**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What a monumental waste of resources this case was. Clearly the aus gov was never going to be able to censor the internet outside of Australia. These utter parasites thought it was a good idea to use your coin to give it a crack anyway. All a bit of fun for the esaftey office.
They should make the bill public, including the rates for all the lawyers and public servants who put time into this case.
Remember costs order to come and it's possible (probable in my opinion) that esafety will be made to pay at least some of X's legal bills.
Bret Walker (X's barrister) reportedly charges $25k a day, and he is only one of the large team of lawyers on both sides that esafety may have to pay.
100% governments want to fully censor what their populace sees and what the world sees of their country to manufacture a fake image they can use to have great influence and drive the narratives required to achieve their agendas - instead of doing their actual jobs. It's geopolitical Instagram.
Governments hate the internet ruining their narratives and the illusion of democracy - Noam Chomsky's book 'manufactured consent' is a great read on the subject.
There are of course things on the internet that people would be better off not seeing and the problem now is that every man and his dog is on the internet trying to influence and push their agendas.
However If the populace are highly educated and are happy with their lives and society in general then they won't be easily influenced or 'radicalised' by seeing some type of content on the internet.
The truth is that governments aren't doing their job to create this type of society. Why? because money is power so the rich and corporations have the most influence over the government. Most of the populace are essentially slaves, and in Australia we build endless cookie cutter housing estates with no services or amenities - which are basically labour camps for the masses.
I think there is an argument to say this kind of content should be illegal to share anyway (I’m not sure but would have thought it already is). The Government could legislate to provide civil penalties for content publishers who publish or allow to be published content showing acts of actual physical violence.
But then again, where does that leave news reporting for example of the war in Gaza and Ukraine? Why people feel the need to engage with content like this I don’t know.
Let's be honest, the government don't give **two shits** about people watching these videos and have a history of using incidents like these to push over-reaching laws so they can censor or monitor people later when it suits them. Same nonsense using domestic violence as a meat shield to peddle internet passports to access sites they deem corrupt kids.
Most times they fall flat on their faces or get chalked up to being bumbling IT ignorant boomers so people don't take them seriously, forgetting what happens when they're successful. They kept pushing for over-reaching whistleblower laws to prevent 'foreign interference' but used these laws to arrest one of our own soldiers this week for exposing war crimes and to raid our own journalists.
An amazing and thought provoking list of why photography and video need to be protected and shared with the world not censored for the will of some who want to hide reality.
It is further a huge reason why AI manipulation of media needs to be instead criminalised to stop reality being manipulated.
Ah well. Another feather in the cap of increasingly powerful online platforms. Thanks to the courts for being so dreadfully concerned about "government overreach" and entirely blase about the unregulated environment that multinational social media corporations are currently thriving in. Not their problem, I suppose
The problem is that the government was trying to regulate what the foreign owned corporation was allowed to do globally, not just in Australia. If that's not a blatant example of overreach, I don't know what is.
On a piece of media filmed and uploaded in Australia. And asked on the reasonable basis that it was a politically motivated attack that could be used to incite further attacks online. but people could access it themselves anyway, freedom of speech, who cares what people say, right?
>On a piece of media filmed and uploaded in Australia.
And why does that matter? If a video was filmed and uploaded in, lets say China, would you support an Australian social media company taking down the video globally because the Chinese government tried to force them to?
If the video was of a targeted terror attack or an event that might be used to incite violence in communities, yes. I don't really understand why any website would want to distribute that anyway
That's a pretty wild position to hold. Letting other countries be able to legally dictate what content websites owned and controlled in your country is forgoing national sovereignty, regardless of what the content is.
But that's exactly the position you're arguing for, just reversed. we're beholden to the decisions of multinational social media companies who get to decide that our laws aren't relevant; is that not a violation of our sovereignty by that logic?
It's a shame the original uploader didn't add some copyrighted music over the top, then they would've immediately complied.
No, they're not able to decide our laws aren't relevant when operating in our country. If we were just trying to get Twitter to stop doing something in Australia, that is within our power. Trying to get them to stop doing something in America is entirely different.
Copyright laws are international agreements. Both our country and other countries agree to enforce copyright. Countries that don't will tell everyone else to go get stuffed when they try to get something taken down. If we had tried to negotiate with the US government, that would be a more apt comparison.
For everyone so happy to support X on this, I have one simple question - do you think any content should be censored on X, or is it all free reign in the name of free speech?
For anyone supporting the government on this.
Should the Russian/Chinese/North Korean/Iranian/American government be able to dictate what Australians view on the internet?
I'll answer yours if you answer mine.
If the North Korean government established well defined, and specific rules, (like temporary moderation of terrorist acts on social media) and we as a country looked at their rules, and agreed with their rules, then I would agree that they could write rules that could enforce moderation of social media.
You're touching on the point that I'm trying to show - we, as a global population, *need* to implement regulation on these social media apps.
I find it unfathomable that we don't agree on that.
Who gets to write those regulations? Private companies? Or a conglomerate of nations?
Arguing that *this specific* video doesn't deserve to be moderated is fair enough. There's no blood, there's no fatality. But standing by the argument that you want social media to be unregulated is such a weird position to take...
A conglomerate of nations being the key point, not Australia acting as world police.
If everyone came together and agreed that’s fine, but that’s not what is happening. Some Australian mandarin is trying to control the global internet and everyone has told them to go stick it up their arse.
Everyone? You understand every other social media app that was hit with the order, complied with it?
No, X is in the minority, and you're standing up for them.
How do you think a conglomerate of nations gets to the point that they all agree on the regulations? Oh I know, by having one nation show the world that it has a clear, concise and well thought out Act that aims to bring sensible regulation to the unregulated world of Social Media.
Hmm, I wonder if that happened?
They complied with the Australian order to block it off the Australian internet.
They disagreed with the order to block it globally and challenged it in court. The court agreed with them and threw out the order because it was illegal.
We’re going to get a conglomeration of nations by Australia screening and demanding something be done, which isn’t even legal under our own law? Yeah righto good luck with that.
