The $6.5 million study that tells us that “age assurance can be done in Australia – our analysis of age assurance systems in the context of Australia demonstrates how they can be private, robust and effective”, might be a load of BS.

This is about the censorship of under 16s on the internet that is exciting the uniparty and odds and sods like the Greens and other authoritarians, as they continue to interfere with parental controls and wreck the family in true Marxist style.

The Free Speech Union of Australia has done some investigating of its own, without a $6.5 million impost on taxpayers.

The FSU has ferreted out information on systems that the Australian Censor will use to do the deed.

. A company called Yoti's thingy allowed 30% of 13 year olds, and 56% of 15 year olds access to “age-gated” content.
. ‘Lucidity’ allows 45% of 10 year olds and 75% of 15 year olds to access “age-gated” content.
. ‘VerifyMy’ allows 30% of 13 year olds and 58% of 15 year old access.
. ‘Unissey’ allows 34% of 12 year olds and 84% of 15 year olds access.
. ‘Privately’ allows 43% of 10 year olds and 87% of 15 year olds access.

And, it seems the systems don't work very well with “coloured” people. Indeed, the existing systems tend to overestimate the ages of Aborigines “considerably”: one 15 year old passing for a 68 year old.

As the FSU concludes, the December introduction of censorsing who can access what might be a “collision with reality”.

(Source: ‘The Pseudoscience of Age Assurance’, Reuben Kirkam, Quadrant Online. 29/7/25)

A quick check reveals The Free Speech Union of Australia is a right wing sovereign citizen outfit, which campaigned strongly against Covid-19 vaccination, and may well be associated with the ultra right The Libertarian Party.

"In September 2022, PayPal shut down the accounts of the Free Speech Union and Toby Young (FSU founder) due to claimed breaches of PayPal's acceptable use policy, believed to relate to alleged misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines."

Of course it is right wing, you idiot. The opposite to your communist trash. Those of us who are right wing are proud to be so; wouldn't be anything else. The 'right' is a fact of life. It opposes the 'left'. Only a thorough-going dimwit thinks there should only be one side - the dimwit's side.

You keeping stating the bloody obvious. If course there is a right wing that opposes the authoritarian left, that everywhere but Australia and Communist China people have had a gut full of.

The right will be back, even if I am not around to see it.

Troll 1405,

Your absurd post also proves that you are a troll. You don't address the topic, but try to put down the source. You could agree or disagree about the topic; but no, your default action as to shoot the messenger. For you, it's not what is said, but who says it. You are a thoroughly reprehensible person.

The source is not creditable, a reactionary extremist group headed up by a person who has been described as a raving lunatic by people of sound mind. The leader of this extreme fringe group, Toby Young, an Englishman calls himself, "Lord Baron of Action".

As for the threads author, the bloke who for years has been making 100 posts a week a must do on this little forum, has nothing better in his state of boredom. The bloke shows how unintelligent he really is, by launching into a tirade of abuse at me; idiot, communist trash, dimwit, troll. Many of the knowledgeable posters have given up on this old fella, calling him out, now seeing him for what he is, just uneducated trying to mix it with much smarter people.

Troll,

I regard you as being not credible and a raving lunatic. You are a great one to say that about anybody else.

You are the last of 3 initial wackjobs that has been hanging around OLO since it started. There have always been 3 of you: the latest being you, Armchair Critic, and John Daysh.

I have nothing better to do? What about you? You hang onto every word. You are obsessed with me, you sicko.

And, you get abused only by people you have yourself abused in the first place. You get what you give in this world, buster.

Uneducated? You can't even spell properly. You have told everyone that your son is a bus driver. If kids do better than their parents, what were you? A street sweeper?

Your problems with the English language suggest that you would have struggled to finish primary school.

Now, bugger off. You have had all the time I am prepared to waste on a nasty lout like you.

It seems negative partisanship is quite the trend among those on the right. It must get exhausting and confusing, though, ironing out all the inevitable contradictions that come with such an illogical decision-making process.

So exhausting, apparently, that this Reuben Kirkham character couldn't even be bothered figuring out how to frame the online protection of minors as "censorship." He just asserts that it does so in passing at the start of the article.

As for the data? Yes, Paul was right to be sceptical. The data is as suspicious as it is context-free.

The figures quoted by ttbn don’t appear in the official $6.5m Australian age-assurance trial report, nor in any transparent vendor documentation:
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/aatt_part_a_digital.pdf

And even if such numbers exist, without context - sample size, threshold, fallback systems - they’re meaningless. Age estimation is probabilistic, not binary, and governments use layered safeguards precisely because no single system is perfect. Cherry-picking unsourced numbers turns nuance into scare-mongering.

Yes, facial analysis can misestimate minority groups - and the government report acknowledges this, stressing the need for more inclusive training data. Researchers and civil rights advocates treat this as a problem to fix (http://www.esafety.gov.au/industry/tech-trends-and-challenges/age-assurance).

But here, misestimates of minority groups are only mentioned to weaponise outrage. The concern ends at how this can all be framed to make the current government look bad.

The moral of the story here is to choose a neutral, non-partisan source for your data. For the information illiterate out there, it's the kind that declares conflicts of interest, applies consistent standards regardless of political alignment, and is open about the methodology used.

We're not stuck choosing between the two extremes of communist and fascist.

The FSU is a notorious activist outfit with a track record of conspiracies and grievance politics. It doesn’t publish peer-reviewed work, declare funding sources, or show methodology. It exists to misinform and enrage, not to educate or warn.

Hi Paul,
'campaigned strongly against Covid-19 vaccination'
Well that's not a bad thing. I'm probably the only one here sensible enough to say 'no' to that poison.

Hi ttbn,

"Of course it is right wing, you idiot. The opposite to your communist trash. Those of us who are right wing are proud to be so; wouldn't be anything else. The 'right' is a fact of life. It opposes the 'left'. Only a thorough-going dimwit thinks there should only be one side - the dimwit's side."

If the other right-wingers all jumped off a cliff, would you do that too?
Personally I look at the balance of policies, and fyi there is only one side, when your side wanted us to vote for death.

LNP - Israel all the way, Dutton made that clear.
The right are the religious genocide hypocrite party.
And the left well, they are the party of gays and women and immigrants.

"You keeping stating the bloody obvious. If course there is a right wing that opposes the authoritarian left, that everywhere but Australia and Communist China people have had a gut full of."

The right exists to stick it to the left.
The left exists to stick it to the right.
They tend to stuff everything else up, and we the citizens get a steaming pile of weasels that can't agree on anything and rarely have the nation as a whole in its best interests.

Democracy downward spiral / Check best before date

"The right will be back, even if I am not around to see it."
- They are in self-implosion mode, they can't decide whether or not to boot their conservative base and become more moderate to win inner city seats, because if they don't they're out of the game.

Thanks for screwing things up, for Israel.
Like I support mass immigration and transgender toilets.

ttbn, the only sensible thing you have said so far is; "I (ttbn) am not around to see it" We can only hope for such a small mercy.

John, yes I am sceptical of anything put up by The Free Speech Union of Australia, as I believe their agenda is not to inform, but to mislead, the aim being to satisfy their own agenda.

AC, with hindsight, I agree there were many mistakes made by government during Covid, Australia was not alone in that regard. Just as there is in any war, requiring quick response, mistakes are made, Covid was no exception. What government is bad at is quick reaction, and Covid required quick reaction, given that our representatives are not particularly gifted with exceptional knowledge, and they rely on expert opinion to determine the course of action moving forward. When politicians are left to go it alone, there will be many bad decisions, and many bad mistakes made. That's what happened with Covid, but overall we got through it, millions didn't.

Hi Paul,
"What government is bad at is quick reaction"
So what does that mean?
Democracies perform poorly under pressure?

I read a couple of paragraphs of ttbn's quadrant article, I wish he'd just add links in his opening comment.
Honestly, I couldn't read any more than that because the entire concept seems ridiculous and completely unworkable to me,

I'm not sure who the biggest fool is, was it the person who came up with it (age estimation) or the person who decided to sign off on funding it?
They deserve to have their heads knocked together.

So the poor younger looking kid turns 16 all excited on their birthday,

'Yay! I can get back on Snapchap and TikTok'
- All smiles, goes to log on 'So sorry we estimate that you won't be 16 for another 18 months'
Geez, I'd hate to be mum on the end of that mess to start off 16th birthday celebrations.
What next?
Maybe the kid goes down the Transport Department to get it's learners permit, 'Yay, I'm 16 now! I'm going to be able to drive a car!'
'Sorry our facial recognition AI estimates that you won't be 16 for another 18 months'

Seriously, what a bunch of f---heads.
Sorry for the language [as in - sorry / not sorry]
but I just don't know what else to say.
Who comes up with this stuff?

Speaking of online censorship.
Turns out all this TikTok owned by China business, is really all about Israel losing influence amongst US conservative youth, which is a serious issue for Israel.
And Trumps got a sale all lined up to his Jewish businessman mates, I'm sure the frightening images from Gaza will be the first thing censored.
- For the USERS OWN SAFETY of course.
'We're here to protect you, what BS'
Algorithms promoting holocaust museums instead...

They can't even stop kids watching porn, it's all a load of shite.
The info about TikTok's in the following video at the 13 min mark.

Max Blumenthal : Iran Fully Prepared.
http://www.youtube.com/live/Kap9aIdqaiw

I suppose it behoves me to thank Troll 1405 and Armchair for their continuing interest in my posts, and their revealing comments. Although Troll says that some posters have “given up on this old fella”, he is not one of them - always jumping in, pouncing on my every word. And, the time Armchair puts in on my behalf … on and on. … sometimes three or four posts together (although that could be because he can't count to 350).

So, thanks boys

Hi AC,

"What government is bad at is quick reaction"
So what does that mean?

Government (parliamentarians/our representatives) need to be well informed before they can make well judged decisions. In a rapidly changing environment, such as a war, or a pandemic etc, there is no time for the bureaucracy/experts to give that quick advice, it takes time, a luxury they don't have under the circumstances. Our style of government is desired to be run by a slow moving apparatus, politicians, bureaucrats, functionaries, experts etc, its a very slow moving juggernaut.

Democracies perform poorly under pressure?

Yes, under extreme pressure government can become chaotic as competing forces try to assert their authority with their differing opinions, arguments and complete chaos ensues, with no effective government in control. That's when strong leadership is called for, I call it the "Julius Caesar" effect, a strong leader who can make the right decisions quickly under pressure. The Romans actually believed a dictatorship was desirable, even necessary for the greater good under those circumstances.

There's no point arguing about it. The government and their authoritarian flying-monkeys always favour censorship and they've hit on something they can sell to a gullible public. Whenever you hear people claiming its "all for the kiddies" you can be sure the welfare of the kiddies is least of their concerns. You can be sure that when these new measures fail to achieve the level of censorship they desire, new measures will be already at hand.

Just go and get your VPN and by-pass their authoritarian policies. Not for ever mind you because eventually they'll come after VPNs as well...for the good of the kiddies, mind you.

mhaze gets it. The communists don't care about children; they want to control them earlier. Child-minding factories are now called 'early learning centres' - more correctly early brain-washing centres.

The family has always been feared by the Left. Take the kids away from their mothers and fill their heads with dangerous rubbish. So, they don't actually tear babies from their mothers' arms. They just make it too hard live off one wage. It is no less crucial for a child to be with its mother - full time until the age of 5 - now, than it was when Australia was a decent place to live.

mhaze,

Thanks for going where no one else seemed to dare - not even the author of the article ttbn referenced in his OP.

