans are evil by nature, but history shows that unchecked freedom leads to exploitation. Trusting people’s choices is vital, but without governance to set boundaries and provide accountability, those choices could lead to harm. It's not a lack of trust but a recognition of the necessity of systems to protect everyone, especially the most vulnerable.

//In other words, 'Shut up, I know better than you'.//

That’s a mischaracterisation. I’m not claiming superior knowledge. Dissent and critique are important, and your suffering is valid, but personal dissatisfaction doesn’t automatically invalidate the system’s purpose. Governance isn’t about forcing compliance. The fact that you’re free to express your disagreement is itself a testament to the system’s ability to accommodate diverse voices, even those critical of it.

//And who is to determine what are those societal responsibilities (if any)? Not the people who freely chose to belong in that society?//

That’s precisely why democratic processes exist - to allow people to participate in the determination. You argue that no true democracy exists, but these (flawed) processes still represent an attempt to balance individual freedoms with collective responsibility.

If passed, the censorship Bill would allow the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to issue fines of up to $3,130,000 or 2% of annual turnover (whichever is greater) for social media platforms and, up to $626,000 for individuals

ttbn,

Yes, and who would the individuals be who are captured by the bill? You left that bit out.

I’ll give you a hint: it’s not the average Joe on Facebook sharing a conspiracy post about vaccines or climate change.

--

Yuyustu,

I’ve been thinking about the idea of small communities comprising like-minded people you mentioned, and thought about those that already exist.

One of the big issues these communities faced - and still face - is sexual abuse. Unsurprisingly, women are overwhelmingly the victims here.

Even in those communities that still exist, in countries with a centralised government - such as Amish and Hare Krishna communities - sexual abuse, sexual assault, and rape are more commonplace than they are in the general community.

I suspect those who are more vulnerable in such communities wouldn’t share your ideals. You may end up with isolated agrarian communities consisting almost entirely of men.

Dear John,

Even after my long post explaining that I said nothing about adaptation (of laws), neither for nor against it, that your mention of adaptation in the first place was unnecessarily deviating from our discussion and that it was merely accidental due to your complete misunderstanding of something else that I wrote earlier, you still dedicated two new paragraphs in defence of adaptation. If that's not a reason to despair of my ability to get my communications across, then I don't know what is.

It seems that responding line-for-line as I did so far is not working, that it causes the overall context to be forgotten, thus I will try a different approach and briefly sum up our discussion so far as I see it:

The wish to have and govern a complex, interconnected world, is yours in the first place, not mine, hence the onus is on you to either:
1) find a way to do it without violence; or
2) give up that idea, at least until you find a way; or
3) admit that you don't mind being violent, at least to some degree, in order to achieve your desired goals.

If you care to ask me, then I can advise you that violence is not going to end well, yet the choice is yours, you do not need to heed my advice.

Further, you do not even need my practical support to achieve your goal because power and democratic-majority seem to be on your side whether I like it or not, both to legislate (and enforce that legislation) to begin with, then to adapt your legislation to present conditions. I may not morally approve of your choices, but I certainly am powerless to physically stand in your way.

[continued...]

[...continued]

What I asked you was, that if you choose a violent path (and I think that you will agree with me that states as we know them at present do employ violence), then since my path is different to yours, could you please, at least, have the decency not to claim that you do so either for my sake or in my name? Is that too big an ask?

Now if you choose to even ask me why I see things differently, why I neither share your goal in the first place, nor support violence to achieve it, then I can endeavour to explain and answer all your questions, which may include speaking of cosmology, theology, metaphysics and so on. Whether you ask me about either or both, is up to you.

Yuyutsu,

Yes, I agree that the point-by-point responses can cause the full context to be lost. I avoid them for that reason.

First off, my talk of adaptation was directly tied to your statement that practical governance has been "held firmly for centuries." Governance is not a static institution; it evolves naturally as societies change and grow. This isn’t merely my wish but an observable reality. The governance structures we see today, for all their flaws, emerged because humans need ways to manage large, interconnected societies. This evolution is a natural, organic response to the complexities of human existence.

That being said, you speak as though the onus is on me to justify governance without violence, give it up entirely, or admit that some degree of force is necessary. But this frames the debate as if my support for governance is an extraordinary position that requires defence. In reality, governance has evolved precisely because it protects, organises, and offers a framework for resolving disputes. And, again, history shows that this is an inevitability that emerges organically, not as some evil thrust upon us by a greedy few.

So, in a sense, my position is the default. Therefore, if we’re to seriously consider alternatives, then the burden falls on those proposing them to demonstrate how their system would function more effectively. Governance that has already proven itself over time and through practice.

(I should add, too, that none of this is not necessarily my “wish.” This has not thing to do with me; it’s not about what I want vs what you want. I could abhor governance and still acknowledge the need for it.)

This brings us to the question of how your ideal system (or lack of any system at all) would ensure justice, prevent exploitation, or manage conflicts? The absence of governance would lead to far greater harm, especially for vulnerable populations who rely on legal protections.

(Cont’d)

Cont’d)

And, as the Somalia experience showed, having governance ripped out from under us (as I suspect you would have done tomorrow, if it were up to you) ends in extreme chaos, violence, and warfare. Simply rejecting governance as "violent" or imperfect doesn’t address the realities of human society and the challenges it faces.

Speaking of which, I think you also need to define exactly how you’re using the word “violence.” You seem to be using it very loosely, and in a way that unfairly frames societies organising over many generations with images of goose stepping and police beating people in the streets with batons.

As interesting as your philosophical stance is, we need to recognise that governance emerged naturally for practical reasons - it wasn’t thrust upon us suddenly and arbitrarily. Its evolution reflects humanity’s need to balance individual freedoms with collective security and stability. If your alternative is to dismantle these structures, then it’s fair to ask how your system would prevent the kind of chaos or exploitation that governance helps mitigate. If the goal is to replace governance, there needs to be a clear and workable plan for how this new system would protect people and provide the structure that societies need to survive.

The question of why you see things differently is ultimately the reason why I'm still here. But I think you first need to explain what you mean when you say "violence," and what your alternative to governance would be. I'd also be interested in how you suggest we transition away from governance, come to think of it.

Sorry, obviously that should read:

(I should add, too, that none of this is necessarily my “wish.” This has nothing to do with me; it’s not about what I want vs what you want. I could abhor governance and still acknowledge the need for it.)

Kudos ttbn.

Yes Albanese seems to have signed the death warrant of the principle of free speech.

There have been issues with News and Opinion being confused for a while but social media seems to be obviously about opinion. Going after social media seems to be a new phase in the war against the peoples self sufficiency and their enslavement. It's depressing to see reality mimicking the fiction of the totalitarian dystopia of 1984. I hope that the people remember that this slavery was executed by the Woke Marxist Communists in the name of freedom when they go to the ballot box.

Perhaps Albanese wants to reverse the democratizing effects of social media. Freud was afraid of the dangerous crowd, the communist leaders called them counter revolutionaries, Bernays just had contempt for the masses and tried to subvert them using cheap emotional consumerism. It seems that social media has been the only place where people could speak their minds as this option has been destroyed in many other places.

Does this new law mean that Albanese is Australia's "Chief Sensor"? Thanks ttbn- censorship is an extremely important issue in so called modern society.I suppose Albanese will also try and ban our objections to his ban. Anyway censorship means that the electoral process is perverted. When you can't even talk about the pro's and con's of whether multiculturalism is good for society you know you're no longer in Kansas, Dorothy.

Welcome back, Canem Malum.

To get you up to speed, the bill is not about censorship and is in no way analogous to Orwell's 1984. (It used to be the left over-referencing that book, now it's the right.)

//Does this new law mean that Albanese is Australia's "Chief Sensor"?//

This question has already been answered. There are no censors, and certainly no chief sensor. Fact-checking would be done by independent bodies.

As I pointed out earlier, it would be incredibly stupid and short-sighted to appoint the prime minister (or even the government) of the day a "chief sensor" given that the governing party changes every few years.

You lot really need to get a grip.

CM

Good to hear from you. The thread has descended into a pissing contest between two people. I don't think that I'll bother to provide a playground for unrelated arguments and bruised egos any longer.

The most sensible (the only?) Chief Medical Officer during the Covid atrocity, Nick Coatsworth, has called for the censorship Bill to be scrapped in its entirety, saying that it would “lead to the suppression of legitimate debate, causing even greater harm”.

Coatsworth had the guts to admit that he and his colleagues (the no-guts ones) got it wrong during Covid. In other words, they spread misinformation, and have now been proved to have done so.

Authorities, experts and fact-checkers are fallible, guaranteeing that true information will be suppressed under the Albanese regime’s Censorship Bill; and there is no indication that a Coalition government would remove the Bill. It was their idea in the first place, remember!

Tony Abbott has asked if, under the Albanese Censorship Bill, Albanese's own we-will-lower-electricity-prices-by-$275 nonsense be misinformation, disinformation, or just a plain old lie.

ttbn,

One thing the covid pandemic showed us is that fact-checking and debunking misinformation isn’t enough to tackle the rapid spread of misinformation via organised misinformation campaigns, and this is what Nick Coatsworth isn’t taking into consideration.

You yourself are walking proof of this.

Coatsworth also isn’t against the idea of managing misinformation, he’s concerned about overreach and unintended consequences. You’ve mischaracterised Coatsworth’s concerns.

//Coatsworth had the guts to admit that he and his colleagues (the no-guts ones) got it wrong during covid. In other words, they spread misinformation, and have now been proved to have done so.//

Coatsworth et al. were not the ones who spread misinformation. They provided the best possible information available at the time - a small portion of which, in hindsight, turned out to not be the best. They had no intention to deceive, which is an important element. Early mistakes (such as underestimating the airborne nature of covid) weren’t the result of bad faith but of limited information at the time.

It was the ones you believed, and still believe, who spread misinformation and disinformation.