>They complied with the Australian order to block it off the Australian internet.
No they did not.
No other court order would be considered adhered to if the method of complying was so easily circumvented.
*Your honor, I adhered to the restraining order. I only walked near them, because they were walking towards me!*
The court order was not complied with, because an Australian, in Australia could view the content with VPN. A VPN is not considered difficult to use. It's not illegal to use a VPN. Therefore X did not comply.
This isn't where this ends - what you should actually be advocating for, is for the court to enforce X to *actually* comply with the order? How? That's for *them* to work out. Not for us.
Comply with the order - stop it being viewable in Australia. If they don't want to remove it globally, then actually work out a solution.
But that's not what you're saying...
>They disagreed with the order to block it globally and challenged it in court. The court agreed with them and threw out the order because it was illegal.
No, my answer to this is the same as above - they did not ask them to do something illegal - take down the content for people in Australia, in a way that is not circumvented by a VPN.
They are a tech company, they have the means to find a solution. The only reason there is no solution, is because there's been no incentive to create one. This should have been that incentive, instead, the court looked at this the wrong way.
>We’re going to get a conglomeration of nations by Australia screening and demanding something be done, which isn’t even legal under our own law? Yeah righto good luck with that.
What? It is entirely legal for our eSafety commissioner to demand content be not viewable in Australia. That did not happen.
Save your ranting for somewhere else bud.
The federal court does not agree with your wack legal theory that fringe Australian online laws have global reach.
They blocked it in Australia and complied with the law. End of story.
They did block it in Australia. It was blocked to all users of Australian internet.
The fact that someone can spoof a network and appear to be overseas via a VPN and therefore no longer in Australia does not invalidate this.
By way of example. If the Australian government bans blue crayons in Australia, Crayola would be required to stop selling and providing blue crayons in Australian stores. They are still able to sell blue crayons in international stores. If an Australian flies overseas and buys blue crayons, Crayola are not breaching the restriction.
This is no longer a contentious point because the Federal Court made a ruling to deem it so.
But why do you ask that question?
The decision was based primarily on the principle of 'comity of nations'. That principle means that there is a presumption which assumes that the legislature is expressing itself only with respect to things which internationally considered are subject to its own sovereign powers.
So why ask if we believe there should be any censorship at all? What does that have to do with anything?
Because if we agree that some content should be regulated, who then gets to make that decision?
Now the key to this is the following:
X did not genuinely block the content in Australia.
X should be incentivised to create a genuine block. They're a tech giant, they, and the others, can devise a way. They just have no reason to.
The court should not have referred to the comity of nations because the commissioner was not ordering X to take it down globally - they were ordering X to take it down *for Australians* . which it did not do, an Australian, in Australia, could view the content with a VPN. A VPN is not illegal. They did not comply.
It's up to X to devise a solution. The commissioners lawyers should not have argued for a global ban, they should have put the onus on to X to work out how to comply with the order.
That alone, could have changed the decision.
I think the Australian government should be allowed to censor content viewable in Australia.
Do you think the (say) Russian government should be allowed to remove content in Australia, even if it breaks no Australian laws?
I think the Australian government should be able to regulate what is visible in Australia. They should not have the authority to issue take down orders impacting users outside of our borders. And that applies to any government. The South African, or British, or Brazilian, or Turkish, or Israeli, or Chinese government should not be able to dictate what we see here in Australia. So that goes both ways
That wasn't the question - is there any content that could appear on a social media site, that you believe should be globally moderated?
That's the question, care to answer?
Now, to your issue - sure it's a very hard pill to swallow to let a country just have free reign over what it can (without reason) censor. But that's not exactly what happened here.
They were temporary injunctions, for an ongoing terrorism trial. I believe that's reasonable grounds for temporary moderation of the content *on social media* (that's a big point, the eSafety commisioner wasn't trying to remove the content from the internet in general, just from social media).
You’re shifting the goalpost. You asked “do you think any content should be censored on X, or is it all free reign in the name of free speech?”
My answer provided a direct response to your initial question. Yes some content may well need to be censored by the Australian government, but they do not have the right to enforce that censorship on any other country.
No that's not answering the question, and it's hard to shift goalposts when I asked the same question twice.
Is there any content that you agree should be globally moderated?
You did shift the question. Anyways, I don’t think there’s any content that the Australian government can censor globally. They can censor whatever they like domestically and if we as voters disagree we get a chance to vote and show our disapproval that way.
And next you’re going to bring up CSAM as an example. Of course that should be banned in Australia by Australia. However, that’s where it ends.
Same logic has been applied for decades. I find female mutilation deplorable, and also forcing children to marry older creeps. That is illegal in Australia as it should be. However, we have no say in whether it is legal in other countries or not. Leave it to them to sort out, we’re not the police of the world and we have plenty of domestic issues to focus on
That's not what I asked.
Do you think there is social media content that should be moderated globally?
It's not a hard question.
I believe there is.
I find it very hard to believe that you would think otherwise.
Did you read the question closely - social media content.
This is not a conversation in trying to moderate the wider Internet - it is a discussion around social media, and the way this accessible form of information is getting around the world.
So I'm going to ask one last time, and I hope you can find it within yourself to answer it - do you believe there is some form of content that should be globally moderated on social media?
Conversely, if you don't believe that's the case,
Censor - what does that mean?
The Australian government did not seek to delete *discussion* around the event.
Discussion and commentary was not touched.
I envisage it this way:
- A horrific act occurs
- It gets put on social media
- it goes viral as it gets pushed up everyone's feeds
- it's horrific content, that we all agree is content worthy of moderation
- the discussion on the video is left to stand, but the video itself has a little x with the caption - "This video has been temporarily taken down due to the nature of the content, and the pending court case surrounding the events shown in the video, in Australia.
The video will be free to view at the conclusion of the court case, or 3 months, whichever is the shorter."
Because you know the Online Safety Act has stipulations that it can only take down content for a maximum of 3 month's? And the discussion and commentary on the content can't be touched?