It's one thing to be concerned about where legislature will go with a particular form of technology, but to claim that censoring us was the primary goal from the outset is next-level crazy. In other words: the government is lying about its intentions, and child safety is a Trojan horse.

But for a claim that serious, and that sinister, you’d expect some evidence. A leak, a memo, a whistleblower, an internal comms strategy.

Anything!

This talking point has been around for years, but I’ve never once seen a case - in any liberal democracy - where a child protection measure was exposed after the fact as being designed for broader, unrelated censorship. Even the UK’s Online Safety Act, arguably the most controversial recent example, was openly debated, criticised, amended, and is now being legally challenged - not a stealth operation.

Same for our eSafety regime. Heavy-handed? Arguably. Misguided? Perhaps. But a covert censorship plot? Not unless you define “plot” as “policy you disagree with.”

The only country where your theory fits cleanly is China - and even then, their censorship is not hidden. They say the quiet part out loud.

So unless you’ve got something more than vibes and suspicion, it seems you’ve confused emotional marketing with actual conspiracy. Politicians will always frame their laws in the most palatable terms. That’s not proof of deceit, it’s PR. And it’s not unique to child protection. “National security” and “economic stability” are used the same way.

There’s a vast difference between:

- A law that’s politically popular but poorly designed,
- A law that overreaches and needs safeguards,
- And a law that’s deliberately sold under false pretences to disguise a censorship agenda.

You’re asserting the third. But all the evidence and lack of precedent suggests the first two.

If you’ve got something concrete, by all means share it. Otherwise, this just sounds like another case of assuming malice where incompetence - or policy disagreement - would suffice.

I remember the Internet Safety Commissioner (I think the Internet Safety Commissioner should be called the Commissioner Against Free Speech in contradiction to perceived Orwellianism's) and the Prime Minister or someone else talking about the "new social media age restrictions" and how they will be implemented. They took great pains to point out that they are against using the new child protection protocols as a ploy to undermine anonynymity. However my experience of Youtube "is" using child protection as an excuse to force users to use odious means to prove their age giving the message "Sign in to confirm your age. This video may be inappropriate for some users". This message seems to predate or predict the legislation. Not sure why.

Maybe this idea has been floating in global Woke Marxist circles for a while.

These extremists with their conspiracies, everything a progressive government does is some how concocted as Orwellian in nature with a hidden agenda. Just let these extreme nut job take over, then you will see how brain washing and social control becomes the order of the day. The Hitler Youth will never be dead with thee guys.

CM

They are certainly not censorsing to save children. Their only interest in children is to get them into brain-washing facilities (aka child care) to shape their minds before the age of 5, when they are not being preyed on by paedophiles, left in dirty nappies, or left alone while an “educator” (as they are now calling child-minders) has a stress break.

Any idea who Troll 1405's “Hitler Youth” are? Can't be us “old farts”.

Canem Malum,

The YouTube age-gating you describe has been around for years - long before this current legislation. It wasn’t predicting laws, it was reacting to them.

YouTube (and its parent Google) have been fined repeatedly in the US and EU for breaching child protection laws. That’s why they rolled out “confirm your age” screens - it’s liability management, not prophecy.

And it’s worth drawing a line here. A platform policy =/= government legislation. YouTube tightened its own rules under pressure from regulators around the world. That doesn’t make it part of a global “Woke Marxist” conspiracy - it makes it a corporation doing whatever it takes to avoid another billion-dollar fine.

Finally, let’s be honest: if YouTube didn’t implement any age gates, the same critics would be accusing them of flooding kids with porn and violence. Platforms can’t win - and that doesn’t automatically mean it’s some covert censorship project. Sometimes it’s just the messy middle ground of child safety, liability, and PR.

And as for throwing “Woke Marxist” into every complaint - it doesn’t make the point stronger. It just makes what could be a serious civil liberties discussion sound like a parody of itself.
_____

ttbn,

How exactly are childcare centres supposed to brainwash children? And with little more than nap mats and picture books at that?

Sounds as miraculous as the universities' ability to brainwash their students, while simultaneously teaching them how to assess claims critically - and even testing their ability to apply these skills.

Anyway... since it sounds like you have the evidence of foul play that mhaze doesn't, perhaps you could help him out and share it with us all?

"The FSU has ferreted out information", ttbn did they use a Ouija board, or did they rely on their stock standard Crystal ball?

Nah ttbn, its not the Hitler Youth for you, more like the Volkssturm.

Kudos Kid, when are you going to give up claiming everything you don't agree with is the work of the Woke Marxist!

"preyed on by paedophiles", What's this! has the conservative Catholic Church taken over the pre-schools,with an Archy Pell lurking in every one

Hi John Daysh
"...but to claim that censoring us was the primary goal from the outset is next-level crazy."

Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
I tend to stand with the others on this.

Whats needed is a FOI request to see data on the exact content that has been targeted for removal on social media.
Is it largely content inappropriate for kids, or something other than that?
Is what they are currently removing consistent with the reasons given for censorship?

Both sides may have their own quiet reasons 'other than kids' for supporting censorship.
The left may fear the rise of populist leaders, or the right openly questioning their progressive agendas.
The right may fear anything anti-Semitic and the promotion of progressive agendas.
Beyond that, wars are on the horizon, and the information war for the people must be shaped.

Armchair Critic,

Everyone faces hardship, yes, but let’s not pretend all discrimination is created equal. It's frustrating to be judged superficially when applying for a job, but it’s not the same as being systematically denied fundamental needs.

That’s the difference between everyday misfortune and structural inequality.

You mention quotas and suggest they disadvantage "straight white males." But for most of modern history, being a straight white male was the quota. It’s only when the playing field starts to level that some interpret fairness as an attack. In reality, quotas aim to counteract unconscious bias and open doors previously closed. Successful applicants still need to be unqualified, though.

On the surface, DEI just looks like another form of discrimination - only in the other direction. I get that. However, DEI measures:

- are a bias that we're actually conscious and in control of.
- surface overlooked talent.
- promote productivity, creativity and profitability.
- and most importantly, they aim to ultimately render quotas unnecessary and naturally render themselves increasingly obesolete over time as biases fade (whereas unconscious biases are self-perpetuating).

Inclusion doesn’t cause disunity. Exclusion does. If the presence of different people - culturally, sexually, religiously - feels threatening, the problem isn't diversity. It’s fragility. Unity doesn’t require uniformity. It requires maturity - the ability to coexist with those who aren’t just like us.

Regarding religion, yes, there are conflicts between some views and LGBT rights. That’s why we differentiate between personal belief and public responsibility. We’re free to hold any religious beliefs we like, but that doesn't mean we should have the right to impose them on others in shared spaces.

As for free speech, being expected to not hurt others or incite division isn’t censorship - it’s civilisation. Expecting people to moderate their words in the public square isn’t about silencing them, it’s about choosing to live in a society where dignity and peace matter more some boofhead's freedom to announce his ignorance to the world.

You say you want unity, but it can only start with inclusion. That should actually be quite obvious, when you think about it.

Damnit, wrong thread. Sorry. I'll post in the correct thread.

Armchair Critic,

FOI requests are fine, and transparency is always good, but let’s be clear: Kirkham never actually explains how this is censorship. He just drops the word in his opening line, then spends the rest of the article listing technical failings.

If you’re going to call protecting children "censorship," you need to show how it silences everyone else. He doesn’t.

//Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.//

That might apply to religion, but with conspiracy theories it’s the opposite - the truth is almost always more boring. People are too selfish to devote their lives to a grand plot, and far too disorganised to pull one off without leaving evidence behind.

If you went into politics, I suspect you’d find not a secret cabal, but a bunch of people just in it for themselves, watching the clock and thinking about the weekend.

Furthermore, why would politicians deliberately ruin the country their kids will inherit, just for a fleeting tactical gain? Then there's the 'risk vs reward' imbalance - the risk of being exposed in a grand censorship scheme (career destroyed, possible prison) massively outweighs the tiny political "advantage" of keeping a few critics off social media.

Conspiracy theories like this collapse under their own weight.

And the idea that "both sides secretly want censorship" is just speculation - a placeholder you can use to explain away anything. It doesn’t fit reality: if conservatives really wanted censorship, wouldn’t they be championing these systems instead of attacking them as pseudoscience?

What we’re actually seeing here is negative partisanship: the right opposes the policy mainly because the left supports it, or because it’s the Albanese government proposing it.

The right are quick to campaign for the removal of LGBT literature from school library shelves in the name of protecting children, but a method of protecting them from developmentally harmful online platforms that won't even alienate entire minorities in the process?

Not on your life!

At least not if Labor's proposing it, anyway.

I agree with many of your logical points.
It feels like the same kind of argument I've had with people who from time to time tried to convince me the world was flat.
- And I'd say what about the tides, what about the shape of the moon, and wouldn't all the worlds airlines pilots have to be in on it and keep the secret?
- But logic never gets in the way of their flat earth beliefs.

I'm not saying I think the politicians are in on a deliberate conspiracy.
I'd probably argue the pollies are merely branch managers and its probably sold to them as being for the protection of kids, I doubt they know any better.

I've always said from the start that everyone will have to provide ID to use social media with these policies, it's all just slowly taking us all to digital ID. You can bet the government and/or intelligence agencies want real time access to everything we say and do, and to be able to access and collate all an individuals life data from one place.

If it had nothing to do with protecting kids and was done at the advice of intelligence agencies i.e 5 eyes, would Albo tell us?
- Doubtful.

Tony Blair Institute for Global Change

Digital ID - What It Is and How It Works
http://institute.global/digital-id-what-is-it-and-how-it-works

"Digital-ID systems improve governance, facilitate greater inclusion, fuel economic growth and help governments achieve their core goals. Far from enabling greater surveillance, digital IDs can actually make information more secure. Beyond their public-sector benefits, they also allow citizens to interact more safely and smoothly with private-sector institutions. They are a critical component of a reimagined state fit for the 21st century.

Safely storing identifying information in a digital wallet enables individuals to securely verify their identity and other attributes in an interoperable manner that streamlines processes, reduces fraud and ensures that services reach those who need them most. From accessing benefits to applying for jobs, the potential applications for these verifiable credentials are enormous."

TBI feels like Clinton Foundation reinvented.

TBI funded by Billionaire Larry Ellis, who is connected to CIA
http://www.lighthousereports.com/investigation/blair-and-the-billionaire/
Ellison invested $130 million in the TBI between 2021 and 2023, with a further $218 million pledged since then. The scale of funding took the TBI from a headcount of 200 to approaching 1,000. Blair himself takes no salary from TBI but over this time the institute has been able to recruit from bluechip firms like McKinsey and Silicon Valley giants Meta. In 2018 before the Oracle founder’s funding surge, TBI’s best-paid director earned $400,000. In 2023, the last year where accounts are available, the top earner took home $1.26 million.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2025/09/26/tony-blair-larry-ellison-ai-influence-nhs-data/

Larry Ellison co-founded and owns a majority stake in Oracle, making him the largest shareholder of the software giant. He serves as the Chairman and Chief Technology Officer of the company, which he started in 1977 and grew into a dominant force in the database and cloud computing markets.

What is the relationship between Oracle and CIA?
They developed a company called Software Development Laboratories (SDL) whose main product was the Oracle database, named after a project they were asked to develop for the US Central Intelligence Agency.

"Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."