Conversely, Coatsworth's willingness to admit mistakes reflects the transparency and accountability that’s essential in public health communication. This wouldn’t be affected by the bill in its current form.

Mistakes will happen in any crisis, but that's very different to allowing harmful misinformation to spread unchecked.

Misinformation and Disinformation
Code for 'preparing the homefront for an inevitable future showdown between superpowers'

"the bill is not about censorship"

Winston Smith's boss probably thought the same thing.

Change "chocolate ration are at 200grams" to "chocolate rations have increased from 100 to 150 grams". Doublethink.

ttbn,

Abbott’s comment was just a rhetorical jab, not a legitimate concern about the bill’s scope. He knows very well that false promises wouldn’t be captured by the bill.

Political promises, like Abbott’s “iron clad” guarantee as Health Minister, fall into a different category. Politicians will make campaign promises that are overly optimistic, fail to materialise, or change based on evolving circumstances.

(With the third there being Abbott’s excuse).

These kinds of promises are generally viewed as part of the political process, where campaign rhetoric sometimes diverges from practical outcomes. They don’t cause harm to public safety, health, or national security.

--

Canem Malum,

I’ve read the bill (and am qualified in law.) So, your 1984 analogy isn’t valid here (again).

If you’re so concerned about the bill, why don’t you just read it?

Or are you afraid that doing so will ruin the illusion and make it too difficult to maintain the rage?

ttbn- When the discussion degrades I find it pointless to contribute. Often I'll find something more useful to prioritize.

Waging a war against ‘misinformation’ in practice means silencing anyone who dares to question the official narrative.

Digital platforms will censor the speech and opinions of Australians to avoid massive fines.

A minister, on his/her own can order an investigation into any speech or opinions he/she doesn't like or do not fit in with the official narrative.

CM,

I'll wait for John Daysh and a couple of the other windbags to start threads instead of just attacking other posters who go to the trouble to do so. They jump in to criticise, but they don't have what it takes to create. Too many like them, and OLO would not exist for the skulkers.

ttbn,

You're still exaggerating and misrepresenting the bill. If you’re genuinely concerned, then the bill, the bill's digest, Hansard, and the transcripts of the readings can all be accessed here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7239

If you get around to reading all, then the following should become really embarrassing for you:

//Waging a war against ‘misinformation’ in practice means silencing anyone who dares to question the official narrative.//

If you cared to read it, you would see that it isn’t about silencing dissent or legitimate criticism of the government. It’s about addressing misinformation and disinformation that can cause actual harm, like false health claims or manipulated information that affects public safety or national security.

There’s a big difference between censoring criticism and addressing demonstrable harm caused by deliberate falsehoods. Open debate and critique aren’t the target here - organised, harmful misinformation campaigns are.

//Digital platforms will censor the speech and opinions of Australians to avoid massive fines.//

No, platforms won’t have free reign to censor at will. They’ll need to assess risks and manage misinformation, but the framework will require transparency. The idea isn’t to punish platforms for every opinion expressed but to prevent them from allowing harmful, false narratives to flourish unchecked.

Also, platforms will need to be transparent in their policies, meaning they can’t just arbitrarily silence any speech. There are clear guidelines surrounding all this.

//A minister, on his/her own, can order an investigation into any speech or opinions he/she doesn't like or do not fit in with the official narrative.//

No, they can’t. Regulatory powers are given to ACMA, not directly to ministers.

//I’ll wait for John Daysh and a couple of the other windbags to start threads instead of just attacking other posters who go to the trouble to do so.//

I’ve never once attacked you. I’ve always been careful to play the ball, not the man; I’d be more motivated to start a thread, or even submit an article, if others here were capable of doing the same.

I hope you keep the threads coming. I find the debates they inspire to be a lot of fun.

Dear John,

This morning around 5:30am, as commonly lately, I was violently woken by a neighbour's motorcycle, revving for several minutes until it finally drove off, only this time they really revved it all the way like a heavy truck so I thought it was the water-people fixing a burst pipe in my street. The noise was utterly debilitating, it didn't even allow me to think.

I could have screamed, I could have banged; thrown objects; gone and punch them in the face; break their motorcycle with a sledgehammer, I could have called the police,...

But no, instead I thanked God, saying, "why should I bless You only when pleasant things happen but not when the painful comes?". Undestanding that we live in a cosmos, not in chaos, I knew that this was happening due to something similar I've done myself earlier and soon came to mind that air-conditioner that I use in summer which might possibly drive my neighbour mad.

"Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me" - both: knowing that I already have a shepherd, the best there could ever be, the infallible perfect judge from whom no detail is hidden and whom no bribe can influence, what need have I for another shepherd?!

If I want my neighbour to permanently stop revving their motorcycle, then what I need to do is to stop using my air-conditioner or somehow find it another location that will not disturb the neighbour as much. There is no other way around. Even then, the motorcycle revving may not cease immediately because it could take a while until the penalty for my use of the air-conditioner is fully paid.

Had I gone to the police in an attempt to block the consequences of me using the air-conditioner, only fresh violence would be created and my rightful penalty would have reached me in some other way - perhaps by a snoring partner, perhaps even by tinnitus.

Violence simply means disturbing others.
If I disturb others, then I'm bound by cosmic law to be disturbed in turn, in a similar fashion and extent.

[continued...]

[...continued]

If you can find me a way to govern large societies without disturbing other people (well, nor animals either), then you will deserve every praise and then I too will likely support you.

It's no secret that most, perhaps 99% of contemporary population choose to uphold violence. I'm not going to turn the tide, I don't pretend that I can, not in what remains of my lifetime, but that doesn't mean that it was always the case: history is biased towards those who cared to write it within the last few millennia, which happen to be those who lived in large complex societies and found them interesting/titillating enough to write about, while those who lived peacefully and happily in small groups never bothered to write history.

Regarding "transition", people in general are addicted to that false-security and don't like their heroin taken away: should I try to change them forcibly, what could I achieve? replacing one form of violence with another? that has been tried already...

The first step is always education and yes, I'm not afraid of that word: discrimination! Knowing the way up from down! Once people understand that states do not and cannot protect them, they will gradually let go of them: why would you want to hold onto something that you know isn't working? But yes, it's an addiction, so it will be gradual and take the time.

Many diseases and physical pains are caused by unnecessary muscle tension.
We hold tight, fearful that if we loosen up we will fall and break our neck.
As we do so, we constrict the blood flow, thus also damaging internal organs and our immune system.
That is why guided relaxation or "body scanning" is so useful,
lying down and becoming aware of our limbs one by one then allowing them to relax.
We might fear that we will fall, but in reality the ground is already holding us firmly and we will only sag down a few millimetres.
No need to construct a floor when it is already there beneath us.

P.S. My plastic bags arrived today.

Yuyutsu,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. This format makes your position much easier to understand! There are a few problems with it, though.

Firstly, your use of the word "violence" to describe any form of disturbance is unhelpful. Violence refers to physical harm or coercion, not everyday inconveniences. By broadening it to include any disruption, you diminish the seriousness of true violence and make it too difficult to address or discuss actual harm. Equating minor disturbances with genuine violence only serves to confuse the ethical issues.

Secondly, our understanding of history is based more on archaeological and anthropological evidence than it is on written evidence. So, your dismissal of it as biased towards larger, governed societies is futile. Archaeology has shown us that violence (in many forms) existed even in small, non-literate societies. To suggest that peaceful groups existed but didn’t record their existence doesn’t hold up to the physical evidence.

Thirdly, I presume your claims that states "do not and cannot protect" is in the context of your belief in cosmic law. That being said, your beliefs about the cosmic law (as I currently understand them) assume that a person who is raped deserved to be raped. While you might then say that a victim may not necessarily have deserved to be raped, and that the rapist would therefore get their just deserts, that only makes the cosmic law reactive. Governance, on the other hand, is also proactive and may have prevented the rape in the first place.

Finally, governance isn’t a crutch people cling to without reason; it’s a framework that has evolved because it works to safeguard individuals and maintain social cohesion. Dismissing preferences for governance as mere addiction ignores the historical and empirical evidence that shows how governance has prevented chaos and exploitation, creating stability in complex societies.

I’m glad your plastic bags arrived promptly. I use the environmentally-friendly reusable bags, but I still forget to take them to the shops with me! I have so many now that I think I might just go and chuck ‘em all in the creek.

John,

You're a prime example of a user of misinformation and disinformation on this forum with your frequent false claim that you have already addressed questions. The truth is that you never do so.

You claim that fact checking is a simple exercise, almost mechanical. This is not the case. Albo was annoyed that Australian voters could not be bullied and intimidated into supporting the Voice, blaming the result on a campaign of "misinformation and disinformation". The conduct of the fact checkers during the referendum was highly biased and portrayed legitimate criticism as misinformation and disinformation, almost unanimously supporting the PM's accusations.

It is highly probable that Albo would use the misinformation legislation to silence legitimate criticism with biased fact checking. I'd suggest that the fact checking would be much like the accident investigation done after Chairman Dan and the missus collided with that kid on a bike.

Fester

John Daysh just says 'no' to everything.

ttbn,

If John has legal training he should realise that establishing non-trivial "facts" acceptable to everyone is impossible.

Albo's approach to establishing "facts" via a government agency reminds me of Stanley Milgram using authority figures to coerce test subjects in his famous shock experiments. Using the authority figure convinced about two thirds of subjects to deliver what would have been lethal shocks. I'd reckon that cult leader Albo would be hoping that his truth agency would be equally convincing.

Fester,

This would be about the fourth or fifth time now that you've accused me of never responding to questions despite the fact that I've responded to every one of yours. It's nothing more than an attempt to avoid engaging with my arguments and to create a false narrative through repetition.