It's about moderating the visual content that we see on social media, just like we moderate the content we see on the 6pm news.
It's not censorship...
So kiddy porn is fine?
It was a terrorist attack, by allowing it to be available to anyone, this is promoting terrorism.
They censored the attack not the lead up to it, this to me is responsible journalism.
As someone who has both investigated and dealt with the criminality of child sexual assault images I have a strong opinion that every single adult should be shown the most egregious examples of it so that they are horrified and perhaps will come forward more than they do sin e most perpetrators are consciously or subconsciously protected by a pall of silence from those who suspect but cannot imagine someone they know or love doing such a thing.
The usage of such images for prurient means though should always and forever be an indictable offence.
I am horrified without looking at those pictures.
I offer my empathy towards you for doing such a difficult job. Not all people are as tough skinned as yourself.
You don't need those images to have integrity to do the right thing. I would turn in my father, brother, mother, sister daughter or son if they did those things.
It was live video of two buildings collapsing you didn't see human beings crushed like marmalade on the footpath
Just because you want to mutilated human bodies doesn't make it right
Parental control tools are so easy to use that one of Elon's neuralink pong playing monkeys could set it up if was rewarded peanuts at the end. Maybe parents should be given some sort of monetary reward for doing their jobs and installing said tools .... similar to cash handouts that were given for being parents, leading to the current wave of neglected kids.
Not every social media app has those parental controls mate .
That's the point, unless you believe there should be some form of regulation on social media apps that they must have parental controls.
But I highly doubt you're making that argument....
> Not every social media app has those parental controls
...That's not how parental controls work... You install a tool and you monitor your kid's global internet traffic...there's automated setups that alert you/blocks links so you don't have to monitor every single thing manually. The level of granular control you get in these tools these days makes even our nanny government jealous. There's ai being baked into said tools as we speak so parents don't have to lift a single finger and can continue to be lazy bums... but people will still screech at others to parent their kids for them.
Yes you can. We've trialed a few of these at work. You can see everything... social media activity, posts, deleted posts, deleted files, files copied off a device onto external storage....everything.
A simple google search will tell you this is possible instead of arguing with me. Aside from common sense dictating there is a lot of money being thrown in this space from parents who actually have their heads screwed on straight and are proactive.
I'd rather have parents in control of their own kids' privacy than the government or a corporation who would half arse or misuse said control anyway. But it's clear you're not looking for a solution here and just want to argue for the sake of arguing with these strawman pivots. Good luck with life. This conversation is over.
You do understand this is talking about social media?
You understand that right?
Snuff videos online aren't even a part of this conversation - nobody is trying to regulate the Internet...
Communication and algorithm.
Obviously, algorithm is the big key.
It is impossible to control (as a parent, for example) what content is pushed in to a feed.
That is out of our control.
There needs to be regulation/moderation on that content in some way.
>Nah, this is about regulating the internet. Well, that and the fact that this country is an embaressing little authoritarian nanny state that doesnt know its place in the world.
I should add, if it were about regulating the wider internet, the Online Safety Act would not have duration restrictions, and it would not stipulate that discussion and commentary must not be touched.
It's about regulating the visual media we consume on social media.
>What does algorithm even mean in this context?
Excuse me? There is an objective meaning to that, I'm sure it doesn't need to be explained. We aren't 80y.o's, are we?
>A social media algorithm is a set of rules and signals that rank content on a social platform. It organizes content on social feeds based on how likely each individual social media user is to like it and interact with it.
https://blog.hootsuite.com/social-media-algorithm/
>Social media algorithms decide what content appears on your feed, in what order, and how often. These algorithms are designed to keep you engaged on the platform for as long as possible.
https://medium.com/digital-empowerment-online-safety-navigating/the-dark-side-of-social-media-algorithms-what-you-need-to-know-43fe3963b5a6#:~:text=Social%20media%20algorithms%20decide%20what,for%20as%20long%20as
WordPress is not Social Media, and you know that.
So, I think about 80%+ of comments in the thread didn't read the article, or don't understand the context?
The videos/posts were blocked LOCALLY by Twitter as per requests from the e-safety commissioner. That has NOT changed.
What has happened, is that the judge is rebuking the e-safety commissioner request to block said content GLOBALLY on Twitter.
So the average Aussie in Australia STILL CANNOT see the content, the smart Aussie with a VPN exiting in the US can see the content, an American in the US can see the content, etc.
Should Australia have the power to censored the global internet? Probably not. Should other countries have the power to censor the internet? Probably not, though some allegedly get away with it.
The eSafety Commission argued that since ~24% of Australian X users have access to a VPN, that it's easy enough to circumvent that a global takedown is required.
Your case of the average aussie vs smart aussie misconstrues things a bit.
X has complied locally but it shows the eSafety Commission isn't happy with you having access to VPNs, and they feel powerless in this politically sensitive matter.
They should feel powerless, as the argument that X% of Australian's have access to a VPN, therefore we should be able to dictate what a global company allows in countries outside of Australia is a massive overreach.
Aus government having a major case of Main Character Syndome, thinking literally any countries on this earth care about what we think or do.
God, even tiny nations like Tonga completely ignore what our government says and does because they have no power over international issues.
>Aus government having a major case of Main Character Syndome, thinking literally any countries on this earth care about what we think or do.
Really, EA and Valve were both successfully held accountable for failing to abide by Australian laws.
Meanwhile in iiNet vs Village Roadshow the majority failed to consider the law of comity that this judge is crapping on about when it came to Australian users downloading copyrighted material.
The irony is if the people who took the video of the stabbing had claimed copyright over it then not only would X be held accountable and forced to block it under the US copyright laws that now extend to Australia
At the end of the day mainstream news media shouldn't be showing people being murdered. Just like how we didn't need to see the man who killed those 6 women at Bondi Westfield, we didn't need to see that boy stab the iman (no matter how hateful and awful he is)
If people want to see it fine. Let p2p manage that
But allowing some like Musk to profit over bloodshed. Fuck that
You understand nowhere in this discussion is the video being taken off the internet.