Lavrentiy Beria

JD would have you believe it benign and beneficial. It isn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho8Tde3vhBQ

Hi Fester, no it's not is it.

JD's worldview seems to focus on inclusion.
'Inclusion doesn’t cause disunity. Exclusion does.'

My worldview maybe seems to focus more on 'The causes (and consequences) of conflict'.

Someone once said that getting the ethnic mix right is like making concrete.
Too much of one or the other ingredient, and the concrete will be either too soft or too brittle.

Ethnic mixing is ridiculous and dangerous. People seem to have forgotten, or never heard of, natural law, and the fact that different people were put in different places around the world from the very beginning. It's only Godless meddlers and self-servers who have altered the perfectly good arrangement.

I know. I know. There's little point in telling numpties this when it's far too late to stop it, even if there was a will to do so.

Hi AC,

I think of the matter more generally. Recent calls for censorship came from claims of misinformation campaigns, as per the Voice referendum defeat and more recently the slow pace in achieving net zero. Long ago East Germany blamed its economic under-performance on a misinformation campaign by "the west". It used this as justification for establishing the Stasi, much to the relief of unemployed Gestapo agents who had been twiddling their thumbs since Hitler's downfall.

Censorship does have a place protecting the vulnerable, but the government's push for censorship has been more a matter of suppressing public criticism and scrutiny of its policy, which is undemocratic.

The latest atrocity comes from the Australian Human Rights Commission that wants "misinformation" about climate change interfered with.

They seem to have come to the obvious conclusion that the supposed cause of climate change, fossil fuels, is a massive con job, that more and more people are realising it, and their opinions must be censored to allow government to continue their wrecking of the Australian economy in favour of money-grubbing foreigners whose own countries have woken up to the scam.

The AHRC is totally useless when it comes to protecting freedom of speech - just the opposite, if its latest splutterings mean anything.

Armchair Critic,

I appreciate that you’re not saying there’s a deliberate conspiracy. That's where others here had departed the realm of reasonable commentary and into that of the batshit crazy.

Yes, privacy and surveillance are always worth scrutinising. That’s why transparency, independent audits and privacy-by-design matter. But there’s a big difference between "we should make sure this can’t be abused" and "this is secretly being done for an intelligence agenda." One is a real, evidence-based debate; the other is speculation.

The age-assurance trial isn’t some hidden Five Eyes program - it’s a public process with published reports, privacy testing and stakeholder input. If the government wanted a covert digital ID scheme, this is about the worst possible way to do it.

By all means, keep pushing for privacy safeguards. But let’s not assume a secret plan where there’s only a messy but public policy process.

_____

Fester,

That Rebel News clip is about a protest arrest in the UK. Whatever you think of it, it has nothing to do with Australia’s age-assurance trial. Citing Rebel News - whose whole business is outrage-fundraising - doesn’t make Kirkham’s case any stronger.

Your Stasi comparison ia hyperbole. East Germany ran secret police in a closed dictatorship. Australia’s trial is a public, transparent process with published reports and reviews. They’re not remotely the same thing.

If you’re worried about privacy or digital ID creep, fair enough. That’s a legitimate debate. But framing it as "the Stasi" or leaning on Rebel News anecdotes isn’t evidence, it’s just rhetoric.

John,

When Albo referred to the failure of the Voice he blamed the failure on a campaign of misinformation and disinformation, as did East Germany with their economy. BTW, East Germany was a democratic republic. I don't ever remember them referring to themselves as the Communist Dictatorship of East Germany. It gives me chills whenever I hear government talking of cracking down on misinformation and disinformation.

"Whatever you think of it, it has nothing to do with Australia’s age-assurance trial." The link was about a young kid being hauled over the coals because of expressing his opinion against government policy. Meanwhile Keir Starmer used the party conference to attack Nigel Farage (David Lammy suggested that Farage flirted with the Hitler youth when younger). Albo was an honoured guest there. Do you imagine that he won't try to follow the example? One rule for the pigs, another for the other animals. Albo already has form for trying to suppress public freedom under the guise of providing protection.

"I appreciate that you’re not saying there’s a deliberate conspiracy."
- Well I'm not saying there isn't a deliberate conspiracy, and I did in fact say I tend to stand with the others that I don't believe online censorship is simply 'all about the kids'.

What I'm saying is that if there was a deliberate conspiracy, there would only be a handful of people in the know, start here:

'In Australia, responsibility for intelligence is shared, with
the Prime Minister overseeing the overall National Intelligence Community (NIC) through the Office of National Intelligence (ONI), while the Minister for Home Affairs is responsible for the domestic intelligence agency, ASIO, and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, Richard Marles, oversees the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD)'

Censorship is not the same as surveillance, but the 2 come together with a Digital ID.
I can't see these age-estimation products using facial recognition as being accurate or workable.

The website also says they are also looking at age verification.
https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions

They need to stop under 16's from accessing social media and under 18s from accessing porn.

Google AI says 'companies will need to implement their own methods, such as detecting and deactivating underage accounts'.
I can't see how any social media company can do that without some kind of age verification for ALL users, as all users would need to be assumed to be underage until proven otherwise.

That's because it was, Fester.

//When Albo referred to the failure of the Voice he blamed the failure on a campaign of misinformation and disinformation...//

We've already been through that.

//...as did East Germany with their economy.//

Yes, and when governments talk about "national security" or "economic stability," they’re not automatically enacting a dictatorship either. Simply using the term "misinformation" doesn’t place a government in the same league as East Germany. The comparison is lazy.

//BTW, East Germany was a democratic republic.//

That doesn’t mean any government that uses the word "republic" or expresses concern about misinformation is secretly following the same playbook.

//It gives me chills whenever I hear government talking of cracking down on misinformation and disinformation.//

I can't relate, but a chill isn’t a substitute for evidence. In Australia, we have public consultation, published frameworks, judicial review, and robust media scrutiny - none of which existed in East Germany. Alarm bells are useful, panic buttons are not.

//The link was about a young kid being hauled over the coals because of expressing his opinion ...//

No, the 17-year-old was arrested first under Section 14 of the UK’s Public Order Act for allegedly failing to leave a protest zone (which he disputes) and later charged with inciting racial and religious hatred for a video calling for the deportation of migrants. That’s not just "expressing an opinion," it falls under the UK's hate speech laws. Whether you agree with those laws or not, you’re omitting key context to re-cast this as pure political persecution.

//Meanwhile Keir Starmer used the party conference to attack Nigel Farage ... Albo was an honoured guest there.//

So now we’re holding Albo accountable for comments made by Lammy in the UK? That’s guilt by association. You’ve presented no evidence that Albanese agrees with Lammy, let alone that he intends to "follow the example."

//Albo already has form for trying to suppress public freedom under the guise of providing protection.//

Yes, we've been through this too - no one could explain to me how the bill would actually have such effect. So no, he doesn't.

If the only way it can be done accurately which is workable is age verification, then doesn't that then really mean identity verification, for all users?

Age verification is identity verification, and how can you verify an age if there isn't a pre-existing database with an existing identity to check it against?
If it's not checked against a pre-existing database with an existing identity, then can forged documents be produced by kids or others and be accepted as age verification?

I'll bet 'age-verification' actually becomes 'identity verification' for all users, and all sold to you to 'protect the kids', who can say no to protecting kids?

From your other thread ttbn
Communications Minister Anika Wells attended the 'Protecting children in the Digital Age' conference at the UN in New York.

Protecting children in the Digital Age - PM Albanese Address
http://www.pm.gov.au/media/protecting-children-digital-age

He closed his speech with this:

It is now my honour to introduce a true inspiration.
Someone who has found the courage to channel her grief into the most profound and powerful call for change.
Her story personifies why we are here.
Please welcome, Emma Mason.

Emma Mason shares her daughters story on 702 ABC Radio Sydney
http://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/sydney-mornings/emma-mason/105821342

I have mixed feelings about her story.
Obviously I feel devastated for her as a mum losing her daughter Tilly
But despite the bullying I can't help thinking that
'It's a parents job to ensure your childs physical and emotional wellbeing'
Why didn't her kid come to her?
Why wasn't she there for her kid?

It seems shes been copping a lot of flak from other parents for this ban she has helped bring about.
They say when it's introduced that it's anticipated kids might play up for up to 3 weeks. I'm not sure what the right age is for kids on social media, the kids can be pretty ruthless with bullying and threats towards each other nowadays.
I turned 15 in Grade 10.

"So now we’re holding Albo accountable for comments made by Lammy in the UK?"

No, but he does bear some responsibility for the company he keeps, and the behaviour of his mates at the conference was revolting.

"No, the 17-year-old was arrested first under Section 14 of the UK’s Public Order Act "

Yes, I'm sure you know all about the kids thoughts, conduct and motives, yet you seemed to draw a complete blank about Kirk's killer, and the irony of the same police protecting protestors calling for genocide seems to escape you as well.

"no one could explain to me how the bill would actually have such effect"

There was widespread opposition to it, and your belief that defining truth was a simple matter might explain why you had no issue with it. That you also thought the net zero rollout to be hampered by "misinformation and disinformation" would suggest that you are not a great believer in democracy. You seem more in favour of suppressing free speech to facilitate progress. I think that a surefire way to failure.

"If the only way it can be done accurately which is workable is age verification, then doesn't that then really mean identity verification, for all users?"

Well said, AC. A MAD bill by stealth.

Armchair Critic,

//If the only way it can be done accurately which is workable is age verification, then doesn't that then really mean identity verification, for all users?//

Not necessarily. That depends entirely on the method chosen.

Some systems use estimation (e.g. AI facial analysis), others use assertion (e.g. document scans), and others use tokenisation (e.g. a verified third party confirms your age range, not your full ID). Some are more invasive than others - and that’s the debate we should be having.

//Age verification is identity verification, and how can you verify an age if there isn't a pre-existing database with an existing identity to check it against?"

Again, that’s one model - but not the only one.

You’re assuming a centralised, database-driven approach is inevitable. But many proposals, including ones being discussed by the eSafety Commissioner, involve privacy-preserving models like zero-knowledge proofs or age bands that confirm eligibility without disclosing identity.

//If it's not checked against a pre-existing database with an existing identity, then can forged documents be produced by kids or others and be accepted as age verification?//

Absolutely - that’s a legitimate implementation risk. But again, it doesn’t prove intent to surveil. It just proves that any system will have trade-offs: if it’s too lax, it’s ineffective; if it’s too strict, it risks overreach. That’s why public scrutiny and legislative guardrails matter - and are happening.

//I'll bet 'age-verification' actually becomes 'identity verification' for all users...//

That’s a bet based on pessimism, not evidence. You might be right - if people disengage from the policy process and let worst-case designs go through unchallenged. But so far, privacy advocates, journalists, and civil liberties groups are deeply involved. That’s the opposite of a shadowy rollout.

//...all sold to you to 'protect the kids', who can say no to protecting kids?//

Fair call. The "think of the children" framing has been abused before. But that doesn’t make every child protection policy inherently deceptive. Some of them are just messy, well-intentioned, and in need of proper design. We shouldn’t replace naïve trust with blanket cynicism. The real answer lies between.

Fester,

You've made no effort there to rebut any of my points. All you've done is reframe, imply, and insinuate.

//No, but he does bear some responsibility for the company he keeps...//

Only if he endorses what they said. Being in the same room isn’t guilt. That’s just tribal association dressed up as moral judgement.

//I'm sure you know all about the kid's thoughts, conduct and motives, yet you seemed to draw a complete blank about Kirk's killer...//

False comparison. One case has public charges and video. The other is an open investigation with no confirmed motive. You’re conflating clarity with speculation.