//You claim that fact checking is a simple exercise, almost mechanical.//

Where did I say this? I’ve actually said the opposite:

“No, I definitely didn’t make it sound like fact checking was always simple (although, sometimes it is). You even quoted me mentioning that it could take time, and solid media and information literacy - skills that don’t come easily to everyone.”
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10476#364516)

//The conduct of the fact checkers during the referendum was highly biased and portrayed legitimate criticism as misinformation and disinformation, almost unanimously supporting the PM's accusations.//

That’s because his accusations were accurate. Do you have any examples of his accusations that weren’t?

//It is highly probable that Albo would use the misinformation legislation to silence legitimate criticism with biased fact checking.//

Which provisions in the bill would give him the power to do this?

//If John has legal training he should realise that establishing non-trivial "facts" acceptable to everyone is impossible.//

Facts aren’t determined by whether or not everyone agrees with them.

As for your Milgram comparison, equating Albanese’s approach to fact-checking with coercive authority figures in an infamous experiment is a gross exaggeration and deliberately misleading.

Milgram's experiments involved psychological manipulation to test obedience, whereas fact-checking serves to provide transparency and clarity based on objective standards. If you believe fact-checking is coercive or manipulative, it sounds like you're more concerned about being held accountable for your own misinformation.

"Milgram's experiments involved psychological manipulation to test obedience, whereas fact-checking serves to provide transparency and clarity based on objective standards."

No John, both involve using an authority figure to coerce people. Your own conduct in this discussion frequently exemplifies this, such as your proffering a fact check by RMIT as proof of the Uluru Statement being a single page, despite much evidence to the contrary.

Cult leader Albo would use the legislation to suppress legitimate criticism of government policy, just as he would have used it to oppose legitimate criticism of the Voice were it available to him, something you acknowledge by accepting Albo's view of Voice opposition as "misinformation and disinformation". I think it utterly disgusting for Albo to dismiss the referendum result on this basis. He is no better than Trump in this respect.

Having a government define what is truth is an abomination and has no place in a modern democracy.

"your beliefs about the cosmic law (as I currently understand them) assume that a person who is raped deserved to be raped"

You might have considered how long Glenn Hoddle lasted as England's soccer coach after voicing this view about the disabled. The Dalai Lama thinks the same but has kept his job, although the hand of welcome hasn't been extended since he asked that little boy to suck his tongue.

Fester,

No, I linked you to the statement to prove that it was one page. The purpose of my link to the RMIT article was to provide a more thorough explanation of what I was already saying about the distinction between the statement and the accompanying documentation.

So, my “conduct” here doesn’t exemplify anything at all - other than perhaps that fact-checking isn’t as impossible as you make it sound.

//…despite much evidence to the contrary.//

There is no evidence that the statement was more than one page, which is why you don’t provide any. Here it is again:

http://ulurustatemdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/UluruStatementfromtheHeartPLAINTEXT.pdf

//Cult leader Albo would use the legislation to suppress legitimate criticism of government policy, just as he would have used it to oppose legitimate criticism of the Voice were it available to him…//

Again, which provisions in the bill would give him the power to do this? I haven’t “acknowledged” that he would do this if he could, either. Go back and read what I said.

//Having a government define what is truth is an abomination and has no place in a modern democracy.//

Indeed, which is why there are no provisions in the bill that would give the government the power to do this. Can you point me to any? Perhaps I’ve missed them.

John,

"There is no evidence that the statement was more than one page, which is why you don’t provide any."

Spoken like a true authoritarian, but unfortunately Albo doesn't have the power to silence the truth that he doesn't like (yet), so I have the freedom to expose your Milgram like obedience to the cult of Albo.

You can listen to Megan Davis describe the Uluru Statement as a lengthy document in her Parkes Oration (2018) (from about 33 minutes if you don't want to hear the whole thing).

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/bigideas/indigenous-recognition-as-a-step-towards-an-australian-republic/10772592

You could also listen to a lecture that Megan Davis gave about the Uluru Statement from the Heart and its implications in 2019 (from about 14 minutes if you don't want to watch the whole thing).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph23ROLV9I0

Now I am sure that such evidence is meaningless for you John, but it might be of some interest to people who see truth as personal quest that can be freely explored by all humanity rather than a means of political oppression administered by an Orwellian bureaucracy.

Fester,

By relying entirely on Megan Davis’s statement where she refers to the Uluru Statement as being "roughly 18 pages long," you're engaging in a dishonest tactic known as 'quote mining'. You've no evidence at all.

Davis was referring to the additional materials compiled during the dialogues to provide context to the Uluru Statement. Here’s the relevant part her talk on YouTube you linked:

"The Uluru Statement is roughly 18 pages long, and the statement includes the story, the Aboriginal story of Australian history that we compiled over the course of the dialogues."

While she could have been clearer in that moment, she later clarified this distinction on multiple occasions.

The core Uluru Statement remains a one-page document, as Davis and others have clarified repeatedly. The accompanying documentations, including "Our Story" and background documents, makes up the additional pages, but these materials don’t change the fact that the core statement is one page. You’re misrepresenting this distinction in an attempt to confuse the issue.

That link again (I don't think you've had the courage to even click it yet.):

http://ulurustatemdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/UluruStatementfromtheHeartPLAINTEXT.pdf

There you have it. One page.

If you think something sinister was hidden in the supplementary documentation, then please let me know what it is. I won't hold my breath, though.

As for your claim that Albanese would use legislation to suppress criticism, again, I ask: where in the bill do you see language that supports this fear? If you can’t provide specific evidence, your argument remains speculative at best. Here's the bill again:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7239

Dear John,

Physical violence and coercion are only two forms of violence.
There are also other forms of verbal violence and noise too can be violent as it can cause others to suffer greatly.
It may be a matter of degree, but the principle is the same.

My point about history was that "evolution" does not necessary go from simple to complex as it were for the last few Millenia. I believe that history cycles and life will eventually become simple again, though sadly not in my own lifetime. I believe that if anything, there is a positive correlation between simplicity and happiness (thus a negative correlation between complexity and happiness).

Yes, though my view may not be popular nowadays, a person that is raped deserved to be raped because it must have been due to something similar which they did in their past (ditto all other "victims").

Yet woe unto the rapist: had you been able to see the full picture of their subsequent suffering, you wouldn't envy them!
Yes, justice was delivered to the raped and nothing could hinder that justice, but no sensible person wants to be the means by which that justice is delivered.

Governance attempts to be proactive and could at times change the means by which justice is delivered, but as I just explained, had I called the police and they somehow managed to stop the neighbour's motorcycle, then I would incur some other form of noise-based suffering as I deserved, perhaps in the form of a snoring partner, perhaps in the form of tinnitus, perhaps in some other form I cannot even think of right now. Police would then pat their shoulders and think they have done a great job, but truly they were not able to help me.

governance could not prevent chaos and exploitation - chaos because there was never an underlying chaos to begin with and exploitation because those who seem to be exploited, deserved so, and had a specific way of exploitation been blocked, then divine cosmic order could find 1000's of other ways to achieve the same.

[continued...]

[...continued]

I use these soft plastic bags to carry my music, not for shopping:
For shopping I use hard-plastic market-baskets which I brought from Israel - they are sturdy, durable and last for many years.
You can't get them in Australia, so sellers, checkout operators and other shoppers look at them enviably, often asking me where I got them from.

http://www.simhim.com/%D7%A1%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A7_%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A7/
http://www.moussai.co.il/product/%D7%A1%D7%9C-%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A7-%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A7/
http://arcaffe.co.il/product/%D7%A1%D7%9C-%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A7/

Knowing how useful they are and how many others would love to have them, I wanted to import them wholesale (minimum 1000 baskets) from Israel, not for the money, just to do something good, and market-stalls were even happy to be my distributors.

But there is a problem: the baskets are unmarked. They have no "Made In" sign, no trademark, no nothing written. Australian law therefore does not allow me to import them. I even wrote to the appropriate department asking for an exemption, but never got any reply. That is complexity for you... If things were simpler, people could be so much happier!

John,

"By relying entirely on Megan Davis’s statement where she refers to the Uluru Statement as being "roughly 18 pages long," you're engaging in a dishonest tactic known as 'quote mining'. You've no evidence at all."

I'm just giving you some examples of where Megan Davis said that the Uluru Statement was longer than a page. It isn't dishonesty, it is what she said. As such it is evidence. Here is what Megan Davis said in her Parkes Oration (2018):

"A very powerful part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart is that it isn't just the first, like one page statement. It's actually a very lengthy document of about eighteen to twenty pages."

The fact that you acknowledge that such matters as the length of the Uluru Statement are the sort of thing that would be addressed by the legislation I find highly disturbing and excellent reason to oppose it.

Your suggestion that I am being dishonest by believing the Uluru Statement to be longer than one page borders on the psychotic. The thought of Freisler like miscreants such as yourself being given the legal power to censor, threaten and bully people for expressing legitimately formed opinions is truly horrific.

Here is an excerpt from the Daily Mail about the length of Uluru Statement:

"In their newly released book 'Our Voices from the Heart', Indigenous activists and Uluru Dialogue co-chairs Professor Megan Davis and Patricia Anderson explain that the statement is 15 pages'.

'The Statement was drafted and overwhelmingly endorsed by the Convention's delegates,' it reads.

'It is 15 pages long and includes three elements: the one-page pitch to the Australian people; 'our story' of the First Nations history of Australia; and the explanation of the legal reform.'"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12476437/Voice-uluru-statement-albanese-aboriginal-indigenous.html

I'm sure that OLO's resident Justice Freisler will view this link not as evidence, but as yet more dishonesty on my part and further reason to have people like me publicly censored.

Yuyutsu,

Thanks for your reply. I’ll give it some more thought and get back to you.

--

Fester,

Again, quoting someone out of context without acknowledging their full explanation is what’s called ‘quote mining’, and that’s exactly what you’re doing here.