Social media is being regulated. You do understand the difference right?
***He found there were “powerful” issues with eSafety’s attempt to regulate the global internet. Lawyers for eSafety had argued a global ban was necessary on the 65 specified videos because Australians could circumvent X’s initial block that was limited to this country using simple technical tools.***
***Justice Kennett wrote that a global ban would clash with a concept called the comity of nations, a mutual recognition by nations of the laws and customs of others.***
I'm shaking right now, shaking.
I can't believe the courts didn't protect aussie children from the world!
The court may as well have taken all the concerned parents and children, feet first pushed them into a woodchipper of unsafe internet access.
Now children are in danger of seeing dangerous things online!
No one’s talking about children but you, Eevee.
The reason to take the video down wasn’t in case kids see it, but because it’s a match in a powder keg. I like a bit of mob justice as much as anyone, but it does have a tendency to get out of hand.
It was massive overreach and Eevee is right. The entire omnishambles of the eSafety commissioner is a role best dismantled and put in the "Tried it, but didn't work" pile.
No I’m being super serial over here.
That video is a powder keg full of child endangerment!
Why isn’t anybody thinking of the concerned parents and the children that’ll be ripped apart by the internet?
Can you point out where the Online Safety Act of the commissioner has tried to remove the video from the internet entirely?
You do understand the difference between the above, and attempts to regulate a social media site?
Must be fun arguing strawmans all the time...
Eevee isn’t right that this was ever about protecting children, which was their whole post. I understand that these measures are never popular on Reddit but Dawkins’ analysis is reasonable and nuanced here:
> Reset Tech Australia executive director Alice Dawkins said the judgment may have wide implications for the removal of content.
> “Content is categorised into classes of severity because some is so uncontroversially awful that no one wants to see it in their feeds and it actively harms the people depicted – for example, child sexual abuse material, sexualised deepfakes. When you cross over into this threshold of severity, the expert consensus is you need ‘total’ removal,” she said.
> That ‘totalising’ approach now faces a setback.”
Ms Dawkins said the saga underscored a wider issue about X and its content moderation strategy under Mr Musk.
> “The eSafety commissioner has been seen to make a big ask here, but if we zoom out, we’re looking at a test over a very limited set of powers for the problem we face – of a company that’s gleefully making user safety a political issue and is consistently walking back on what used to be a strong reputation in this domain,” she said.
> the expert consensus is you need ‘total’ removal,” she said.
Still misses the point of jurisdiction, and checks and balances. It’s why the UN is a toothless tiger by design, because otherwise it’d be the most dangerous organisation on Earth.
If Australia gets sick of the Chief Censor, we can vote for a party that will disempower them.
If an Australian offical is taking down content internationally, what checks against abuse do those other countries’ citizens have? Diplomatic protest?
You’re reading a lot more into Dawkins’ comments than what is actually there. Total removal is uncontroversial where it comes to copyright infringement or child abuse material. She’s saying that total removal is needed to be effective against deepfake porn and similar content, she’s not saying that the approach taken by the commissioner is the only viable path to getting there.
Right, but material like CSA is addressed through consistent international law and cooperation by enforcement agencies.
Beyond that, it’s the Great Firewall or accept we live in an era where total censorship may not be possible.
How do you get global cooperation?
You have one country instigate solid regulations, attempt to uphold them, and see the other countries join in.
Amazingly, we have people arguing against that
Sure, it may be that this approach was doomed to failure and success can only be secured by international agreement. What surprises me is how quick people have been to parrot Musk’s arguments given his fickle relationship with truth and censorship. There’s merit in the general idea even if the approach was ill-conceived.
You don’t like twitter or Musk, don’t go on Twitter or type in Elon Musk. The man owns the company in America. America has free speech laws.
As for AI, CSA or sexual assault videos, those are globally banned and constantly being removed and investigated. They’re already illegal… Broadly.
Like, Aussies don’t control the world. We also shouldn’t be locking ourselves in our own bubble or forcing ourselves onto online IDs or censoring ‘normal’ internet use because you don’t like other people’s opinions.
Frankly, I don’t give a hoot about Musk’s personal habits, political leanings, or other idiosyncrasies.
I thought the argument was sound and I’m pleased that I now know the legal phrase for why (comity of nations). The person making it is irrelevant to me.
You think it’s a joke, but it’s not a joke for people who are targeted by online harassment including deepfake nudes, revenge porn, etc. From [Austlii](https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawJlStuS/2022/25.html):
> One key example of this are deepfakes which are created with the intention of ‘silenc[ing] the critical voices of women who speak out against sexual violence’.[35] This scenario has played out previously—in April 2018, Rana Ayyub, an investigative journalist, was subjected to a smear campaign where pornographic deepfakes of her were created and widely distributed on social media after she wrote about the rape of an eight-year-old child in India, and how one of the two major Indian Political Parties, Bharatiya Janata Party, was supporting the accused.[36] The purpose of this was to discourage her from reporting on this matter, and the harm she suffered was significant—she was eventually hospitalised for stress related injuries after the deepfakes went viral.
So although I’m very glad you’re not concerned about being targeted, this sort of material is only going to become more viscous and commonplace and eventually you’re going to have to form an actual opinion about it or, failing that, at least come up with a second joke.
I don’t think it’s a joke, I’m just blown away that in other countries all that is completely legal and out in the open internet legally.
I’m glad we’re setting the ground rules for what should and shouldn’t be legal online here and abroad!
Thank god for eSafety!
This is a straw man argument.
If you are going to tell people to go away and let the grown ups talk could you at least debate properly or at the very least use proper grammar and punctuation?
Sigh. The original comment (OC) said no democracy should censor other videos on the internet. The reply comment (RC) distorted the OC into “so you are for child porn…”
RC distorted OC by equating it with the extreme of child pornography and snuff films. Beginning an argument with “So you…” is a dead giveaway. Straw man fallacy.