//...and the irony of the same police protecting protestors calling for genocide...//

Different issue. I was responding to your claim that he was arrested just for having an opinion. That claim doesn’t hold up.

//There was widespread opposition to [the bill]...//

Opposition doesn’t equal oppression. Plenty of bad arguments get loud. The bill was public, debated, then dropped. That’s not stealth - that’s transparency.

//Your belief that defining truth is simple...//

That's a strawman. I've never said that. But claiming all truth regulation = authoritarianism is just as simplistic.

//You thought the net zero rollout was hampered by disinformation...//

Because it was - and still is. Wanting public decisions based on facts isn’t anti-democratic. It’s the bare minimum for democracy to function.

//You seem more in favour of suppressing free speech...//

No, I favour separating free speech from deliberate disinformation campaigns. That’s not suppression. It’s protecting the space where real speech still means something.

//Well said, AC. A MAD bill by stealth.//

You're still assuming the bill was about censorship.

There's all sorts of nonsense getting around on social media unchecked and taken as gospel by the information illiterate (e.g. about vaccines, lockdowns, cancer treatment, climate change, fluoride, GMOs, etc...) Yet, despite the overwhelming amount of damage and harm misinformation causes - and the fact that the bill had no provisions allowing for overreach too, for that matter - you're just going to assume it was all about censorship?

This is not how a rational mind processes information.

I found the comment you were mistconstruing here, Fester.

//There was widespread opposition to it, and your belief that defining truth was a simple matter might explain why you had no issue with it.//

What I said is that determining what's factually correct takes media and information literacy, but that it's possible for an individual to do themselves when/because the hard yards have already been done by professional researchers who are experts in their fields.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10476#364498

It’s complex but achievable, and it’s how democracies hold misinformation in check without resorting to authoritarianism.

Misrepresenting that as a naïve faith in government truth-control just tells me you didn’t actually read what I wrote - or chose not to engage with it honestly.

What I find particularly offensive, however, is your a loaded reframing designed to make me sound authoritarian: "defining truth..."

The issue I wish to discuss now isn't specifically about Australia's plan to ban social media for under 16's, but it does involve online censorship.

Our government is going to be actively involved in removing any content deemed 'antisemitic', and Israeli interests are already active in trying to censor social media.

Case in question. Tik Tok.

Israel wins TikTok
http://responsiblestatecraft.org/tiktok-larry-ellison-israel/
'Larry Ellison and a constellation of billionaires will finally get their way, buying the very app they wanted to kill a year ago for being too pro-Palestinian'

Pro-Israel Jewish CEO Just Bought TikTok - This Is Much BIGGER Than We Thought!
http://youtu.be/-P3Q-SfLHqA

We were told it was all about the risk of Chinese ownership.
When in truth it was about Israel's diminishing support and influence in the U.S. on the back of the war / genocide in Gaza.

I don't think the Chinese are necessarily being antisemitic, I just think that maybe they laugh at and care not for the idea that Jews are 'God's chosen people' and everything that comes from that.

Also know that if you go over to the Charlie Kirk thread and look for the grayzone.com and YouTube links for Max Blumenthal I added in my comments there is more to this story.

Larry Ellison supports Israel and bought Tik Tok to stop anti-Israel sentiment, no doubt there will be censorship, and I wonder if our government will make Australians move over to the new non-Chinese Tik Tok.

Larry Ellison also provides funding to Tony Blair Institute, Tony Blair was a part of these string of wars in the M/E spanning 3 decades after 9/11, (Coalition of the willing) and Tony Blair is also a strong advocate for Digital ID.

Online Censorship might not come from government, but the interests of donors and lobbyists.

Dr Joseph Goebbels (Dangerous Doctor Donald) controlled the media and arts, making sure that Germans (Americans) were fed Nazi (Donald) ideology while censoring other information.
The Nuremberg Rallies (Donald Rallies), held annually (every day) from 1933 (2025), glorified war and the military (and Donald).
Radios were cheap to buy and would broadcast Nazi Party (Donald Party) messages and speeches. Loudspeakers in public places blared out Nazi (Donald) propaganda.

Hitler's (Donald's) picture was everywhere and he was portrayed as Germany's (Americas) saviour. Simple slogans were used to introduce Nazi (Donald) ideology to the German (American) people:

"Free Germany (America) from the Jews (Mexicans)"
"Work and Bread" (Big Tariffs)
"Smash Communism (Democrats)"
"Blood and Soil" (MAGA)
"One People (No Mexicans), One Empire (Whole World), One Leader (Donald)"

Any media that conveyed anti-Nazi (anti-Donald) ideas or even other ways of life, were censored. Censorship of newspapers (Facebook), radio (Tik-Tok), and cinema (YouTube) was enforced. Only books which agreed with the Nazi (Donald) point of view were allowed. All other books (Fake News) were banned and many were publicly burned from May (January), 1933 (2025).

Just needed a few corrections to bring it up to date.!

Hi Paul,

The comparison of conservatives with right wing extremists and national socialists seems to be rather popular of late, yet it is inaccurate. This economist/historian had the experience of growing up in post ww2 Germany, so he saw first hand the communist vs capitalist experiment of a nation divided.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjkQZ3MmGgY

Net zero is like a rerun of the experiment, right down to the economic train wreck and attempts to blame the failure on misinformation and disinformation (presumably by all the unsavoury political extremists), hence the need for censorship.

Hi Fester,

Do you agree the sale of tobacco and alcohol should be restricted to adults? If so, then based on harm minimisation, its right for society to impose restrictions on their sale to juveniles. If you agree with that then access to harmful content on the internet by juveniles, one would also see as necessary. No reasonable person believes there is not harmful content on the internet, and its access needs to be restricted. On what content, and how those restrictions are implemented is the difficult question.

When you reach the mature age that most of us here have achieved, if you've been paying attention to the world around you for the last 50 or so years, you should have gained a level of understanding as to how the world works and how governments and political movements think and operate. From that understanding, having seen it all before, you should be able to draw valid conclusions from incomplete data about where things will end up, or at least where political leadership hopes it will end up.

If you've been paying attention.....

A while back, I expressed the view that the Australian government would probably move to amend our beef quarantine laws to accommodate Trump. Outrage ensued from the usual suspects who demanded proof that the government was doing such a thing. My 'proof' I explained was based on my comprehension as to how governments worked. Funnily, when the government did actually do exactly as I predicted, those same usual suspects couldn't exit the discussion quickly enough.

The same thing happened when I predicted 8 months before the event that Biden wouldn't run in 2024. And again when I predicted what the actual causes for pulling out were while he and the Democrats were madly spinning their fables. Or when I predicted massive cost blowouts for Snowy 2.0. Or that it would eventually be shown that Covid19 originated in a Wuhan lab. Again demands of proof from the clueless.

/cont

/cont

Its all very well to be wrong, but its a shame when you fail to learn from the error.

Ditto here. Again they demand proof that the ultimate aim is censorship of the citizenry on the basis that lack of proof, proves that it won't happen. Again my point is that anyone who has been paying attention for the last 50 years, or the last 50 centuries for that matter, knows what the ultimate aim is.

The ruling elite have been quite comfortable for many decades now, knowing that they controlled all the avenues for the citizenry to be informed. But that's all changed now with the rise of the internet, the internet journalists and especially with Musk's purchase of Twitter. All around the world, governments are scrambling to find ways to recover their control of the narrative. This is the ALP's solution to the problem. I suspect they'll partially succeed which is why you need to get your VPN asap.

That’s a reversal of reality, Fester.

//The comparison of conservatives with right wing extremists and national socialists seems to be rather popular of late...//

If anything, what's "popular of late" is the attempt to downplay or reverse the historical consensus that fascism - and Nazism in particular - arose from the authoritarian far-right.

For decades, from academic texts to public discourse, Nazism was understood as a far-right movement: ultranationalist, ethnocentric, militaristic, violently anti-leftist, and aligned with corporate power. The Nazis literally purged their socialist wing in the Night of the Long Knives.

It’s only recently, particularly in some US conservative circles and YouTube channels, that a narrative has emerged trying to rebrand the Nazis as "left-wing" - hinging mostly on the word "socialist" in the party name. But as historians point out, that’s like calling North Korea a democracy because its name says "Democratic Republic."

Of course, this isn’t to say that every conservative is a fascist. But neither should we let revisionism muddy the historical record.

And if modern conservatives want to avoid being linked to fascism, the answer isn’t to rewrite history - it’s to clearly distance themselves from fascist rhetoric, strategies, and scapegoating, rather than repeating and defending them under new labels.

Oh... and they could stop linking all lefties to communism, too.

Their unnecessary attempts to rid themselves of the stain of Naziism is based on the same faulty logic they use to tie the left to the communist atrocities of the past.

Your claim that net zero is "a re-run" of East Germany is equally stretched. Western democracies aren’t jailing people for emissions dissent. If anything, governments are struggling to act despite powerful misinformation campaigns, not because they’re censoring everyone.

Ironically, the bill you and AC feared was dropped because of public pushback. Hardly a sign of censorship running rampant. it was a good example of the problem it was trying to address, though.

That you see democratic debate and evidence-based policy as East German-style control says more about your political biases than the facts.

There are times when you have to infer data because the aim of the government and all power elites is to hide data, hide intentions, hide aims, hide ambitions.

Its why you study the past - to understand the present and the future. So it can't be based solely on what the government is prepared to tell you. That's the attitude of the gullible and the anxiously led. Expecting some "leak, a memo, a whistleblower, an internal comms strategy" before becoming aware of what's actually going on is exactly how governments want it to work and how they get away with so much so often.

Sometimes you have to look past the facts that they are prepared to let you see, to understand what's really going on.

You have to form an opinion.

What was the name of this website again?

Yes, experience matters, mhaze.

//From that understanding, having seen it all before, you should be able to draw valid conclusions from incomplete data about where things will end up…//

But drawing conclusions from "incomplete data" isn’t the same as assuming intent without evidence. It’s one thing to anticipate possibilities; it’s another to treat them as inevitable outcomes. Especially when you're building them on distrust rather than data.

//Again they demand proof that the ultimate aim is censorship of the citizenry...//

Yes, because that’s how reasoned discussion works.

You’re accusing an elected government of planning mass censorship, yet offering only gut instinct and pattern recognition as justification. That’s not a warning, that’s a conspiracy theory dressed in hindsight.

//The ruling elite... controlled all the avenues... But that's all changed now with the rise of the internet... especially with Musk's purchase of Twitter.//

Framing this as a battle between "the elites" and free speech ignores the obvious: media has never been more decentralised than it is now. The internet didn’t just appear. And ironically, the biggest misinformation amplifiers are now private tech billionaires, not governments.

If your model requires Musk to be the underdog, it's probably outdated.

//This is the ALP’s solution to the problem.//

The ALP’s solution was abandoned after public consultation and backlash. That doesn't exactly scream repression. In fact, it shows the system worked.

//…which is why you need to get your VPN asap.//

This is where your whole argument veers off into survivalist theatre. If your best advice is "buy a VPN before the regime cracks down," then you’ve gone from political critique to dystopian fan-fiction.

Broken clocks still manage to be right twice a day. Even cuckoo clocks.

"You’re accusing an elected government of planning mass censorship, yet offering only gut instinct and pattern recognition as justification. That’s not a warning, that’s a conspiracy theory dressed in hindsight."

