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?