Yes, Megan Davis mentioned the supplementary documentation when she referred to the "18 to 20 pages," but she has repeatedly clarified that the statement itself is one page. Here’s that link again:

http://ulurustatemdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/UluruStatementfromtheHeartPLAINTEXT.pdf

I'm still waiting for you to highlight the sinister changes that Albanese hid in the accompanying documentation.

//Your suggestion that I am being dishonest by believing the Uluru Statement to be longer than one page borders on the psychotic.//

I haven’t suggested that you’re being dishonest by believing the Uluru Statement to be longer than one page. I said that quote-mining Davis’s words is dishonest. Even if I did, though, that still wouldn’t come close to “psychotic”, let alone border on it.

The fact that you’re now resorting to over-the-top comparisons like "Freisler-like miscreants" only demonstrates that you’re more interested in personal attacks than actual debate. I’m not here to censor or bully anyone - I’m simply presenting evidence and addressing your misrepresentation of the facts.

I'm also still waiting for you to point out specific provisions in the legislation that would give the government the power to censor. Throwing around dramatic accusations without evidence doesn’t do anything to strengthen your point. In fact, it weakens it because it reveals just how vacuous it is.

That link again:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7239

Ireland has dropped its Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hate and Hatred Offences) Bill because of public backlash. ‘Backlash’ is not a word you hear in Australia, where democracy is not really valued. Australian politicians don't have to worry about it in the land of noddies.

Most people won't have noticed that the acronym for misinformation and disinformation Bill is MAD. Too busy talking about themselves.

They are probably not aware that the Liberal Party announced their claimed opposition to MAD, officially, only two days ago.

Elon Musk, not politicians, has been the only real protector of freedom of speech: prepared to spend $44 billion to protect speech online. Musk is battling tyrannical governments all over the world, including Australia's regime, which he rightly describes as ‘fascist’.

Politicians fear free speech. They fear the people - though not so much in Australia where the people are as docile as dairy cows, regularly milked of not just free speech, but loads of taxes as well.

The party that used to stand for freedom, the Liberal Party, is also now big on controlling the people rather than serving serving them.

Both the major parties are now at their most dangerous, as the public continues to lose faith in them. They have lost their appeal. All they have left is force.

As one commentator says: “Our country has become the hunting ground of charlatans, criminals, thugs, and ideological zealots – all of whom this bill seeks to protect from public ridicule”.

ttbn,

Interesting comparision with Ireland there. I wonder if the Irish actually bothered to read the legislation before lashing back?

You seem to have elevated Musk to some kind of modern-day freedom fighter, but let’s be real: spending $44 billion on Twitter wasn’t exactly a philanthropic endeavour. If anything, it’s been a masterclass in questionable management and brand damage.

As for Musk’s "fascist" comment, I’d suggest digging into the definition of the term before tossing it around. Criticising governments is fine - calling them fascist for passing bills you dislike (despite not having read it) is another.

And, while you’re at it, you might want to look closer at how "docile" these Australian "dairy cows" really are. The amount of engagement around the Voice referendum shows quite the opposite. Just because people don’t rise up with pitchforks every time someone yells “free speech” doesn’t mean they’re asleep.

As for the loss of faith in the two major parties, I won’t argue with you there. But instead of a vague rant about criminals and zealots, maybe the discussion should focus on facts - like what's actually in the bill you're so worried about.

As with the Voice, the language of the MAD Bill is vague.

Chris Merritt, VP of the Rule of Law institute, says that MAD'S vague language would allow ACMA to become an arbiter of the truth based on “broad and subjective criteria”.

Also, the Communications Minister would have “untethered power” to expand MAD'S reach and exempt certain businesses, “bypassing parliamentary oversight”

John,

"I haven’t suggested that you’re being dishonest by believing the Uluru Statement to be longer than one page. I said that quote-mining Davis’s words is dishonest."

You are accusing me of quoting people out of context. Such an act is dishonest, so yes you are accusing me of dishonesty. The examples I gave contained unequivocal statements that the Uluru Statement was longer than a single page. I engaged in no dishonesty or distortion to convey the meaning of the quoted material other than intended by the authors. Perhaps the subsequent "clarifications" by the authors is the issue deserving scrutiny rather than my honesty in quoting their earlier statements?

The Misinformation Bill will allow specific opinions on a range of subjects, such as the length of the Uluru Statement or whether the Voice referendum violated the democratic principle of equality, to be arbitrarily redefined by a government agency as misinformation or disinformation. People holding such opinions could be prevented from expressing these views on electronic media and face severe penalties should they try to do so. That is an obscenity.

My description of you as a Freisler like miscreant is no more than a reflection of my horror on realising the depth of your deceit and your paucity of regard for the importance of free political expression in a democracy.

ttbn,

Merritt's concerns about "vague language" and ACMA’s role as an arbiter of truth are opinions - worthy of consideration, sure, but opinions nonetheless.

Like most legislation, the bill will be subject to interpretation and oversight. Claiming it gives the Communications Minister "untethered power" is another example of fear-based rhetoric without concrete examples.

If you’re worried about parliamentary oversight being bypassed, how about pointing to specific provisions that actually grant such unchecked power? Otherwise, it’s just more of the same vague alarmism.

--

Fester,

Yes, I’m accusing you of dishonesty, but not for what you believe, as you had said before - it was for your quote-mining.

It’s telling that instead of addressing the core of my argument, you’re continuing to push the Freisler comparison and muddying the waters with yet more alarmism about the bill. But let’s break this down.

First, yes, I did call out your quote-mining because you’ve been selectively quoting Megan Davis without acknowledging the clarifications she (and others) have made repeatedly. Whether you like it or not, relying on those quotes alone is a form of dishonesty, because it misrepresents the full picture. I’m not accusing you of lying outright - I’m saying you’re being intellectually dishonest by refusing to engage with the context.

As for the bill, your description of it seems more dystopian than anything based in reality. Opinions about the length of the Uluru Statement or the democratic principles of the referendum aren't going to be policed by the government. The bill targets deliberate disinformation - organised campaigns designed to mislead the public. There’s a big difference between that and someone having a subjective view.

For the record, comparing someone to Freisler because they call out distortions in an argument isn't just hyperbolic, it's a gross misrepresentation of what’s happening. You might want to reflect on why you feel the need to escalate things that far when we’re simply discussing facts.

"You seem to have elevated Musk to some kind of modern-day freedom fighter, but let’s be real: spending $44 billion on Twitter wasn’t exactly a philanthropic endeavour. If anything, it’s been a masterclass in questionable management and brand damage."

Musk hasn't damaged his brand, the majority of people who use it love it more than ever before, the people that hate it are the woke and the governments who preferred the previous ownership that did their bidding. The governments and the corporate media backed by the woke sell you a narrative that he's damaged his brand, because they themselves are active in trying to damage his brand (preventing advertising revenue etc) and force him to do as they say.

I agree with ttbn, Musk, not politicians has been the only real protector of freedom of speech.
The politicians all want censorship, at best they merely disagree over how much.

Overall I'd say X is much better now than it was as Twitter prior to Musk.

The Albanese government - and the Opposition to a lesser extent - claim that criticism and speaking against their narrative (free speech) is a threat to democracy.

No. They are the threat to democracy, wishing to stifle free speech: dictate what we say, hear and watch. They want to treat us like subjects; take us back to the Dark Ages of serfdom.

It is the politicians who are masters of misinformation and disinformation. They want to keep it that way.

The UNHRC considers that any form of “monitoring and analysis of public online discourse is a form of surveillance ….”, interfering with the right to freedom of speech and opinion.

But the Albanese government, just like the Chinese Communist Party, wants to ignore that.

We know how the CCP ignores any international conventions it doesn't like. It seems that some Australians are too dumb to recognise the same trait in the Albanese government.

John Daysh:

I use Onine Opinion to express my own opinions. I am not going to argue with you. I have no interest whatsoever in what you think about anything. You are the same sort of nitpicker, scold and disagreeable poster as Foxy. Nothing I post has anything to do with you; but if you want to keep making an utter arsehole of yourself, there are a couple of posters who seem willing to keep you going.

John,

"First, yes, I did call out your quote-mining because you’ve been selectively quoting Megan Davis without acknowledging the clarifications she (and others) have made repeatedly. Whether you like it or not, relying on those quotes alone is a form of dishonesty, because it misrepresents the full picture."

Yet another lie from you. I did acknowledge that many people changed their stories, but pointed out that they did this only after cult leader Albo equated thinking the Uluru Statement longer than a page with believing fake moon landing and Q Anon conspiracies on the floor of parliament. What you tried to imply was that I was mis-quoting them, which is not the case. I made no secret of the fact that the stories changed to fall in line with Albo.

From my point of view the length of the statement was of no concern, but the ferocity of argument about the matter demonstrated to me the authoritarian mindset of cult leader Albo, and from that point his revoltingness was no longer hidden from me.

You always seem to be on the same page as cult leader Albo John. Why might that be?

ttbn,

It’s been clear to me for weeks now that you’re not interested in discussing anything with me, but it has never been my intent to elicit a response from you. In fact, it makes things a lot easier for both of us if you don’t respond.

You see, just as you enjoy using Online Opinion to voice your opinions, I enjoy using it to correct false claims.

As an example of this, just imagine some SJW claiming that Europe should sacrifice its many cultures, to atone for its colonial “sins” of the past, by taking in the entire Third World. Would you feel okay about just leaving that sit there unchallenged?

I wouldn’t.

What’s more is that I’ve been very selective in what I respond to from you because your personal attacks suggest that my responses are upsetting to you. Galak’s article, for example, was incredibly simplistic and historically naive, but I chose to leave that one alone.

--

Fester,

You’re trying hard to spin this into a conspiracy about people "falling in line" with Albanese, but it still doesn’t change the fact that you’ve been quoting Davis and others selectively to fit your narrative. You’re accusing me of lying, yet you’ve provided no evidence that I’ve misrepresented anything - aside from your interpretation of events.