Well they most certainly want to censor anything they deem anti-Semitic, and this is a very fine line since some consider ANY criticism of Israel to be anti-Semitic, that's not about the kids and its not a conspiracy.

Care to agree with me mhaze? lol.

China could be the key to the success of the renewed “snapback sanctions” on Iran
http://aijac.org.au/fresh-air/china-could-be-the-key-to-the-success-of-the-renewed-snapback-sanctions-on-iran/

"Snapback provides a promising opportunity to finally bring Iran’s illegal activities to a verifiable end – especially now that sanctions are legally mandatory for all nations under UN Security Council resolutions 1696, 1737, 1747, 1803, 1835 and 1929. But for the pressure created by these sanctions to be effective, Washington will need to close off Iran’s Chinese safety valve, by moving forward on exploring secondary sanctions against Beijing. Moreover, for these secondary sanctions to be effective, other countries, including Australia, will also need to impose their own so as not to give Beijing room to use its economic power to retaliate against any one economy."

They seem happy enough to manage our foreign policy for us and tell us we need to sanction our largest trading partner, for them.
You want to tell me Israeli interests weren't trying to stop students supportive of Palestine at universities with donation blackmail?

//The ruling elite... controlled all the avenues... But that's all changed now with the rise of the internet... especially with Musk's purchase of Twitter.//

Oh and I hate to break the bad news to you mhaze, but the Israel lobby are going after X now too.

Netanyahu says so, and I cued up the part just for you.
http://www.youtube.com/live/1pDRbwI4R0I?t=969

Conspiracy theories...

Hi John Daysh, I got a question for you.

James Warburg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Warburg

>>James Paul Warburg (August 18, 1896 – June 3, 1969) was a German-born American banker, businessman, and writer. He was well known for being the financial adviser to Franklin D. Roosevelt. His father was banker Paul Warburg, member of the Warburg family and 'father' of the Federal Reserve System. After World War II, Warburg helped organize the Society for the Prevention of World War III in support of the Morgenthau Plan.

Warburg was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He gained some notice in a February 17, 1950, appearance before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in which he said, "We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."<<

When someone hold those kinds of credentials, and states this officially to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Do we believe it, or is it still a conspiracy?

John,

There you go proving my point. The east vs west experiment in Germany wasn't fascism vs communism. It was capitalism vs autocracy, and autocracy came a clear second. And looking at modern Russia, it has much in common with a fascist dictatorship, yet Putin was a communist agent. Like the gestapo agents, the left/right thing doesn't seem to matter as they are compatible with both. I think of fascism vs socialism as a fight between fanatical religious sects: They are both revolting, and both are nothing like the conservative politicians who are falsely being labelled far right.

"No, I favour separating free speech from deliberate disinformation campaigns. That’s not suppression. It’s protecting the space where real speech still means something."

Hitler or Honecker couldn't have said it better, John. Note that one of the first things Hitler did after gaining power was to censor the press, claiming that he needed to do this in order to stop the spread of misinformation. Do you imagine that opposition to the net zero nonsense and wind and solar lunacy amounts to some sort of sinister misinformation campaign? Clearly you do.

"/Your belief that defining truth is simple...//

That's a strawman. I've never said that. "

Well, you believed with certainty that the Uluru statement was a single page, which I saw as a clear indicator of an authoritarian bent.

"What I find particularly offensive, however, is your a loaded reframing designed to make me sound authoritarian: "defining truth...""

No need for me to do that, John. You've defined yourself with your repeated lies and aggressive verballing.

Armchair Critic,

Quoting a single statement from 1950 - by one man - isn’t the smoking gun you think it is.

//Do we believe it, or is it still a conspiracy?//

James Warburg’s quote is real, yes. But cherry-picking a line out of Cold War-era idealism about postwar peace doesn’t automatically validate modern claims of secretive global domination.

Plenty of thinkers after WWII, including Roosevelt and Churchill, floated grand visions for lasting peace - some noble, some naive - in reaction to the devastation of two world wars. The push for things like the UN, the IMF, even talk of "world government," came from an attempt to prevent another global conflict, not enslave the globe.

What matters isn’t that someone said it once, but what happened next. And there’s no throughline from Warburg’s quote to anything happening today that supports your narrative. If this was the plan, it’s been a pretty slow and ineffective one.

If one powerful figure saying something radical proves a global conspiracy, I guess we should all believe Trump is trying to be a dictator - after all, he literally said he’d be one on "day one."

"It’s one thing to anticipate possibilities; it’s another to treat them as inevitable outcomes. Especially when you're building them on distrust rather than data."

No there's plenty of data. But its data that you can't see.

Oh and I'm not framing it as inevitable outcomes. Just my evaluation based upon decades of experience and a good track record of where this'll end up. But there's many a slip between cup and lip and there's every chance that the rush to censorship will overstep and be derailed.... I hope.

The governmental attacks on YouTube and WhatsApp make no sense other than as attempts to censor. I've just spent a week holidaying with the grandkids - the exact demographic the government's 'benevolence' is trying to protect. They use WhatsApp as their preferred means of keeping in touch with friends since its essentially free. They've already worked out how to circumvent the government's attacks on their freedom. Actually, its been a good education for them in how governments infringe their rights so some good will come of it.

"Framing this as a battle between "the elites" and free speech ignores the obvious: media has never been more decentralised than it is now."

Its not ignoring it. That's the whole point...which yet again flies over your head. When the elites controlled the media and pretty much all sources of mass media, there was little need for censorship. Its only now, when they've lost that control, that they seek other forms of control.

"Broken clocks still manage to be right twice a day. "

Well, quite the admission that I've been right. The problem for JD is that, if you can't tell the time, you can't see if the clock is broken.

Fester,

You’ve misrepresented me again, and layered on a fair bit of projection in the process.

//The east vs west experiment in Germany wasn't fascism vs communism. It was capitalism vs autocracy…//

East Germany was a Soviet satellite state, run by the Socialist Unity Party under a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. If that’s not communism in practice, then we’re just playing definition dodgeball. The west wasn’t just “capitalist," it was also liberal-democratic. That’s what made the contrast meaningful - not the economic model alone, but the freedoms, openness, and checks on power.

//I think of fascism vs socialism as a fight between fanatical religious sects...//

Pretending fascism and authoritarian socialism are equally compatible with conservative politicians today is ahistorical.

The fascist playbook - scapegoating minorities, glorifying national decline, attacking the press, undermining democratic institutions - has more in common with modern far-right populism than anything resembling social democracy or liberalism. That’s not a smear, it’s a structural observation.

//Hitler or Honecker couldn’t have said it better, John.//

Invoking Hitler to discredit any attempt to address coordinated disinformation is lazy and frankly offensive. You confuse truth-seeking with truth-imposing.

I didn’t say dissent or criticism should be banned. I said that deliberate campaigns designed to confuse, distort, or sabotage democratic consensus (often state-backed) shouldn’t be protected under the banner of free speech. We already draw lines: incitement, defamation, fraud. This is just a modern version of the same ethical concern.

//You believed with certainty that the Uluru statement was a single page, which I saw as a clear indicator of an authoritarian bent.//

It is one page, and I explained all this at the time. So, if you still see that as "a clear indicator of an authoritarian bent," then either you didn’t read what I wrote at the time, or you are choosing now to not to engage with it honestly.

//You’ve defined yourself with your repeated lies and aggressive verballing.//

You keep calling me a liar, but haven’t shown a single lie. Disagreeing with you isn’t lying. And if you believe I’ve misrepresented anything, quote it and I’ll happily address it.

Then where is this data, mhaze?

//No there's plenty of data. But it's data that you can't see.//

You can’t assert the existence of invisible evidence and then claim your view is more grounded than mine. Speculating based on trends or experience is one thing - but once you elevate those speculations to “this is what’s happening, trust me”, you’ve traded analysis for dogma.

//The governmental attacks on YouTube and WhatsApp make no sense other than as attempts to censor.//

If you begin with the assumption that the government is always scheming to suppress truth, then everything they do will inevitably look like censorship. But context matters. Addressing foreign disinformation, regulating algorithmic harms, or ensuring transparency isn’t the same as silencing dissent - especially when those very platforms still host non-stop government criticism 24/7.

//They’ve already worked out how to circumvent the government’s attacks on their freedom.//

What “attacks”? What’s been banned? What penalties have been introduced? You’re describing teenage app use as if it’s 1984. You’re not watching a dystopia unfold - you’re watching your grandkids install a VPN.

//When the elites controlled the media… there was little need for censorship.//

That’s a claim without evidence.

Governments have censored wherever and whenever they could - from newspaper raids to secret surveillance to banned books. What’s different now is how much harder it is to control the narrative. We live in an era of millions of content creators, open-source platforms, and AI generators - yet somehow you frame this as more controlled?

Yes, the volume of speech has exploded - but so too has the volume of falsehoods. A response to that isn’t automatically tyranny. It might just be democracy trying to protect itself.

You’re turning a golden age of open expression into a paranoid fantasy where unseen forces are closing in. Ironically, your ability to say all this publicly - and loudly - disproves your own thesis.

Still missing the point JD.

I agree that the diversity of views in the current world is close to unprecedented.

My point is that this is what terrifies the elites and why they are fighting back. I'm not saying the suppression is already occurring, just that it will occur if governments continue on this path.

Its probably comforting to the censors that there are hordes of people such as yourself who see all this as just trying to stop misinformation. You're exactly their demographic - desperate to be told what to believe.

But remember that today's misinformation is often tomorrows fact. It was disinformation to say covid originated in the Wuhan labs. It was disinformation to say that the young were safe from death against covid. It was disinformation to say that the FBI was embedded in the J6 crowds. It was disinformation to say that the Obama regime spied on Trump. It was disinformation to say that Trump didn't colluded with the Russians in 2016. It was disinformation to say that electricity prices would rise as renewables rose. Struth, in Canada, its proposed to make denying mass indigenous graves illegal even though none have ever been found.

Disinformation is one of those words that people use to dress-up censorship. It refers to things people would prefer not said.

"You’ve misrepresented me again, and layered on a fair bit of projection in the process."

No need John. You do it to yourself by such things as saying there is no absolute truth, but then contradicting yourself by arguing that the length of the Uluru statement is a single page is a matter beyond question.

"You’re turning a golden age of open expression into a paranoid fantasy where unseen forces are closing in. Ironically, your ability to say all this publicly - and loudly - disproves your own thesis."

The irony here is that I am for maintaining the status quo, whereas you are the one advocating change, so presumably you are the one consumed by all these paranoid fantasies that will be addressed with measures you claim will be benign. Further, I'd observe that many concerns about law and order that people have, like all those hate marches stoking antisemitism, occur not because of a lack of laws, but because of a lack of enforcement.

"You keep calling me a liar, but haven’t shown a single lie. Disagreeing with you isn’t lying. And if you believe I’ve misrepresented anything, quote it and I’ll happily address it."

You're a liar and an aggressive verballer. That I have experienced first hand. That you deny your conduct further proves my point. It would be hard for me to imagine a bigger hypocrite.

No, I understood that, mhaze.

//My point is that [the diversity of views] is what terrifies the elites and why they are fighting back.//

Noted (again).

//I'm not saying the suppression is already occurring, just that it will occur if ...//

I know, which is why I had said: "It’s one thing to anticipate possibilities; it’s another to treat them as inevitable outcomes."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10667#372417

//It's probably comforting to the censors that there are hordes of people such as yourself who see all this as just trying to stop misinformation.//

That’s projection.