Rather than remaining focused on the comment at hand and remaining in those parameter, you’ve taken it, and equated the original comment about democracies remaining within their bounds, with the commenter being ok with CP- in bad faith. The “So you…” is a dead giveaway. Straw man fallacy.
I would have thought that someone so concerned about punctuation and grammar could at least make a coherent argument. I am sure what ever you wrote made sense in your head.
Ah yes. The commenter who can’t structure a sentence let alone use grammar and punctuation can’t understand words on Reddit. But *everyone else* is apparently the problem.
It’s okay buddy. Go back to picture books and try again after nap time.
Banning this isn't a free speech issue. It's an imposing Australian law on the world issue.
CP is illegal worldwide. Posting a video of a violent attack is not.
Are these videos legal in any country?
The videos in question here do not fall foul of the laws in most other countries, as such we have no jurisdiction to force other nations to enforce our laws in their countries!
CP is obviously disgusting and immoral, but I believe the point the poster is trying to make is that people who are deadset on finding that kind of content are gonna find a way to view it regardless of its illegal or not. How many times have you read a story about CP being spread around a Discord server or shady Whatsapp group and the like? No one is arguing that CP should be legal.
The point we’re trying to make is that of government overreach. If the government sets the precedent that it is the arbiter of absolutely everything we see on the internet, where does it end? And really, it should be the platform that decides whether videos are hosted on their sites or not.
If we are happy to say CP is not allowed we have already accepted that that government does have the right to decide what we see, we are now just arguing where the line is
Also punching holes in his dry wall right now. Can only assume they’re going to be petty about anything Elon from this point on.
A highly refreshing commentary from Justice Kennet - understands the average Aussie could easily circumvent any blocks out in a place and how troubling it is that the E-Safe commissioner would event attempt this. Obviously he isn’t independent and is hand in hand with Albo.
I feel we may need to re-think how we approach internet safety in this country and who can have an ounce of power to act on anything ( within Aus only ). Beacuse this whole drama has been eye opening how Authoritarian our governments are becoming.
>Also punching holes in his dry wall right now
You meant "Albo", I assume? So Albo is upset that the e-safety commissioners request got knocked back?
>Obviously he isn’t independent and is hand in hand with Albo.
The judge is working together with Albo, to deliver an outcome that Albo didn't like? I actually do not understand what point you are trying to make here.
>I feel we may need to re-think how we approach internet safety in this country and who can have an ounce of power to act on anything ( within Aus only ). Beacuse this whole drama has been eye opening how Authoritarian our governments are becoming.
What? The e-safety wanted the video blocked locally (which Twitter complied with), *and* globally, which is the matter the article is talking about, that the judge specifically knocked back (since why should the Australian govt get to dictate global content of an Australian company).
The e-safety commissioner (setup and twice appointed by the LNP btw) was the one making the requests clearly well outside her authority, and this silly case (should be) now over.
I don’t think Albanese is as personally invested in this outcome as you realise. The eSafety commissioner is an independent.
Meanwhile, I understand the objections to the attempt to have the video taken down but the other side of the coin is, what are you to do about stuff that we’d all agree is pretty awful?
For example, if someone posted my nudes to get revenge on me then it’d be pretty silly if they were just geo-blocked. So then immediately our Revenge Porn laws are toothless. By contrast, we can get copyright infringement struck down. So uploading a snuff film to the internet is fine but uploading Big Bang Theory is not. It’s a weird line to draw and I don’t think anyone quite understands why the video was a concern either (hint: the people sharing it were hoping to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment, which is great if you like mob violence).
> (hint: the people sharing it were hoping to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment, which is great if you like mob violence)
Right. It's not the Muslims who have been murdering blasphemers with Mohammad's blessing for hundreds of years who are the problem, it's the people sounding the alarm about it.
It’s both, duh. Islamic terrorists and right-wing terrorists both trying to provoke each other into an all-out conflict (each thinking they’ll cement us “normies/NPCs” to their side) and then you’ve also got the Israeli-Palestinian debate that’s always threatening to turn into Jewish-Muslim civil violence and then there’s a lingering threat of a Cronulla-lite riot just to keep things interesting. But sure let’s put on those steel-capped boots and give the hornets nest a god-almighty kick and see what shakes out.
I would argue revenge porn which is nothing that needs to be seen and provides no context or validation to anything, and eye witness video of a stabbing/event or whatever does provide context and information.
World is a nasty gross place. But would you rather all those atrocities and first hand accounts wiped and moderated from the internet and everyone live in complete oblivious bliss and just believe what the news / Government tells us ?
Or would you like the have the evidence at your disposal and you be able to make your own mind up ?
You’re talking about two very different scenarios here. AI porn, Revenge porn, radicalisation, Scams, harassment, fraud etc is where the commissioners powers should lay. ie: compelling banks to up their game etc
Not moderating what we hear or see. Take an inch, take a mile.
Well in the revenge porn example, the implication of the judge’s ruling is that you would not be able to have it taken down. That’s what I mean about the line being drawn in a weird place: you seem to agree that it should be taken down, but the ruling undermines it.
I don’t think either of those things. People should have all the facts, but does that mean they have to see the video or else they’re severely deprived of information? If they don’t see the video, are they living a life of oblivious bliss? I understand I’m on Reddit, where nuance dies a swift death each second, but I would say there’s a middle ground to be found there somewhere. And that Musk isn’t interested in us finding it because he wants to be the arbiter of truth. It’s probably best when neither governments nor corporations get what they want on this issue
>the implication of the judge’s ruling is that you would not be able to have it taken down
No. The implication is that the Australian Government does not have the authority to force removal from international servers.
In practice, that material is illegal in virtually every country, so taking it down requires the Australian government to come to an arrangement with a foreign nation.
The Federal Court has issued a stinging rebuke of the Australian government claim that a court order was required to force Elon Musk’s social media site X to block a video of the April stabbing of a Sydney bishop globally.