Whether or not you believe people changed their stories under pressure from Albanese is irrelevant to the actual point: the Uluru Statement is one page, and the additional material is supplementary. If you want to argue that this somehow reflects a larger authoritarian agenda, that’s your perspective - but it’s not supported by facts.

As for your insinuation that I’m on the same page as Albanese, I align myself with reasoned argument and evidence. If that happens to overlap with Albanese’s stance, so be it. What I don’t align with is baseless accusations and conspiracy theories.

John

"You’re trying hard to spin this into a conspiracy about people "falling in line" with Albanese, but it still doesn’t change the fact that you’ve been quoting Davis and others selectively to fit your narrative."

Unlike all of those who are on the public record acknowledging the Uluru Statement as a lengthy document then changed their stories subsequent to cult leader Albo claiming it was a one page document in parliament, I have made no alteration to my own claims. Could you point me to where any of these entities claimed the Uluru Statement to be a single page before Albo's claim?

"As for your insinuation that I’m on the same page as Albanese, I align myself with reasoned argument and evidence."

One would be as dumb as two sheep not to recognise you as a Labor goon. You fell for the Uluru gambit, but cult members have to agree with their leaders, n'est-ce pas? That's your lot.

The Voice referendum seriously damaged Albo's reputation. Trying to push through this abominable legislation could see him tossed out. Talk about doubling down on stupidity.

https://www.facebook.com/story.php/?story_fbid=958936196053084&id=100058101368558&paipv=0&eav=AfZKmNo8HhG_8seonIHr5nSdv3hIroDv-fZ8AKn5tPOTyl1f8dZ7nsy6TRtsBzcJGmA&_rdr

Fester,

I don’t affiliate myself with any political party. I’ve consistently argued based on evidence and reason, regardless of where the chips fall politically. If the facts happen to align with a particular party’s position, that doesn’t make me part of some "cult." It just means I’m willing to accept evidence over conspiracy.

The article you linked to repeats the same one-eyed concerns we’ve seen from other commentators: fears about government overreach and platforms being held accountable for hosting content that could be labelled "misinformation."

But let’s not confuse this with fact.

As the article itself admits, platforms will be required to provide “reasonable determinations” about whether content is true or false. This is far from the unchecked censorship you’re claiming. Lehmann and others are extrapolating to the worst possible scenarios without addressing the real-world dangers of unchecked disinformation campaigns.

As for your challenge: “Could you point me to where any of these entities claimed the Uluru Statement to be a single page before Albo’s claim?”

The fact that the Uluru Statement is one page has always been clear to those who actually read the document, long before Albanese said anything in parliament. It wasn’t some revelation. In fact, it’s been accessible online since it was first released for anyone to view in 2017. Megan Davis has clarified this multiple times.

Your question only proves that people weren’t paying attention to the facts until the No campaign seized on it to muddy the waters.

Finally, your claim about the Uluru Statement being longer than one page is something we’ve been through repeatedly. The document itself is available for anyone to read - one page with supplementary context. What matters is the content, not the ongoing attempts to create a conspiracy around who said what when. That link again:

http://ulurustatemdev.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/UluruStatementfromtheHeartPLAINTEXT.pdf

Go on. I dare you to click it.

By the way, you still haven’t pointed me to any provisions that would give the government the powers to censor, nor have you pointed to anything sinister in the accompanying document.

Fester,

"Labor goon" really? What does that make you? A Noalition Numbskull, or something worse. You may not agree with John Daysh, his opinions, or his reasoning, but he does put forward a well weighted argument on forum topics. You could become another ttbn and post an volumes of that forum wonder chunder he's so fond of posting!

Hi Paul,

I'd just like us all to keep posting whatever we think, even you, no matter how silly we think one another's opinions. My concern is that the misinformation bill could drastically change things for us all.

We should all have the right to get on our soap boxes and scream! It's cathartic.

Hi Fester,

Even though you're not a progressive like JD, you wont agree on many issues, you both post reasonably sensible opinions, although JD's post to you are robust, they are not offensive, so to call him a Labor goon was not called for.

As for Australian politics, the governments we have, regardless of their political persuasion are moderate governments, Albanese like Morrison before him is a moderate, as I would expect a Dutton led government would be. Australian governments never embark on missions of zealous radical change, rather confining themselves to marginal change through a well established political and social system. The argument always boils down more on emphases than substance.

Hyperthetically,
If I said the government are NAZIs for pushing this MAD bill...
- Would that be misinfo, disinfo, a hate crime, antisemitic, or several of the above?
And what should be my punishment?

$550k for the disinfo, reduced because it's a first offense, and a similar penalty for using the word NAZI, with the judge going leniently on me with a 'stern talking to' for the 'hateful rhetoric' - but only if I do a holocaust education course and publicly apologise for offense caused to any Jewish people?

It's not just MAD, it's getting stupid too.

Armchair Critic,

Doing that wouldn't even come close to being captured by the bill for reasons I've mentioned multiple times now.

1. Calling the government "NAZIs" is an opinion, not misinformation intended to deceive the public with false facts.

2. It's an individual statement, not a large-scale, coordinated efforts intended to impact public discourse.

3. Political opinions in Australia (even extreme ones) are generally protected.

4. The bill doesn't contain provisions to criticism of the government, no matter how offensive.

5. While insensitive, you hypothetical comment doesn’t meet the threshold for hate speech unless it incites harm.

Your hypothetical situation may make for good theatre, but it’s not reflective of how the bill actually works. The only thing "MAD" is the the level of hyperbole over a bill no one has even bothered to read.

That link yet again:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7239

And let that be a lesson to anyone considering posting a comment using a phone.

Around the world, the most common political movement is the threat to freedom of speech. Governments, private companies and NGOs are all at it.

Four years ago, the UK arrested 3,300 people for what they had written on social media - compared with only 400 arrests in Russia for the same ‘crime’.

It could be said that the lower number in Russia was due to the fact that Russia has always been totalitarian, and fewer Russians dare to speak out as they still do in “free” Britain.

It will be interesting to see the figures in Britain in another four years. Closer to the Russian figure is my guess. Everyone in the “democratic” First World should be well under control by then.

Hi Paul,

You pose a very interesting interesting question, fundamental to all of our bickering here: How do we make things better? Via incremental or radical change? It is a question humanity has always and will always face. Radical change carries more risk, but do we always have a choice of how we change things? The industrial revolution rolled on like a tsunami through humanity and we all bear its legacy today.

But fundamental to our humanity is a social dialogue. Without it there would be no change, and the internet has enhanced that dialogue immeasurably. The social dialogue is the means by which humanity engages in the eternal quest for betterment.

I find it extraordinary that government should see benefit in suppressing this dialogue via a bureaucracy of truth diviners. Engaging in social dialogue defines us as human beings and should not be curtailed.

As a practical example Paul, aside from my bickering with JD making me very skeptical of how easy it is to determine disinformation and misinformation, looking at some of the online commentary about the Bill made me think about how just it is to make anyone exempt? If is to be a crime then no one should be exempt.

I just read a bit of this bill.

Government claims to have three aims for the proposed law.

While I disagree with this whole concept of law-making in general, two of these aims are relatively reasonable so I wouldn't worry too much about them: to reduce public-health risks; and to try to maintain economic stability.

The third goal is sinister: they want to maintain social cohesion.

I found this definition:
“Social cohesion involves building shared values and communities of interpretation, reducing disparities in wealth and income, and generally enabling people to have a sense that they are engaged in a common enterprise, facing shared challenges, and that they are members of the same community.”

In other words, first they force us into a "society" without even asking for our consent, a society which they can rule according to their own mediocre-at-best values, not ours, then they attempt to mentally glue us together!

When we are glued together we are helpless and cannot resist them.
When we are glued together we cannot exercise our conscience.

Even if they manage to shut my mouth, they have no power over my mind: I do not share their values, I do not share their interpretation, I am not a partner to their enterprise, I do not share their goals (thus challenges), I harbour no false sense of community - and I do not intend to do any of these.

Without a mind of our own, we are better off dead!

Hi Yuyutsu,

The Bill might even violate article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which Australia is a signatory. Article 7 states:

"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination"

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/commission-general/universal-declaration-human-rights-human-rights-your-fingertips

Dear Fester,

«The Bill might even violate article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights»

Possibly, I am not a legal expert, yet what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil, is not determined by human declarations.

You know what I think of human rights:

We are born with our golden God-given natural freedom, then the state (which is nothing more than an arbitrary conglomeration of people without any divine authority), robs it away and returns to us a few copper "rights" as our "change".

The UN declaration is full of logical cavities and inconsistencies. Suppose we were indeed all equal as humans, which is nonsense of course, then why only humans? Why not also animals, plants and even rocks? We are indeed equal in our underlying divine essence, but the costumes we wear as humans, which include our bodies and personalities, are obviously not equal.

Hi Fester,

'Freedom Of Speech" is a basic human right, but its also one of the most abused rights. At what point does "free speech" turn into "hate speak". Speech is a powerful weapon, and in the wrong hands its a most powerful tool used to do wrong, but in the right hands it does a power of good. Never before has there been the ability to communicate with others to the extent it is today through mass media, particularly television and the internet.

We would both agree that there should be laws, and there are laws, to curb abuse. The dangerous use of lies to vilify others, to engender hate towards others, to create false beliefs about others. BUT, the problem is the ones charged with enacting laws to prevent abuse, our law makers, are often the very one who are advantaged by the abuse of "free speech".

Fester,

The bill wouldn't violate that article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because the exemptions are based on the nature and role of the content rather than any characteristic of the person or group creating it.

An example of the difference here is the fact that professional news is already subject to strict codes of conduct and editorial standards; it is regulated differently but not exempt from oversight. All of this is covered in the Hansard I linked you to.

The Bill aligns with the principle of equal legal protection for all, while balancing the right to freedom of expression. Legislation isn't just cobbled together so haphazardly that some unqualified journalist could spot a gaping hole like that.

