"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.