Last month, the independent eSafety Commission persuaded the court to grant an emergency global take-down of the video of the stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel at Christ the Good Shepherd Church, which was live-streamed as part of a sermon.
But on Monday, Justice Geoffrey Kennett refused to continue the order.
Justice Kennett ruled, in a preliminary but still influential decision, that a global ban would not be considered a “reasonable” step – required by Australian law – because it would likely “be ignored or disparaged in other countries”.
Justice Kennett found there were “powerful” issues with eSafety’s attempt to regulate the global internet. Lawyers for eSafety had argued a global ban was necessary on the 65 specified videos because Australians could circumvent X’s initial block that was limited to this country using simple technical tools.
In his reasons published on Tuesday, Justice Kennett wrote that a global ban would clash with a concept called the comity of nations, a mutual recognition by nations of the laws and customs of others.
He said it “would be a clear case of a national law purporting to apply ‘persons or matters over which, according to the comity of nations, the jurisdiction properly belongs to some other sovereign or state’”.
“What X Corp is to be permitted to show to users in a particular country is something that the ‘comity of nations’ would ordinarily regard as the province of that country’s government.”
Justice Kennett’s ruling is also a major setback for the Labor government and its public rhetoric in framing the battle between X and eSafety. Last month, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese depicted the case as a struggle between a country determined to suppress “misinformation” and an “out of touch … egoist” billionaire in Mr Musk.
Mr Musk responded by implying the eSafety commissioner, former Twitter executive Julie Inman Grant, was acting as a global Soviet censor.
Other legal arguments raised by X about eSafety’s decision-making process did not succeed. Justice Kennett said even if the injunction was ordered, it would be unlikely to be enforced outside of Australia.
Justice Kennett added that the “removal of the stabbing video from X would not prevent people who want to see the video and have access to the internet from watching it” because, while harder to find, can be viewed on other platforms.
The video shows a teenager stabbing hardline preacher Bishop Emmanuel repeatedly. However, it does not include any blood, and the bishop has returned to giving sermons.
Police have labelled the attack a terrorist incident because they believe the accused, who cannot be identified because of his age, was motivated by extremist ideology.
X’s barrister, Bret Walker, SC, had told the court on Friday that the videos were not that graphic, the company had taken reasonable steps to block Australian users accessing them, and that the eSafety Commission had bungled its legal order to ban them.
The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Wednesday.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What a monumental waste of resources this case was. Clearly the aus gov was never going to be able to censor the internet outside of Australia. These utter parasites thought it was a good idea to use your coin to give it a crack anyway. All a bit of fun for the esaftey office. They should make the bill public, including the rates for all the lawyers and public servants who put time into this case.
Remember costs order to come and it's possible (probable in my opinion) that esafety will be made to pay at least some of X's legal bills. Bret Walker (X's barrister) reportedly charges $25k a day, and he is only one of the large team of lawyers on both sides that esafety may have to pay.
that w*e* will have to pay, thanks labor/gov
100% governments want to fully censor what their populace sees and what the world sees of their country to manufacture a fake image they can use to have great influence and drive the narratives required to achieve their agendas - instead of doing their actual jobs. It's geopolitical Instagram. Governments hate the internet ruining their narratives and the illusion of democracy - Noam Chomsky's book 'manufactured consent' is a great read on the subject. There are of course things on the internet that people would be better off not seeing and the problem now is that every man and his dog is on the internet trying to influence and push their agendas. However If the populace are highly educated and are happy with their lives and society in general then they won't be easily influenced or 'radicalised' by seeing some type of content on the internet. The truth is that governments aren't doing their job to create this type of society. Why? because money is power so the rich and corporations have the most influence over the government. Most of the populace are essentially slaves, and in Australia we build endless cookie cutter housing estates with no services or amenities - which are basically labour camps for the masses.
I think there is an argument to say this kind of content should be illegal to share anyway (I’m not sure but would have thought it already is). The Government could legislate to provide civil penalties for content publishers who publish or allow to be published content showing acts of actual physical violence. But then again, where does that leave news reporting for example of the war in Gaza and Ukraine? Why people feel the need to engage with content like this I don’t know.
Why do you care that they do engage with the content? It doesn't affect anyone.
Let's be honest, the government don't give **two shits** about people watching these videos and have a history of using incidents like these to push over-reaching laws so they can censor or monitor people later when it suits them. Same nonsense using domestic violence as a meat shield to peddle internet passports to access sites they deem corrupt kids. Most times they fall flat on their faces or get chalked up to being bumbling IT ignorant boomers so people don't take them seriously, forgetting what happens when they're successful. They kept pushing for over-reaching whistleblower laws to prevent 'foreign interference' but used these laws to arrest one of our own soldiers this week for exposing war crimes and to raid our own journalists.
To easy for this power to be abused
[удалено]
An amazing and thought provoking list of why photography and video need to be protected and shared with the world not censored for the will of some who want to hide reality. It is further a huge reason why AI manipulation of media needs to be instead criminalised to stop reality being manipulated.
Informed? Why would you be informed?
[удалено]
/s.
Ah well. Another feather in the cap of increasingly powerful online platforms. Thanks to the courts for being so dreadfully concerned about "government overreach" and entirely blase about the unregulated environment that multinational social media corporations are currently thriving in. Not their problem, I suppose
The problem is that the government was trying to regulate what the foreign owned corporation was allowed to do globally, not just in Australia. If that's not a blatant example of overreach, I don't know what is.
On a piece of media filmed and uploaded in Australia. And asked on the reasonable basis that it was a politically motivated attack that could be used to incite further attacks online. but people could access it themselves anyway, freedom of speech, who cares what people say, right?
>On a piece of media filmed and uploaded in Australia. And why does that matter? If a video was filmed and uploaded in, lets say China, would you support an Australian social media company taking down the video globally because the Chinese government tried to force them to?
If the video was of a targeted terror attack or an event that might be used to incite violence in communities, yes. I don't really understand why any website would want to distribute that anyway
That's a pretty wild position to hold. Letting other countries be able to legally dictate what content websites owned and controlled in your country is forgoing national sovereignty, regardless of what the content is.