Hi Paul,

It is certainly a good idea to deter malicious activity, but I don't see much sense in arresting a fellow for shouting "Who elected him!" at the king's coronation, or even threatening to arrest someone with a blank piece of paper on the basis that they might write something inciteful on it. Much of the criticism I have read of the proposed legislation relates to its vagueness and the inequality of its application. e.g.

ttps://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/opinions/why-misinformation-bill-risks-freedoms-it-aims-protect

Hi John,

"The bill wouldn't violate that article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because the exemptions are based on the nature and role of the content rather than any characteristic of the person or group creating it."

Still, a pleb could get done for reproducing something exempted as educational content. That isn't good. The Law Council of Australia discusses a potential legal challenge:

"15. While the Australian Constitution does not recognise an explicit right to freedom of
expression, the High Court of Australia has held that an implied freedom of political
communication exists in recognition of Australia’s system of representative
government established by the Constitution.20 This is a limited Constitutional
freedom in that its protective scope extends to discussion of ‘government and
political matters’. The implied freedom is not an individual right, but instead restricts
laws that interfere with free communication about government and politics. The
freedom only has practical effect if a properly constituted court determines that
legislation (or arguably an executive decision) disproportionately burdens the
relevant political speech.21 That is, it may be limited by laws that are reasonably
appropriate and adapted to serving a legitimate end in a manner that is compatible
with Australia’s system of representative and responsible government.22"

https://lawcouncil.au/publicassets/5b25938f-d346-ee11-948a-005056be13b5/4410%20-%20S%20-%20Combatting%20Misinformation%20and%20Disinformation.pdf

Good 'day Fester,

I certainly agree with your 2 examples. why arrest those people, that's excessive. I believe, as bad as it might sound, there's needs to be boundaries set. As is often said, along with freedom of speech comes responsibility, using lies to insight hatred for political advantage is one of the oldest tricks in the book. I'm no legal expert, and this legislation does need to be carefully vetted before being enacted, JD has put forward a strong argument as to it merits, it will be debated and hopefully the Parliament gets it right.

Fester,

The implied freedom of political communication in Australia is very specific. It only protects speech related to government and politics; not a general right to free speech. The Law Council of Australia explains that, for a law to be challenged successfully, it has to be shown that it unfairly limits political discussion. The courts would then have to determine if those limits are reasonable and if they serve a valid purpose.

In this case, the Bill focuses on reducing harmful misinformation, not political expression. If someone reproduces content for educational purposes, they should fall under the Bill’s exemptions, provided they aren’t using it to spread harmful or false information. The exemptions are there for professional news, academic, and educational content, which are already regulated by separate codes of conduct and standards.

In short, the Bill is structured to be proportionate and would not violate the implied freedom unless it were shown to be unreasonable in its application.

The MAD Bill is bad enough for the Victorian Bar Association to oppose it. “it is better to fight information with information” than to “coerce” people towards other views”, they say.

ttbn,

Yes, as I mentioned earlier, that would be ideal. But, as I also mentioned, covid (among other recent events) showed us that facts can't compete with disinformation campaigns.

Facts just aren't as exciting as conspiracy theories, and they're far too dry to appeal to people's emotions with. So, that's rather naive of the Victorian Bar Association. They should know better.

Hi Paul,

I was interested to learn that the laws the Brits use were enacted to stop Mosley and his blackshirts at a time when fascism was a great threat to democracy. Ironically Thatcher used them against the coal miners, so ultimately the laws have become a tool of government to suppress political protest.

https://jacobin.com/2022/09/queen-death-monarchy-censorship-free-speech

Hi John,

"But, as I also mentioned, covid (among other recent events) showed us that facts can't compete with disinformation campaigns."

But covid is an excellent example of how difficult it is to define misinformation and disinformation and the considerable harm that can come from decisions that might be thought to be in the public interest. Nick Coatsworth gave an interesting discourse on the matter in the AFR yesterday.

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/a-cure-for-disinformation-that-s-as-bad-as-the-disease-20240930-p5keks

It will be interesting to see if the legal opinion has changed much in the latest submissions. I would doubt that it has.

Hi Fester,

The danger with "free speech" is the rise of extremism, you mentioned Oswald Mosley and how laws were enacted in Britain to prevent fascism. By all accounts Hitler was a great orator and used his right to free speech to influence millions with "hate speak". Joseph Goebbels was Hitler's Minister For Propaganda, holding a very influential position with Hitler, Goebbels probably did more to spread the evils of Nazism than any other person on earth.

Today in our modern society with mass communications though the internet and television etc, a person with access, can influence millions within an instant. My question is; How do you make that person responsible for what they say, and how do you call them out when they lie?

Dear Paul,

A king once went out to his garden and saw his jester running all over with a wet shirt holding a toilet roll. So he asked his jester:

K. Why is your shirt wet?
J. A bird pooed on and stained my best shirt, so I had to immediately wash it.
K. I see that the stain is already gone, so why are you running with this toilet roll?
J. I must now find the bird and clean off its bum!

«My question is; How do you make that person responsible for what they say, and how do you call them out when they lie?»

So you care that much for this poor fellow, that liar, wanting them to become responsible and understand that lying is no good? Wipe their dirty bum that is?

Why not look at your own shirt and how it got stained?

«Today in our modern society with mass communications though the internet and television etc, a person with access, can influence millions within an instant.»

Exactly. Here lies the real problem!
That person has no power to influence me, because I neither do social-media nor have a television.

- Do consider how you got into this mess in the first place.

Hi Paul,

"Today in our modern society with mass communications though the internet and television etc, a person with access, can influence millions within an instant. My question is; How do you make that person responsible for what they say, and how do you call them out when they lie?"

Why the need micromanage everything?
You're telling me were in 1984 and kids need to be corrected on Santa and the tooth fairy.

Why this incessant need to control what everyone thinks.

You can threaten the people with police and fines to the point they self censor, but you can't control what people think, and many will hate you and the country for this new authoritarianism.

I need to get back to John response to my earlier rant, and the questions he laid out for me with some bigger examples.
- So this is mostly directed towards him.

[Cont.]
What if I criticise Israel on merit and that's considered antisemitic?
Do you actually expect me to turn a blind eye to the mass killing of women kids and journalists, when we all know the real game is ethnic cleansing for an apartheid state and land theft.
What the hell does the West even stand for?
What if hypothetically I conscientiously supported Hezbollahs actions, because I think there needs to be some pushback against Israels total disregard for human life?
What if I support things that go against the official narrative 'Russian disinformation' for example. and that these opinions are an extension of my true beliefs, after looking at the facts.
And what if I say the entire Covid thing was built on lies 'wet market' [rolls eyes] and the vaccine manufacturers knew there was side effects, and what if a say 'The Voice' thing was more than 1 page because I saw the full document?

I bet Albo couldn't even define what a woman is if asked.
We've seen the men all stand there blank faced and pee themselves when asked and we've seen it time and again, and they want me to convince me these people have some kind of monopoly on the truth?

Well they don't, but I suppose we can embrace 1984 if that's the way the majority want to go.
Back when 1984 was written, it was said that in the future, the new authoritarianism would come from the liberal democracies.
- Seems true to me, if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this discussion.

'Voice' what about my damn voice?

And what happens if one likes to engage in stories / folklore which can't easily be proven?

This is a story about a bloke who claims to have seen 'creatures' near the Bunyip hole near Rockhampton.

The Bunyip's Gonna Get You! - Dogman Encounters Episode 530
http://www.youtube.com/live/WRWVDbT5K3Q

Is it misinformation or disinformation or folklore?

What if I said the Iranians sought the assistance of the creatures from 'Mars Attacks'
These guys - http://www.amazon.com.au/Mars-Attacks-Jack-Nicholson/dp/0790731452

And that the Nevatim air base housing Israels F-35s were attacked by UFOs and alien creatures, the question is 'Do I need to be corrected'?

And what about people just trying to make sense of what happened after some particular event?

Are they not allowed to engage in theories, when those in charge decide they don't wish to release all the info?

Human beings are going to do what human beings do.
This whole thing is a big can of worms.
Nobody's ever going to be able to understand the rules when some decide that some lies are acceptable, others are not and we all all supposed to know the difference.

Fester,

Thanks for the link. I can’t access it due to the paywall, but I suspect Coatsworth is reiterating what ttbn mentioned he’d said earlier in the thread.

I respect Coatsworth’s opinion as an authority on the handling of the pandemic. But, unless he can elaborate on the mechanisms by which he feels his concerns could come to fruition, that’s all they are - opinions. I have concerns about the Bill, too, but have not yet had the need or the opportunity to express them here due to the level of hyperbole to counter.

(By the way, I find it incredibly ironic that the Bill is becoming a victim of the very thing it is trying to reduce - misinformation.)

What I also have concerns about, however, is the cost to lives and the interference to democratic processes that misinformation and disinformation are having, and this is what virtually none of the commentary is discussing.

We are well and truly living in a post-truth world now where facts don’t matter - only emotions. And there are people on social media making a lot of money and a name for themselves by monetizing misinformation because it’s so easy to tap into people's fears and get them worked up about something.

Facts are dry, boring, and a lot less lucrative - which is why using them to counter organised misinformation campaigns, driven by social media algorithms and public ready to be outraged over something, is proving ineffective.

While the Coalition says that it will oppose Albanese’s M.A.D Bill, Liberal Senator Jane Hume has said yes, they will oppose it, but “will deliver its own policy prior to the election”.

I take that to mean that they will make a different sort of attack on public speech. They are all for replacing parents deciding what their kids can and cannot see; and they are on board with digital ID - type surveillance. And, let's not forget interfering with social media was Scott Morrison’s idea before he got the Big A from the electorate. The Coalition is hiding behind twaddle like “digital safety” and “protection of children”.