You’re implying that anyone who disagrees with your framing is gullible/indoctrinated, as if you couldn’t possibly be wrong. That mindset makes your own views less testable and more like faith.

//But remember that today's misinformation is often tomorrow’s fact.//

It appears you believe you have some examples for us. Lets take a look at them:

//It was disinformation to say that...//

--COVID originated in the Wuhan labs.

It was a hypothesis, not disinformation. The disinformation came from people claiming certainty (e.g. "it was definitely engineered"). That distinction matters.

--the young were safe from death against COVID.

That was an oversimplification, but not disinformation. Risk to young people was statistically lower - and that nuance was widely discussed.

--the FBI was embedded in the J6 crowds.

And it still is disinformation. Those agents were there in response to the riot. They weren't planted there to incite violence.

--the Obama regime spied on Trump.

No, that wasn't disinformation - just an unproven claim. At the time at least. Now that we know more about the situation, repeating the claim can indeed be regarded as disinformation.

--Trump didn’t collude with the Russians in 2016.

No, it wasn't disinformation. You're being precious here. Even Mueller said he couldn’t establish criminal conspiracy, but the campaign did welcome Russian help, and there were dozens of contacts.

--electricity prices would rise as renewables rose.

If the intention is to make renewables look inherently expensive, then it's still disinformation. Correlation vs causation.

//Disinformation is one of those words that people use to dress-up censorship.//

Apparently not.

Fester,

You’ve accused me of lying again - not just once, but as a kind of character trait of mine - yet still haven’t quoted a single lie. That’s not an argument. It’s a smear.

You use this accusation to pre-emptively discredit anything I say and avoid the burden of rebutting what I've already said. Yet, you've never once pointed to any of these lies - not even when I allegedly uttered them.

//You say there’s no absolute truth, but then claim the Uluru Statement is a single page.//

I haven't said there's no absolute truth. In fact, I'll give you one now: everything is what it is, and nothing is neither or both.

Back to the topic: The Uluru Statement is a single-page document. That’s a fact. The rest - as I explained over a year ago - is accompanying material. If you’re still pretending that’s unresolved, you’re not arguing in good faith.

//You’re the one advocating change... so you’re the paranoid one?//

That's a non sequitur.

Advocating reform doesn't necessitate paranoia - especially when you present data, context, and reasoning. You’re the one warning of dystopias just over the horizon, driven not by a clear chain of cause and effect, but by imagined intentions and vague "elites."

//That I have experienced your lying firsthand...//

What you’ve experienced is disagreement. If you have an example of misrepresentation or dishonesty, quote it. Otherwise, this is just more rhetorical flailing.

Now this is disinformation that should be censored and the 'expert' put in a padded cell..... http://tiny.cc/j6ft001

JD,

Do you realise that by trying to defend the government stopping what you call disinformation, you're in fact making my case. That is, at this time all the government is owning up to is trying to protect the kiddies while my contention is that this is just a feint toward the real aim which is to censor sites that say things the government prefers weren't said or force said sites to only carry approved views. By defending efforts to stop so-called disinformation, you are conceding that this is the aim. Thanks for playing.

As to the disinformation I mentioned, your defence of that is that it wasn't known to be disinformation at the time so censoring it was okey-dokey. But people did know and those who tried to get the information out were censored, cancelled, lost jobs and careers. That's why it can't be allowed to happen here again.

You might prefer to be lied to in a good cause.... I'm not of that ilk.

What I call disinformation, mhaze?

//Do you realise that by trying to defend the government stopping what you call disinformation...//

No - what independent analysts, fact-checkers, peer-reviewed researchers, and national security agencies identify as disinformation. The term doesn’t mean "ideas I don’t like." It refers to deliberately and varifiably false or misleading content, often strategically deployed to erode trust, sow division, or mislead the public.

//That is, at this time all the government is owning up to is trying to protect the kiddies...//

It’s one thing to raise concerns about slippery slopes. But you’re treating those concerns as proof that authoritarian censorship is the goal - without evidence. That turns precaution into paranoia.

//By defending efforts to stop so-called disinformation, you are conceding that this is the aim.

False again.

Arguing for safeguards against coordinated, weaponised falsehoods is not a blanket endorsement of censorship. It's called defending the conditions under which truth and dissent can both survive.

//Thanks for playing.//

You're welcome. I'm sorry you lost.

//As to the disinformation I mentioned, your defence of that is that it wasn't known to be disinformation at the time so censoring it was okey-dokey.//

How could you know that? As I pointed out, none of the examples you gave turned out to be established facts. So your claim that "people did know" falls apart unless you can show that the “censored” version was later confirmed.

//But people did know and those who tried to get the information out were censored...//

That’s a broad and often unverified claim. Yes, some voices were wrongly stifled - but many others were rightly flagged for spreading false or dangerous information. We can acknowledge real overreach without throwing out all standards of accuracy.

//That's why it can't be allowed to happen here again.//

Agreed, if "it" means unjustified suppression. But ignoring the deliberate spread of lies isn’t the answer either. The solution isn’t "trust everything" or "ban everything" - it’s transparency, accountability, and standards.

//I'm not of that ilk.//

You say that, yet your post is defending the right to lie without consequence.

Trumpster,

During the pandemic were you not singing the praises of a Donald Cocktail, a certain cure-all for the dreaded lurgy doing the rounds at the time. Formulated by none other than the infamous Dangerous Doctor Donald himself, a DC consisted of one part diso mixed with one part bleach, available from under most good sinks! I think that was misinformation on the part of your folk hero Donald, and should have been censored! Do you Agree?

This is getting pretty funny JD.

It seems you don't even realise you've talked yourself into a corner by simultaneously saying that the government just wants to protect the kiddies yet also agreeing that they want to censor disinformation for the populace as a whole.

And then to add to the hilarity, you agree that the things I showed which were once called disinformation were indeed true, yet say that all disinformation are lies.

And then to round it all up you declare victory!! I can't tell if you are just incapable of understanding how silly this makes you look or are incapable of owning up to getting it all so wrong. Either way, pretty funny.

You need to be careful. Keep this up and we'll need to start lumping your in with morons like Paul whose last post takes his inanity to a while new level.

Yes, this is definitely getting funny, mhaze.

//...saying that the government just wants to protect the kiddies yet also agreeing that they want to censor disinformation for the populace as a whole.//

That’s not contradictory. Governments can pursue multiple goals - e.g. protecting children and safeguarding the public from coordinated foreign disinformation. Both can be true, and neither proves intent to suppress political dissent. You’re inventing a conflict where there is none.

//You agree that the things I showed which were once called disinformation were indeed true...//

No, I don’t. In fact, I went through each example and showed why they’re still misleading or unproven, even if parts have gained nuance over time.

"...none of the examples you gave turned out to be established facts."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10667#372446

Selective memory doesn’t make your argument stronger.

//...yet say that all disinformation are lies.//

Again, no.

I said disinformation refers to deliberate and verifiably false content, often spread with strategic intent. That’s distinct from speculation, mistakes, or evolving hypotheses. You’re collapsing all categories into one to score a rhetorical point.

//...you declare victory!!//

Indeed I do.

I've addressed every point you've raised with actual reasoning - and that your only rebuttal now is to mock, misrepresent, and compare me to others. That tends to happen when the argument runs out of fuel.

I just thought, mhaze - why don't we ask our little right-wing friend how "funny" this is?

Question:
"In the attached debate, is mhaze correct in saying that John Daysh has talked himself into with a contradiction?"

Grok:
No, mhaze is not correct in claiming that John Daysh has talked himself into a contradiction. Mhaze asserts that Daysh simultaneously claims the government only wants to protect children while also agreeing that the government aims to censor disinformation for the broader populace, presenting these as contradictory. However, Daysh’s position, as articulated in his posts, is consistent: he argues that the government can pursue multiple objectives, such as protecting children and addressing disinformation, without these goals being mutually exclusive or indicative of a hidden censorship agenda.

In his response on October 6, 2025, at 9:01:28 AM, Daysh explicitly states, “That’s not contradictory. Governments can pursue multiple goals - e.g. protecting children and safeguarding the public from coordinated foreign disinformation. Both can be true, and neither proves intent to suppress political dissent.” This directly counters mhaze’s claim by clarifying that these objectives coexist logically. Daysh maintains that addressing disinformation is about managing deliberate falsehoods, not silencing dissent, and he consistently challenges mhaze’s narrative of a covert censorship plot by demanding evidence and pointing to the lack of precedent for such conspiracies in liberal democracies.

Mhaze’s accusation of a contradiction relies on misrepresenting Daysh’s position as endorsing broad censorship while ignoring Daysh’s nuanced stance: that addressing disinformation involves transparency and accountability, not authoritarian suppression. Thus, there is no contradiction in Daysh’s argument, as he consistently defends targeted measures against disinformation while rejecting mhaze’s broader conspiracy claims.

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_7583b9e9-2eda-4680-833e-e60f29ab40ba
http://drive.google.com/file/d/1rMbNEh7V5iZS1pGtV41PDWfKEXuPuhbB/view?usp=sharing

Not so funny anymore, is it?

I noticed there was a typo in my question there, so I asked it again in a new chat in case it's blamed for the result - as inconsequential as it was.

The result was the same, but Grok added the following this time around:

Additionally, mhaze’s claim that Daysh agrees the examples of disinformation (e.g., COVID origins, J6 FBI presence) were “indeed true” is inaccurate. Daysh explicitly refutes this, stating: “none of the examples you gave turned out to be established facts” (John Daysh, 5 October 2025). He provides nuanced responses to each example, distinguishing between unproven claims, oversimplifications, and deliberate falsehoods, thus undermining mhaze’s attempt to frame him as conceding their truth.

In summary, Daysh’s arguments are consistent: he acknowledges the government’s stated aims (child protection, combating disinformation) while questioning mhaze’s leap to a censorship conspiracy without concrete evidence. There’s no contradiction in holding that a government can pursue multiple policy goals, even if some are imperfectly executed. Mhaze’s accusation appears to misrepresent Daysh’s position to create the illusion of a contradiction where none exists.
_____

Looks like you'll need to find new tactics, mhaze. Technology's caught up with the ones you've been using for decades now.

Try... oh, I don't know - being honest?

"inanity to a while new level" Earth calling Space Cadet, sorry Space Cadet, not reading you, copy! Earth to Space Cadet Trumpster, come in Space Cadet. Are you out there somewhere, are you still in orbit beyond the Milky Way? Copy.

""...none of the examples you gave turned out to be established facts.""

And none are now considered to be disinformation. That's the point.

They were once called disinformation and efforts, strenuous efforts were made to suppress them, but now they're no longer disinformation. But you continue to think that suppressing what today is considered in your terms "lies" is somehow valid.

That's the problem with suppressing things you don't like based on claims that turn out to be wrong. It one of those things I'd have thought you'd have learned in the last 50 odd years, but alas....

The hilarity continues as JD goes running off to Grok, feeding it filtered data and then asking it to comment on filtered data. Apart from anything else, it shows that JD hasn't the foggiest how AI works.

No, that’s your claim, mhaze.

//And none are now considered to be disinformation.//

And it still doesn’t hold. Let’s recall what I actually said:

"As I pointed out, none of the examples you gave turned out to be established facts."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10667#372446

That wasn’t some vague jab. I listed and analysed each one. You still haven’t addressed that. You're just repeating your conclusion, not defending it.