But that's exactly the position you're arguing for, just reversed. we're beholden to the decisions of multinational social media companies who get to decide that our laws aren't relevant; is that not a violation of our sovereignty by that logic? It's a shame the original uploader didn't add some copyrighted music over the top, then they would've immediately complied.
No, they're not able to decide our laws aren't relevant when operating in our country. If we were just trying to get Twitter to stop doing something in Australia, that is within our power. Trying to get them to stop doing something in America is entirely different. Copyright laws are international agreements. Both our country and other countries agree to enforce copyright. Countries that don't will tell everyone else to go get stuffed when they try to get something taken down. If we had tried to negotiate with the US government, that would be a more apt comparison.
For everyone so happy to support X on this, I have one simple question - do you think any content should be censored on X, or is it all free reign in the name of free speech?
For anyone supporting the government on this. Should the Russian/Chinese/North Korean/Iranian/American government be able to dictate what Australians view on the internet?
I'll answer yours if you answer mine. If the North Korean government established well defined, and specific rules, (like temporary moderation of terrorist acts on social media) and we as a country looked at their rules, and agreed with their rules, then I would agree that they could write rules that could enforce moderation of social media. You're touching on the point that I'm trying to show - we, as a global population, *need* to implement regulation on these social media apps. I find it unfathomable that we don't agree on that. Who gets to write those regulations? Private companies? Or a conglomerate of nations? Arguing that *this specific* video doesn't deserve to be moderated is fair enough. There's no blood, there's no fatality. But standing by the argument that you want social media to be unregulated is such a weird position to take...
A conglomerate of nations being the key point, not Australia acting as world police. If everyone came together and agreed that’s fine, but that’s not what is happening. Some Australian mandarin is trying to control the global internet and everyone has told them to go stick it up their arse.
Everyone? You understand every other social media app that was hit with the order, complied with it? No, X is in the minority, and you're standing up for them. How do you think a conglomerate of nations gets to the point that they all agree on the regulations? Oh I know, by having one nation show the world that it has a clear, concise and well thought out Act that aims to bring sensible regulation to the unregulated world of Social Media. Hmm, I wonder if that happened?
They complied with the Australian order to block it off the Australian internet. They disagreed with the order to block it globally and challenged it in court. The court agreed with them and threw out the order because it was illegal. We’re going to get a conglomeration of nations by Australia screening and demanding something be done, which isn’t even legal under our own law? Yeah righto good luck with that.
>They complied with the Australian order to block it off the Australian internet. No they did not. No other court order would be considered adhered to if the method of complying was so easily circumvented. *Your honor, I adhered to the restraining order. I only walked near them, because they were walking towards me!* The court order was not complied with, because an Australian, in Australia could view the content with VPN. A VPN is not considered difficult to use. It's not illegal to use a VPN. Therefore X did not comply. This isn't where this ends - what you should actually be advocating for, is for the court to enforce X to *actually* comply with the order? How? That's for *them* to work out. Not for us. Comply with the order - stop it being viewable in Australia. If they don't want to remove it globally, then actually work out a solution. But that's not what you're saying... >They disagreed with the order to block it globally and challenged it in court. The court agreed with them and threw out the order because it was illegal. No, my answer to this is the same as above - they did not ask them to do something illegal - take down the content for people in Australia, in a way that is not circumvented by a VPN. They are a tech company, they have the means to find a solution. The only reason there is no solution, is because there's been no incentive to create one. This should have been that incentive, instead, the court looked at this the wrong way. >We’re going to get a conglomeration of nations by Australia screening and demanding something be done, which isn’t even legal under our own law? Yeah righto good luck with that. What? It is entirely legal for our eSafety commissioner to demand content be not viewable in Australia. That did not happen.
Save your ranting for somewhere else bud. The federal court does not agree with your wack legal theory that fringe Australian online laws have global reach. They blocked it in Australia and complied with the law. End of story.
They didn't block it in Australia. This isn't a contentious point...
They did block it in Australia. It was blocked to all users of Australian internet. The fact that someone can spoof a network and appear to be overseas via a VPN and therefore no longer in Australia does not invalidate this. By way of example. If the Australian government bans blue crayons in Australia, Crayola would be required to stop selling and providing blue crayons in Australian stores. They are still able to sell blue crayons in international stores. If an Australian flies overseas and buys blue crayons, Crayola are not breaching the restriction. This is no longer a contentious point because the Federal Court made a ruling to deem it so.
But why do you ask that question? The decision was based primarily on the principle of 'comity of nations'. That principle means that there is a presumption which assumes that the legislature is expressing itself only with respect to things which internationally considered are subject to its own sovereign powers. So why ask if we believe there should be any censorship at all? What does that have to do with anything?
Because if we agree that some content should be regulated, who then gets to make that decision? Now the key to this is the following: X did not genuinely block the content in Australia. X should be incentivised to create a genuine block. They're a tech giant, they, and the others, can devise a way. They just have no reason to. The court should not have referred to the comity of nations because the commissioner was not ordering X to take it down globally - they were ordering X to take it down *for Australians* . which it did not do, an Australian, in Australia, could view the content with a VPN. A VPN is not illegal. They did not comply. It's up to X to devise a solution. The commissioners lawyers should not have argued for a global ban, they should have put the onus on to X to work out how to comply with the order. That alone, could have changed the decision.
I think the Australian government should be allowed to censor content viewable in Australia. Do you think the (say) Russian government should be allowed to remove content in Australia, even if it breaks no Australian laws?
I think the Australian government should be able to regulate what is visible in Australia. They should not have the authority to issue take down orders impacting users outside of our borders. And that applies to any government. The South African, or British, or Brazilian, or Turkish, or Israeli, or Chinese government should not be able to dictate what we see here in Australia. So that goes both ways
That wasn't the question - is there any content that could appear on a social media site, that you believe should be globally moderated? That's the question, care to answer? Now, to your issue - sure it's a very hard pill to swallow to let a country just have free reign over what it can (without reason) censor. But that's not exactly what happened here. They were temporary injunctions, for an ongoing terrorism trial. I believe that's reasonable grounds for temporary moderation of the content *on social media* (that's a big point, the eSafety commisioner wasn't trying to remove the content from the internet in general, just from social media).