Hume (a Liberal wet) said in 2021 that: “Misinformation is dangerous. Ignore those pushing it, like Clive Palmer. Let’s stick to the National Plan, get vaccinated and get back to the lives that we want”. Who would trust her! She supported what has now been proved as misinformation around Covid.

We cannot trust any of the bastards in the Uniparty.

Hi John,

Did you know that you can get the afr smh and age if you are a Logan library member? I think you need only live in Brisbane or Logan.

John,

"Facts are dry, boring, and a lot less lucrative - which is why using them to counter organised misinformation campaigns, driven by social media algorithms and public ready to be outraged over something, is proving ineffective."

Yes, that is your claim, but how true is it? Albo claims that the referendum was defeated by a campaign of misinformation and disinformation, a Trump like allegation of electoral fraud. Maybe people voted no because they didn't like the idea of Australians being treated differently on the basis of their ancestry? The yes campaign also had two pitches, suggesting there would be significant powers to yes voters and emphasising subservience to parliament to no voters. Is that evidence of misinformation and deception? Does it warrant a Truth Bureau? I have argued that a government defining truth is an authoritarian measure for the purpose of coercing people and suppressing opposing opinion.

I also find the statement a bit odd as it would seem to promote a life of crime as being a better economic decision. Don't boring facts form the basis of civilisation and the prosperity it delivers? Perhaps you can proffer a few examples of misinformation entrepreneurs for discussion?

Hi Paul,

"The danger with "free speech" is the rise of extremism, you mentioned Oswald Mosley and how laws were enacted in Britain to prevent fascism. By all accounts Hitler was a great orator and used his right to free speech to influence millions with "hate speak"."

Hitler's rise to power was achieved by a very active suppression of free speech and opposition. The real horror for the world, especially the German people, was that with the authoritarian restriction of free speech as well intensive, targeted propaganda and the indoctrination of children, Hitler was able to become a popular figure in Germany despite leading the people to destruction and destitution. The legacy of hatred of the Nazis remained long after the regime was defeated. It is primarily because of Nazism that I have an extreme distrust of government limiting free speech via a bureaucracy with the ability to make very arbitrary and contested decrees about what is true and what is not.

Hi AC,

I often don't agree with you, but I would be very aggrieved if you or anyone here were censored by this abominable legislation. We might be the peanut gallery, but we are part of the social fabric and government has no business preventing our participation via laws more befitting an autocracy.

The “new” Labor M.A.D Bill has been revealed to be the same as the Bill proposed by Scott Morrison! Labor and Liberal are just echoes of each other:

. surveillance, censorship, digital ID - lockstep
. climate change - lockstep
. slaves to the UN, the WHO, the WEF - lockstep
. mass immigration - lockstep
. big government - lockstep

Good Job ttbn,
- but what point are you going to finally realise that our leaders are nothing but branch managers?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-05/laura-tingle-on-middle-east-politics-and-dutton-albanese-divide/104433752
>>The prime minister said on Friday that "we have worked closely with President Biden and we have signed joint statements with the United States, with Canada, the European Union Italy, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, all calling for a de-escalation".<<

See these 'joint statements', we're part of a 'gang' not 'sovereign'.

Have you seen the movie Lion King
U.S.is the bad lion 'SCAR' and the West are his hyenas.

"We cannot trust any of the bastards in the Uniparty".
You're selling yourself short there
- 'The West cannot be trusted anymore' end of story.

"The Coalition is hiding behind twaddle like 'digital safety' and 'protection of children'. "
- Of course they're going to say that, they're the only valid reasons the public would accept it without pushback.
This way if you object they say 'You're putting kids safety at risk'.
- Everything is about beating you over the head with something, some name some accusation that one is racist, or sexist, or a bigot or xenophobic or something, and they push through whatever they want with limited opposition.
You'll look stupid and are asking to be attacked by opposing it.

With democracies it's the stuff both parties agree on that you have to be concerned about.

Hi Fester,
Thanks for supporting my right to say what I think.
(within reason of course)

I think that when the government and police remain ambiguous on things, keeping details to themselves, then it invites speculation.
They can only whinge so much when their own system invites speculation.

Where's 'transparency' they're all just bs words.

http://www.9news.com.au/national/teens-alleged-plans-to-blow-up-a-university-poison-melbourne-water-supply-foiled-after-fbi-tipoff/dfcfe7f2-7876-4e7f-98b2-2f5bd27105f1
"Some details of the case are not able to be reported on for legal reasons, including his name and specifics of the case."
- The guys 19, he's faced magistrates court.
It should be a matter of public record, why isn't it?
Some bureaucrat will come out and waffle a lot of mealy-mouthed crap saying "It's all about social cohesion"

I don't have the stomach to look at the Liberal Party website, but I am advised that the party still insists a Coalition government will give ACMA bureaucrats stronger enforcement and information-gathering powers to combat misinformation and disinformation online; and Dutton continues to support the totalitarian and foreign import, the eSafety Commissioner.

Some people think that we are ruled, not by elected politicians (they don't even pretend to be our servants anymore) but bureaucrats, whose extreme Left agendas continue no matter who is in The Lodge.

The only solution to our problem with politicians is the removal of the Liberals, Labor and the Greens. But Australians don't have what it takes to give the options a go, so cowered and brainwashed by the Uniparty are they.

No shame. One-time Presidential hopeful, John Kerry, has unashamedly announced to the WEF that freedom of speech stands in the way of the global “elites” implementing their radical ways. Social media is part of the problem: “It's really hard to govern”. Even the US Constitution's First Amendment is a problem. He wants that abolished! It is dangerous to allow ordinary men and women to have the right to speak.

My right to free expression and my response to Albo has been banned already.
I think he deserves a good old NAZI salute. HEIL

Hillary Clinton: "We lose total control" if social media stops censoring content.
http://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1842766408729460873

"The only solution to our problem with politicians is the removal of the Liberals, Labor and the Greens."

Do you see what I mean now?
I don't want to support a different form of government.
But it sure looks our democracy has a 'best before date'.
'Democracy downward spiral' - does the term not hold merit?

I used to be proud of my country, I don't think I am anymore.

AC

There's nothing wrong with the country: it's the people.

The Albanese government has greatly impoverished our democracy and civil society in ways that might never be reversed - if the Liberals are the only option. There are too many bad things left in place when the Coalition gets in. Proof of the Uniparty.

Hi AC,

I've worked and lived, and travelled overseas.
And I've noted how we Aussies differ from the rest.

We're a country that doesn't like disturbances,
valuing stability. We are suspicious of demagoguery.
We have a fondness of long-standing norms and
conventions, but we're comfortable when these are
challenged with merit and through due process.

We've allowed a wide diversity of people but we also
prize the arms-length distance from the world that
our geography allows.

For what it's worth - I strongly feel that we live in
the best country in the world.

I wouldn't live anywhere else. We may be muddlers at times.
But in the end we do get it right.

Hi AC,

I've been in and out of hospitals here more times than
I can count. I've been in rehab in respite, dealt with
all kind of staff and people. I've not had a
bad experience. I'm been fortunate - so lucky. The people
I've encountered have been caring and humane. I can't
complain about anything. As I said - we are so lucky in this
country. We genuinely care about each other and that makes
all the difference in the world.

The greatest resource that any country can have - is its
people. The story of Australia will always be - the story
of the Australian people. Or else the story

The Australian people define Australia, create it,
represent it and make it something to be proud of. Without
our people - we would not be the inspiring, ambitious,
modern nation that we are today.

And to anyone who spits on that? A great big raspberry to
you!
would just be a story of a wide dry slab of rock and some
weird animals thrown in.

Hillary Clinton wants s230 - of the US Communications Act - enabling free speech on the internet repealed. If social media isn't moderated we (Democrats) will “lose total control”, she squealed. Censorship should be at “the top of every legislative political agenda”, she thinks.

Clinton is just an unaccountable loony these days, but there are a lot like her still in power.

The would-be tyrants are not even trying to disguise their vile manias to control people these days. And from Clinton's ranting, we know ‘total’ control is what they want.

Clinton is an American.

We're talking about the bill here in Australia.

Reading it might help.

"Clinton is an American.
We're talking about the bill here in Australia.
Reading it might help."

Hi Foxy,
I think it's fair to say that these censorship changes aren't happening in isolation.

UN Trade and Development
Digital Identity in a New Era of Data Protection
http://unctad.org/meeting/digital-identity-new-era-data-protection

Yes, I probably should read it, sometimes I can be stubborn in my own biases.

Take a look at this:

Peter Dutton backs age verification for viewing online pornography
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/25/peter-dutton-backs-age-verification-for-viewing-online-pornography

While I don't think young kids should be watching porn, I just don't see how you can stop kids accessing it.
And that makes me think this whole entire thing isn't essentially about protecting kids it's about controlling the government narrative.

I just don't see how this thing moves forward without the government ultimately having access and oversight to every click of your mouse or tap of a key on your keyboard, otherwise what would be the point.

Dear Critic,

«I just don't see how this thing moves forward without the government ultimately having access and oversight to every click of your mouse or tap of a key on your keyboard, otherwise what would be the point.»

Then use older keyboards and mouses with older computers!

The book "The Green Hills of Earth" (1947) by Robert A. Heinlein, tells of slaves sold to labour in the colonial poles of the planet Venus (which were marginally inhabitable, unlike the hotter rest of the planet). After some managed to escape their masters, they formed an underground, conducting guerrilla warfare from the marshes they were hiding in. To be able to communicate, they re-invented AM radio, as that technology was already forgotten by their oppressors who only used the more sophisticated FM radio (invented in 1933).

Mind you, the proposed law does not cover only social-media but most internet communications as well (with only few exclusions such as E-mail) - yes, OLO too. That is why the law includes the minister's discretion to exclude platforms, so small and less significant platforms like OLO may be excluded to start, then added later.