//They were once called disinformation and efforts, strenuous efforts were made to suppress them, but now they're no longer disinformation.//

Name one from your list that was officially reclassified this way - not in the sense that a few people online claimed it, but that credible institutions reversed their consensus. You won’t, because most of those points remain unproven, misleading, or only partially true.

Rehashing them without evidence isn’t an argument, it’s nostalgia for being "ahead of your time."

//But you continue to think that suppressing what today is considered in your terms "lies" is somehow valid.//

No again.

I said that deliberate, coordinated, strategic disinformation (especially from hostile actors or bots) deserves intervention. That’s different from censoring unpopular opinions or emerging hypotheses.

I also said:

"We can acknowledge real overreach without throwing out all standards of accuracy."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10667#372446

You keep collapsing those categories so you can pretend all moderation = censorship. That’s the actual misinformation here.

//That's the problem with suppressing things you don't like...//

Yes, which is why I would never condone it. It's also the problem with inventing grievances based on distorted history and calling it evidence.

//The hilarity continues as JD goes running off to Grok...//

So now you’re mocking external review? Maybe you don’t want transparency after all?

The AI disagreed with your interpretation, so you blamed the referee. A powerful engine, worth billions of dollars, that can:

- handle multimodal understanding and generation
- handle long-context reasoning
- code/generate/debug software with astonishing accuracy
- process complex mathematical reasoning, symbolic logic, and proofs
- accurately summarise, explain, and distill knowledge

But somehow, they keep getting it wrong when it comes to assessing your slanderous and knowingly false claims.

Right.

"Pretending fascism and authoritarian socialism are equally compatible with conservative politicians today is ahistorical."

Oh, mother! Yes, for you it'd be like remarking to the late Ian Paisley, "Gee, your religion is so similar to Catholicism, why don't you just be friends?". Like the hydra, they are both heads of the same monster, and these days both Russia and China have moved closer to the Nazi model of socialism. Sadly, I don't think that socialism will make the great contribution to civilisation of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam, although it's a clear winner for destroying nations and killing people.

"What you’ve experienced is disagreement."

Let me see. Verballing: Making a false statement as a basis for making false accusations.

So I liken the net zero model to Germania on the basis of it being grandiose, extravagant, and never likely to be built. Further, I suggest that unlike Germania, the net zero model is kept secret to avoid public scrutiny. You insisted the CSIRO to be completely transparent (despite the CSIRO's admission that they weren't), misquoted me (that's lying), then used the misquotes to infer that I was calling people delusional Nazis and CSIRO employees megalomaniacs (which is dishonest). The conclusion I drew from your conduct was of you being a psychopathic lunatic, a view which has only been reinforced by discussions you've had with others on OLO.

Fester,

Your Paisley comparison proves my point. He was fiercely opposed to Catholicism despite their shared religious heritage - not because they were indistinguishable, but because ideological factions often define themselves in opposition to even minor differences.

So thank you for reinforcing the idea that "both sides being authoritarian" doesn’t mean they’re interchangeable or aligned.

//…these days both Russia and China have moved closer to the Nazi model of socialism.//

The Nazis didn't have a model of socialism. Neither do Russia or China anymore.

//So I liken the net zero model to Germania on the basis of it being grandiose, extravagant, and never likely to be built.//

Right, and that was your analogy - not mine. I responded to your comparison, directly quoting you, linking to your original post, and asking whether the implied parallels to Nazi hubris were really appropriate. That’s scrutiny, not misrepresentation.

//Further, I suggest that unlike Germania, the net zero model is kept secret to avoid public scrutiny.//

Which is still wrong.

I explained, with sources, how the CSIRO’s GenCost report is publicly available, updated annually, and includes its assumptions and costings. You ignored that, and instead called it "secretive" - a claim contradicted by its own publication history.

//You insisted the CSIRO to be completely transparent (despite the CSIRO's admission that they weren't)...//

No, I didn't. I said:

"The CSIRO responded to criticisms by adding explanatory material in later editions. That’s transparency in action, not the absence of it."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10653#372056

//…misquoted me (that's lying)...//

No, I paraphased you - once:

"Citing Hitler was about efficiency"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10653#371999

It was a shorthand summary of what you’d just said:

"I felt that it was an efficient way of pointing out the details that the CSIRO was not sharing."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10653#371997

That’s not "verballing," it’s condensing. And I even kept the "efficiency" language you used. If you felt that distorted your meaning, the fair response was to clarify, which you did - and I took note.

Nice try, but no cigar.

""As I pointed out, none of the examples you gave turned out to be established facts."

Still missing, or avoiding (?) the point, JD.

Just because they aren't proven as indisputable facts according to your criteria, doesn't mean they're disinformation.

But they were considered disinformation in the past and the data suppressed. Now they aren't disinformation and they aren't suppressed. But irreparable damage was done during the time they were suppressed with lives lost, careers destroyed and people cancelled.

You're trying to sail past those facts by claiming what was once disinformation remains disinformation until proven 110% factual. Its dishonest and disingenuous and oh so very JD.

No, I'm still not missing the point, mhaze.

You have now shifted the goalposts from your original claim, so obviously you're aware of that too.

//Just because they aren't proven as indisputable facts according to your criteria, doesn't mean they're disinformation...

Correct - but that’s not what I said.

I never claimed a thing must be 110% disproven to be labelled disinformation. I said your examples were either:

- Still unproven,
- Still misleading in implication, or
- Never verified in the first place, yet promoted as settled truth.

That’s what separates legitimate dissent from disinformation - not whether something is unpopular, but whether it's asserted with false certainty, presented misleadingly, or deliberately spread despite contrary evidence.

//But they were considered disinformation in the past and the data suppressed.//

You’ve asserted this, but not demonstrated it.

Which example from your list:

- Was officially suppressed by a government agency?
- Was later vindicated as wholly true, not just "somewhat plausible"?
- Was classified as disinformation by a credible authority (not just flagged by a private platform)?

If you can't name even one that meets all three, your case collapses. Repeating that "they were suppressed!" doesn’t make it true.

//Irreparable damage was done... lives lost, careers destroyed and people cancelled.//

That’s a sweeping claim with no evidence offered.

Were there overreaches during COVID? Certainly. Were some people silenced who shouldn't have been? Possibly. But that doesn’t prove that everything flagged as disinformation was true - or that your examples were wrongly suppressed.

Again, name names. Link cases. You’re making claims of historic scale and moral gravity - yet refusing to back them.

//You're trying to sail past those facts by claiming what was once disinformation remains disinformation until proven 110% factual.//

No - I’m pointing out that you are labelling as "vindicated" things that were never proven, often still misleading, and at best speculative.

That’s what’s dishonest and disingenuous - and oh so very mhaze.

You love grok.

Grok this... http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_484f1429-7e08-4b7a-a74c-0ce03d720bcc

I couldn't be bothered going over it all again only to get one of your 'I don't want it to be true, therefore its not' responses.

You say you get it then write..."Was later vindicated as wholly true, not just "somewhat plausible"?"

"Somewhat plausible" doesn't equal disinformation. You don't get it and don't get the tenets of free speech for that matter.

You've painted yourself into so many corners I think you must be living in a dodecagon.

mhaze,

You’re still flattening the distinction between plausibility, proof, and suppression - and banking on that blur to keep your narrative afloat.

Let’s be clear:

Plausible =/= Proven =/= Suppressed

The fact that a theory is plausible now doesn’t mean it was ever proven. And even if it was prematurely flagged or mischaracterised, that doesn’t mean it was censored by force or deliberately hidden by some coordinated regime.

You’ve now shifted your claim from "these were wrongly suppressed" to "they’re plausible, so they were never disinformation." That’s revisionism.

Take the lab leak theory - yes, it was flagged at times, especially when presented as settled fact with zero evidence and surrounded by conspiratorial language. But the topic itself was never banned. Plenty of mainstream outlets discussed it. Scientists debated it. The issue was with how it was framed - as certainty, not hypothesis.

That applies to most of your list. Many of the ideas you point to were flagged not for being unpopular, but for being spread with false certainty, misleading implications, or in defiance of available evidence. That’s what moderation tries to address - imperfectly, yes, but not tyrannically.

Your Grok chat even shows that.

Sure, it notes examples where things were flagged too early or clumsily - and I’ve said myself that we can acknowledge overreach. But most of what you listed remains unverified, exaggerated, or still under scientific and legal scrutiny. "Somewhat plausible" doesn’t retroactively justify promoting those ideas as fact - or claiming their moderation caused "irreparable damage."

That’s a leap. And it’s not a principled argument - it’s a rhetorical sleight of hand.

So again, you’ve made sweeping claims. I’ve asked for specifics. You haven’t provided any. Repeating "they were plausible!" doesn’t prove suppression - it just proves you’re betting the audience won’t notice the shift.

By the way, I hate Grok. Musk is really stuffing it up - hence all the controversial claims it's made which they've had to backtrack on and apologise for.

I only use it to expose your dishonestly because it's right-leaning.

Got it. Grok tells you things you want to hear and its the greatest thing in the world and how could I possibly dispute it. Grok tells you things (via me) that you would prefer weren't true and now its the worst thing in the world.

Do grow up.

You keep saying that you know that things that aren't necessarily proven aren't disinformation and then say it was OK to censor it because it wasn't proven.

I'm done. You've talked yourself into so many corners that even the comedic value of you trying to find a form of words to exit with a semblance of dignity has passed

mhaze,

You’re clearly done with the argument, yes, but not quite done talking about me. Let’s clean up the record on your way out:

//Grok tells you things you want to hear and it's the greatest thing in the world…//

Incorrect.

I’ve often criticised Grok’s tuning elsewhere - including its ideological skew, tendency to overcorrect, and false equivalences favouring a conservative viewpoint. And that's exactly why I use it to expose your tricks and false claims - it makes it that little bit harder for you to brush off the results of its damning analyses.

When Grok partially agreed with you, I quoted that too - openly. You’re just annoyed that it didn’t vindicate your entire position. That’s not my inconsistency, it’s yours.

//You keep saying that you know that things that aren't necessarily proven aren't disinformation and then say it was OK to censor it because it wasn't proven.//

Also false.

I’ve said multiple times that the issue is not whether something is unproven, but how it's promoted:

- As settled fact?
- With misleading implications?
- In defiance of available evidence?
- Or weaponised via troll/bot networks?

That’s the line moderation aims to walk. You keep ignoring the nuance because it’s more fun to misrepresent me as some anti-speech zealot. But that’s not a refutation, it’s rhetorical cosplay.

//I'm done.//

Fair enough. But if you ever do return with specifics, like:

- Which example was actually proven true,
- Which was formally retracted or reclassified,
- Which was coordinatedly suppressed rather than poorly moderated,

…I’ll still be here, not in a corner - as I'm sure Grok would agree - but right where I started.

Trumps a traitor to America anyway.
His election campaign was funded by people loyal to Israel, not America.
And these same people wish to censor social media in order to benefit that foreign nation Israel.
(Have already started doing so)
The forced sale of Tik Tok was in regards to Israel losing the support of young evangelicals who've begun to question US allegiance to Israel.
(Think Charlie Kirk)
Larry Ellison the largest ever private donor to the IDF is buying up the largest media properties at exactly the same time when support for Israel in the U.S. is unraveling.
- And if Israel loses young evangelicals in the US,it loses the US, social media is a direct threat to Israels hold over the U.S. and Netanyahu has himself said so.

Trump betrays the Bill of Rights and the 'Right to free speech'.
Trump is Israel first, not America first.

