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.