One thing we could, for now, do against that law, is to always start our communications with, "The following is not necessarily true: (whatever we want to say}".

Social media is harmful in any case, better without it and better anyway to talk with real people face-to-face.

Hi Yuyutsu,

"Social media is harmful in any case, better without it and better anyway to talk with real people face-to-face."

What then of books, television and the press? You have every freedom to have and express your opinion, even act on it as you see fit, but is it anyone's place to deny participation for everybody on the basis that they consider it harmful?

Hi Foxy,

I'm surprised that the fellow who held a referendum about giving people a public voice now wants to silence mine. Jacinta remarked that a person who has been an Australian for five minutes is as much a citizen as a person with ancestry going back thousands of years. Expressing our diverse opinions on sites like this without the censorship of a bureaucracy should be our right as citizens. Places such as OLO should be our voice.

Hi Fester,

Personally I'm not sure if the length of someone's
life in a country makes them a good citizen. I
think it's what a person feels in his heart. As we
know there were many so called "good " citizens who
had lived in countries for generations who ended up
selling their countries out given the opportunity.

Hi Foxy,

Well said. I can't understand how people can value the concept of equality and then make stereotyped value judgements based on religion and ethnicity. It just seems to promote a "them and us" mentality.

Dear Fester,

«What then of books, television and the press?»

Depends which kind of books, also on the person who reads them.

Television is generally harmful - I don't allow it in my home.

Press for most people is OK in moderation, so one is aware to a certain degree of what goes around them. Too much is toxic, addictive and wastes one's precious life on nonsense.

«You have every freedom to have and express your opinion, even act on it as you see fit, but is it anyone's place to deny participation for everybody on the basis that they consider it harmful?»

With the exception of parents and spiritual guides which one has willingly accepted - my answer is clearly NO. It is not anyone's place to deny others' participation, including in platforms that are actually harmful.

Have I not made this clear enough already?

As of October 9, the Liberal Party's plans for censorship of our speech were still on their website.

The devastating effect of hatred is sadly nothing new.
However the scale and impact are today amplified by new
technologies of communication. So much so that hate speech
has become one of the most frequent methods for spreading
divisive rhetoric and evil ideologies on a global scale.

Violence often starts with words. Words of hatred spread
intolerance, divide societies, promote and endorse
discrimination and incite violence. Freedom of speech is
not absolute. Most civilized Western societies impose limits.
Responsibility has to be taken. There are legal consequences
in many cases.

For anyone really interested in what the Bill will do -
as has already been suggested - kindly read what it entails
before condemning it.

Hi Foxy,

"For anyone really interested in what the Bill will do -
as has already been suggested - kindly read what it entails
before condemning it."

If you weren't feeling so well and had a number of medical tests done, would you seek a medical professional or would you try to make sense of them yourself? Would you try flying a plane if someone gave you the manual? What you might do Foxy is look at some of the submissions made to the Senate about the bill and see what people make of it. I haven't found much expert opinion in support of it, and similar concerns tend to be raised by the bill's many critics. Why dig a hole for yourself?

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/MisandDisinfobill/Submissions

Here is an excerpt from a submission by The Victorian Bar Inc:

"8. Taking those matters in turn, the Bill’s interference with the self-fulfilment of free expression will occur
primarily by the chilling self-censorship it will inevitably bring about in the individual users of the
relevant services (who may rationally wish to avoid any risk of being labelled a purveyor of
misinformation or disinformation).
9. Even leaving aside this effect, it is not at all clear that the Bill is required. It is to be recalled that the
problem of the dissemination of false information online has only relatively recently risen to
prominence and has so far been relatively effectively responded to by voluntary actions taken by the
most important actors in this space. In this regard, freedom of expression on the internet has been
exercised since the 1990s.
10. The Bill’s response to false information thus does not seem warranted. It may even be counter-
productive when one recalls that the purveyors of so-called misinformation and disinformation are
often part of relatively small online communities who are brought together by feelings of isolation
and distrust of the State. The perceived silencing or targeting of these groups is unlikely to address
the underlying social problems animating the dissemination of false information. It is widely accepted
in liberal democratic societies that it is better to fight information with information and to attempt to
persuade rather than coerce people towards positions grounded in evidence and fact"

Hi Fester,

The Senate referred the Bill to the Environment and
Communications Legislation Committee for a report
by 25th November 2024. The Committee received a large
number of material for this inquiry and the Secretariat
is processing this material as quickly as possible.

Submissions will be loaded to the Committee's website in
due course.

There's more at:

http://aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/MisandDisinfobill#:

The Elite's Are Planning To SHOCK The World | Whitney Webb BlackRock Exposed
http://youtu.be/Y7IGso1Uo6k

Digital ID is a global agenda, for use with Central Bank Digital Currencies.
Blackrock - Jews trying to rule over everyone why am I not surprised.
They'll make slaves out of the goyim yet, if they're not already halfway there.

Thanks Foxy. A common criticism was that there was only a week given for public comment on the proposed legislation.

Hi AC,

I'm not sure what you think of the ABC. I get fed up with the political bias at times, but there is a lot of very well researched and presented material that interests me, such as social history programs like this one:

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/the-history-listen/the-history-listen-world-war-german-interness-oscar-blau/104302422

I think programs like the above show that what matters most is the person.

Hi Fester,
I find some of the commentary on the abc tv a little annoying at times, but some stuff is alright.
I read quite a few abc news articles and they're mostly not too bad, except when they're not.
I watched the first episode about the buried tea chests and the Brau family a little wile ago, but haven't watched the second episode yet.
Some lighter content probably do me some good.

Here's an article from the Australian, but it's paywalled.

Misinformation law would help defeat ‘Trumpian’ lies: Davis
http://tinyurl.com/5xdz3d7x
>>The Yes campaign lost the voice referendum after Labor rejected pleas by Indigenous leaders for a misinformation bill that would have helped defeat ‘Trumpian” lies, says advocate Megan Davis.<<

Why is it that some people who have gone to university are as dumb as a box of rocks?
Why is it that people can't comprehend basic things?

This Megan Davis woman would have to be the dumbest person in the country since Yassmin Abdel-Magied put her foot in her mouth back on Anzac Day in 2017.

She's bringing me this product, this change to our constitution, and she wants me to go for it, and vote 'Yes'.
That means she has to sell me on the merits of this thing.

In her mind it's the best thing since sliced bread, but did she even do any due diligence to find out how others would feel about it?
Like non-university non-indigenous.

They couldn't even bring out all the details of the damn thing.

I said Day 1:
'Don't even waste my time if you cannot give me the full details of your proposal, the default answer is no'
'If you want my support then go ahead and earn it'

- I can't believe they blew hundreds of millions on that and were so poorly organised to actually even win.
The entire affair was no better than Peter Garrets insulation debacle.

She failed to sell her product on it's own merits, end of story.
"We could've won if only we could've censored the 'No' side from sharing their concerns publicly'.

People are going to speculate on things when you withhold facts and intentions Megan you stupid moron.

In the end Aussie citizens were skeptical of a proposal they considered was divisive and weren't given the full details of.
It deserved to fail, not succeed.

Her claims of misinformation, are itself misinformation.

I suppose the good news is that sometimes were lucky that were lead by morons.
The outcome could've been much worse if she actually had a brain.

Hi AC,

Education doesn't always equal intelligence, just like wealth doesn't equate to intelligence, not always. Many educated people are intelligent, often in certain fields, Albert Einstein was super intelligent at mathematics and physics but probably couldn't tie his shoe laces without getting into a knot (not true). What people have is talent, and combine that with wisdom then you have a person who can make the right decisions.

Its often believed that better outcomes in decision making are achieved by a committee system, that's why we have a parliamentary democracy in preference to an autocracy, but saying that remember a camel is a horse designed by a committee. In a perfect world the maxim; "Einstein (there's that bloke again) plus an idiot is smarter than Einstein on his own.", that's the committee system. Unfortunately in the real world the idiots often come to the fore, giving truth to another maxim; "Empty vessels make the most noise.", sad but true! Agree? You will if you have ever been on a committee making decisions.

I was once on a Body Corporate Committee, the Secretary was that crazy woman from upstairs, the Treasure was that silly old fool from downstairs, the committee members were the pair of nincompoops from numbers 3 and 5 plus me. Consequently as a committee we managed to waste every cent the owners had in the kitty!

Hi Fester,

I'm sure that with all the inputs and criticisms that they're
receiving regarding this Bill - they'll be forced to pay
attention.

Anyway, we'll have to wait and see.

Adjustments have to be made.

Next time the Liberal Party says it is opposing Labor’s totalitarian censorship (while saying it has its own plans to censor us) just remember that the Morrison Liberals made 4,000 requests to Twitter to censor posts which turned out to be true.

In the meantime, the eSafety Commissioner has conceded that she should NOT HAVE requested that the video of the stabbing of a Bishop be taken down by X. She used significant taxpayer resources in her arrogant stuff up. Another immigrant we could have done without.

It's really bad form to blame entire groups for
individual actions.

Hi AC,

"Some lighter content probably do me some good."

The most relaxed I've ever felt was on a sunny spring day on an island shore. I felt a million miles from civilisation. Listening to talks on cosmology is a nice escape for me as well.

I've been reading through a few submissions and find very little support for the bill, although RMIT Fact Check didn't seem to have much of a problem with it. I note that there is very little about the bill on main stream media, although the IPA found quite a bit of misinformation in the Communications minister's speech in support of the bill:

https://ipa.org.au/research/rights-and-freedoms/some-opinions-are-more-equal-than-others-in-bill

Most of the commentary about the bill is on social media, and many believe this to be the commentary that the bill will target.

I wonder what happened to JD? Came here saying there was nothing to worry about, just read the legislation to realise how benign it all is. Now that there is all the expert opinion raising serious concerns about the implications of the bill JD has taken leave from OLO. He must have better things to do than argue with peanuts like me. Lucky fellow!