PROOF Zionists CONTROL Trump’s Cabinet – Including Marco Rubio!
http://youtu.be/EBGBhP-iuSE

The Kushner-Blair Gaza plan is a moral atrocity – and a policy catastrophe
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/30/tony-blair-jared-kushner-gaza-plan-catastrophe

"Blair’s partner in this enterprise, Jared Kushner, is, like America’s chief negotiator, Stephen Witkoff, and, indeed, Donald Trump himself, a real estate developer at heart. In Gaza, Kushner does not see a thriving and vibrant culture whose history coincides with the rise of the pyramids. Rather, he sees only what Israel is creating with American weapons: a flattened ruin on a prime piece of coastland – a beachfront parking lot ready for redevelopment. In this economic fantasy, the people and politics of Gaza are a simple distraction from the opportunity to profit."

Postwar Gaza authority potentially led by Tony Blair ‘would sideline Palestinians’
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/29/postwar-gaza-authority-gita-tony-blair
Draft plan’s critics say it hands power to international figures and splits Gaza from Palestinian Authority in West Bank

I think I like John Daysh,
I don't agree with everything he says and thinks, but he seems to value the truth, and he sure is effective at making you look foolish mhaze, and you don't really bring much to the table other than slagging everyone else off tbh.

I think John Daysh is a wind-up bobble head doll with interchangeable dresses.

Thanks, AC.

You're ability to say something complimentary to someone you often disagree with is consistent with the good-faith debating approach you always take.

By the way, I wonder if we ever bumped into each other jetty jumping and Wellington Point. I'd go as a teenager in the mid-90s at low tide so the jump was as high as possible, but stopped after feeling how sharp the stuff at the bottom was.

I grew up in Cleveland.
_____

Thank you too, CM.

That you - someone who offers moral support to devastated arguments - felt compelled to poke your head in and attempt to negate what AC had said is truly humbling.

Kudos.

I (the Kudos Kid) think John Daysh is a wind-up bobble head doll with interchangeable dresses.

John, take that as a complement, coming form a weirdo Fascist nut job, who thinks his self importance is such that by posting "KUDOS" to other deranged forum fools, he's actually doing something of value, making himself important. Have I got news for you buddy!

Hi John Daysh,
"You're ability to say something complimentary to someone you often disagree with is consistent with the good-faith debating approach you always take."

If I get things wrong, I'm happy to own it right away.
I reserve the right o change my opinion when new info comes to light.
I've never seen mhaze admit he got something wrong or that I was right, but I can be push the issue a bit too far, and be a bit of a jerk at times - but I admit it.

"By the way, I wonder if we ever bumped into each other jetty jumping and Wellington Point. I'd go as a teenager in the mid-90s at low tide so the jump was as high as possible, but stopped after feeling how sharp the stuff at the bottom was."

I probably would've been in grade 8 or 9 at the time, so probably around 1986 and 1987. After I finished school at Wynnum High and had my first and second jobs at Coles Capalaba and in a factory at Thorneside I moved to Carina for almost a year and then relocated to the Gold Coast for a few years.

I think I recall us boys touching the bottom jumping in on low tides once or twice as well, but I can't entirely remember if it was just soft mud or whether there were a few rocks.

My mates had this 12ft tinny with a 3.5hp outboard motor on it.
I think we went to Peel Island once or twice but it took 2 hours each way. We still had fun though. Lighters and cigarettes getting wet, and fishing and just being kids really.

You never know we may have walked past each other at some point.

I live at Redland Bay not for from the ferry terminal now.
I did live on a 15 acre property at Double Jump Road, Victoria Point until about 4 months ago, which is now being redeveloped.
Paul1405 lives locally as well.

...Thinking about it, I think we used to climb up and stand on those main jetty posts that are also used to hold the railings, and jump off from there, but obviously we were cautious of doing that if the tide was too low. Maybe there were rocks, I kind of do remember trying to avoid touching the bottom now.

And here is a guy arguing that attempts by Australian senators to depict him as part of a fossil fuel funded disinformation network are a sign that he is winning the debate. He believes that the attempt to censor people speaking against climate change catastrophe and net zero will fail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0toV32ACp6A

Fester,

Peter Ridd isn't being silenced. He’s got a YouTube channel, media attention, and public support from think tanks like IPA.

He was dismissed from JCU not for his views, but for breaching confidentiality agreements and publicly misrepresenting internal disciplinary processes - a detail often omitted in these "free speech martyr" narratives.

His claim that criticism = proof of winning the argument is self-flattering nonsense. That logic would validate anyone who's ever been challenged - including flat earthers and anti-vaxxers.

Being controversial isn't the same as being correct.

As for his coral reef data: no one denies coral cover can rebound in some regions, but averaging it across the entire GBR ignores what kind of coral is returning, where, and whether it’s ecologically stable. Presenting this rebound as a refutation of broader reef concerns is exactly the sort of cherry-picking critics warned about.

And the idea that "67% of people think elites are hypocrites" doesn’t prove those same elites are wrong about climate science, it proves that public trust has been eroded - which isn’t the same thing as disproving evidence.

If Ridd has data that rewrites the global consensus on climate impacts, there’s a peer-reviewed process for that. But playing victim on YouTube is not it.

John,

Dr Ridd was ultimately dismissed for publicly criticising JCU for dismissing him. The initial dismissal he claimed as being unfair was upheld as being unfair by the High Court. Bringing the matter to the attention of the media was the reason for his downfall. His speaking out on censorship is no surprise.

I'm sure that he would have as much opportunity to do research in his area of expertise at an Australian University as he would to research Chinese human rights abuses at a Chinese University.

That’s not quite right, Fester.

The High Court didn’t find Ridd’s dismissal unfair. What it did say was that his right to academic freedom didn’t excuse how he kept breaching the university’s code of conduct, especially around confidentiality and how he handled internal matters publicly.

It actually overturned earlier rulings that had gone in Ridd’s favour, and found that JCU was within its rights to discipline him. So it wasn’t some sweeping defence of free speech, more like the opposite. It confirmed that universities can expect staff to follow internal processes and codes of behaviour, even when those staff are being critical.

He wasn’t dismissed for "speaking out," but for ignoring repeated warnings and pushing the boundaries of professional conduct. It wasn’t about silencing a dissenter, it was about the manner he kept going about it.

So while I get why some see him as a poster boy for censorship, the legal outcome doesn’t really back that up. And comparing it to how China handles dissent is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

What's this all about?

http://x.com/RennickGBR/status/1977927490426343498

AFP launches National Security Investigations teams to target groups causing harm to social cohesion
http://www.afp.gov.au/news-centre/media-release/afp-launches-national-security-investigations-teams-target-groups-causing

I really don't want Australia turning into the UK.
Cops knocking on old peoples doors and arresting them for opinions shared on social media.
I think it's somewhat expectable that people who grew up in a different times have different opinions on things.
Where are we headed with all this, they keep shifting the goalposts.
Have we reached actually reached an official 'Thought Police'?
A fake world where people just smile and hold everything in?

Holding an opinion on the pro's and con's or grievances with demographic and religious changes or current global events should not be disallowed just because the issues concern races and religions, nor bs arguments that criticising a genocide is anti-Semitic.

As far as I'm concerned I should be able to say whatever I want.
- As long as the argument holds merit and is an extension of my true beliefs.
It doesn't really matter if people are offended, the right to speak the truth is more important.

Many of my past relatives fought for this country.
What did they fight for if I can't even have my 2 cents?
They landed them on the wrong beach at Galipoli.
Isn't it my right to criticise the government?

If you stop me from making arguments that hold merit and are an extension of my true beliefs, where are we then?

When Pauline Hanson said this:
"I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians," she said.
"They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate."
Can it be racist and true at the same time?
And how de we sort that mess out?

"That’s not quite right, Fester."

No, much as I said.

"He wasn’t dismissed for "speaking out," but for ignoring repeated warnings and pushing the boundaries of professional conduct."

That is a false statement. It is contradicted by the High Court judgement.

"So while I get why some see him as a poster boy for censorship, the legal outcome doesn’t really back that up."

JCU acted against Dr Ridd for publicly criticising the research of his colleagues. The High Court deemed Dr Ridd's public criticism of the research to fall within the scope of his academic freedom. He would have won his case had he not also gone to the press and complained of his treatment by JCU. That was deemed a breach of his confidentiality agreement and was what made his dismissal valid.

I think this podcast demonstrates a certain level of censorship.
Is the apple rotten at the core?

The discussion relates to the targeted killings of Palestinian journalists in Gaza, by the IDF.

Journalist Chris Hedges on being cancelled by the National Press Club
http://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/latenightlive/chris-hedges-national-press-club/105913174

"Australia’s National Press Club was due to host Pulitzer prize winning journalist, the former Middle East Bureau Chief for the New York Times, Chris Hedges on Monday October 20, 2025. But after receiving the outline for his speech, they cancelled the event, saying they "decided to pursue other speakers". Hedges has been a significant critic of the way western media has handled the war in Gaza.

- National Press Club Compromised -

Here's another article.

Carlton club mascot sacked after walking out of young fan’s Bar Mitzvah
http://7news.com.au/sport/afl/carlton-sack-club-mascot-after-walking-out-of-young-fans-bar-mitzvah-c-20434351

>>It has been alleged that when the man realised that funds were going to soldiers, he suddenly walked out and made a racist comment.
“I’m not doing this for f---ing Zios (Zionists),” he allegedly said.
Guests were reportedly shocked by the incident.<<

I think it's level of audacity that offends me.

>>“The terrifying truth is that there is no safe space left. Not at synagogues, not in schools, not even in the joy of a family milestone,” he said.

“Wherever Jews gather, hatred finds a way to intrude in a loud, shameless, uninvited way.

“This moment should shake every Australian because when a man in a mascot suit feels comfortable spitting on the word Zionist in a country built on tolerance and mateship, we should all be asking, ‘what kind of nation are we becoming?’.”<<

- Cry me a river asshole, and tell your story walking...
On your way over to Netanyahu's place... Tell him.

What is it that these Jewish people don't comprehend that other people are sickened and disgusted at the vile actions of the State of Israel?
Some are conscientious objectors and don't wish to have any part whatsoever in their slaughter of innocent women and kids.

'We're not your mates, and we're very intolerant of your genocide.'

Fester,

My apologies. I had missed your reply to me. I thought it was a bit odd that you brought Ridd up again in another thread as though we hadn't already settled this. Now I know why.

You’re still oversimplifying what the High Court actually found. Yes, they agreed that Ridd’s academic freedom protected his right to criticise scientific work, but that was never the sole reason JCU took disciplinary action.

The university didn’t discipline him for his scientific views. They disciplined him for how he expressed them, and for repeatedly breaching the university’s Code of Conduct - including confidentiality obligations and public denigration of colleagues after being formally cautioned.

In fact, the High Court did not uphold Ridd’s unfair dismissal claim. It overturned the earlier Federal Circuit Court decision that had ruled in his favour. It found that JCU had the right to enforce conduct standards, and that Ridd’s breaches went beyond protected academic expression.

The key issue wasn’t whether he had the right to speak. It was whether he had the right to ignore university policies after multiple warnings. The court said no.

So while some commentators framed it as a free speech test case, the legal reality is more nuanced. The High Court didn’t say “Ridd was right.” It said that academic freedom doesn’t give you carte blanche to breach workplace standard, and that JCU was legally entitled to act as it did.

That doesn’t mean no debate can be had about academic freedom. But Ridd’s case doesn’t prove what many claim it does.

I trust this clears things I up.