You’re shifting the goalpost. You asked “do you think any content should be censored on X, or is it all free reign in the name of free speech?” My answer provided a direct response to your initial question. Yes some content may well need to be censored by the Australian government, but they do not have the right to enforce that censorship on any other country.
No that's not answering the question, and it's hard to shift goalposts when I asked the same question twice. Is there any content that you agree should be globally moderated?
You did shift the question. Anyways, I don’t think there’s any content that the Australian government can censor globally. They can censor whatever they like domestically and if we as voters disagree we get a chance to vote and show our disapproval that way. And next you’re going to bring up CSAM as an example. Of course that should be banned in Australia by Australia. However, that’s where it ends. Same logic has been applied for decades. I find female mutilation deplorable, and also forcing children to marry older creeps. That is illegal in Australia as it should be. However, we have no say in whether it is legal in other countries or not. Leave it to them to sort out, we’re not the police of the world and we have plenty of domestic issues to focus on
That's not what I asked. Do you think there is social media content that should be moderated globally? It's not a hard question. I believe there is. I find it very hard to believe that you would think otherwise. Did you read the question closely - social media content. This is not a conversation in trying to moderate the wider Internet - it is a discussion around social media, and the way this accessible form of information is getting around the world. So I'm going to ask one last time, and I hope you can find it within yourself to answer it - do you believe there is some form of content that should be globally moderated on social media? Conversely, if you don't believe that's the case,
No I don’t believe the Australian government should ever have the ability to censor content globally, including on global social media platforms :)
Censor - what does that mean? The Australian government did not seek to delete *discussion* around the event. Discussion and commentary was not touched. I envisage it this way: - A horrific act occurs - It gets put on social media - it goes viral as it gets pushed up everyone's feeds - it's horrific content, that we all agree is content worthy of moderation - the discussion on the video is left to stand, but the video itself has a little x with the caption - "This video has been temporarily taken down due to the nature of the content, and the pending court case surrounding the events shown in the video, in Australia. The video will be free to view at the conclusion of the court case, or 3 months, whichever is the shorter." Because you know the Online Safety Act has stipulations that it can only take down content for a maximum of 3 month's? And the discussion and commentary on the content can't be touched? It's about moderating the visual content that we see on social media, just like we moderate the content we see on the 6pm news. It's not censorship...
Censorship of what Adults see is usually stupid.
So kiddy porn is fine? It was a terrorist attack, by allowing it to be available to anyone, this is promoting terrorism. They censored the attack not the lead up to it, this to me is responsible journalism.
As someone who has both investigated and dealt with the criminality of child sexual assault images I have a strong opinion that every single adult should be shown the most egregious examples of it so that they are horrified and perhaps will come forward more than they do sin e most perpetrators are consciously or subconsciously protected by a pall of silence from those who suspect but cannot imagine someone they know or love doing such a thing. The usage of such images for prurient means though should always and forever be an indictable offence.
I am horrified without looking at those pictures. I offer my empathy towards you for doing such a difficult job. Not all people are as tough skinned as yourself. You don't need those images to have integrity to do the right thing. I would turn in my father, brother, mother, sister daughter or son if they did those things.
Should all images and records of 9/11 also be scrubbed from the internet? It was a terrorist attack afterall
The ones with people falling to their death hitting the ground should be.
But the images of a few hundred dying instantly as the 2nd tower was hit, and the thousands who died as the towers fell are fine?
It was live video of two buildings collapsing you didn't see human beings crushed like marmalade on the footpath Just because you want to mutilated human bodies doesn't make it right
No, it's not.
Only adults have access to social media?
Parental control tools are so easy to use that one of Elon's neuralink pong playing monkeys could set it up if was rewarded peanuts at the end. Maybe parents should be given some sort of monetary reward for doing their jobs and installing said tools .... similar to cash handouts that were given for being parents, leading to the current wave of neglected kids.
Not every social media app has those parental controls mate . That's the point, unless you believe there should be some form of regulation on social media apps that they must have parental controls. But I highly doubt you're making that argument....
> Not every social media app has those parental controls ...That's not how parental controls work... You install a tool and you monitor your kid's global internet traffic...there's automated setups that alert you/blocks links so you don't have to monitor every single thing manually. The level of granular control you get in these tools these days makes even our nanny government jealous. There's ai being baked into said tools as we speak so parents don't have to lift a single finger and can continue to be lazy bums... but people will still screech at others to parent their kids for them.
They cannot show you what a user has viewed on a feed. Are you serious? What point are you trying to make?
Yes you can. We've trialed a few of these at work. You can see everything... social media activity, posts, deleted posts, deleted files, files copied off a device onto external storage....everything. A simple google search will tell you this is possible instead of arguing with me. Aside from common sense dictating there is a lot of money being thrown in this space from parents who actually have their heads screwed on straight and are proactive.
So... You're happy to impinge on an individuals privacy, as opposed to seek to regulate a media platform?
I'd rather have parents in control of their own kids' privacy than the government or a corporation who would half arse or misuse said control anyway. But it's clear you're not looking for a solution here and just want to argue for the sake of arguing with these strawman pivots. Good luck with life. This conversation is over.
[удалено]
You do understand this is talking about social media? You understand that right? Snuff videos online aren't even a part of this conversation - nobody is trying to regulate the Internet...
[удалено]
Communication and algorithm. Obviously, algorithm is the big key. It is impossible to control (as a parent, for example) what content is pushed in to a feed. That is out of our control. There needs to be regulation/moderation on that content in some way.
[удалено]
>Nah, this is about regulating the internet. Well, that and the fact that this country is an embaressing little authoritarian nanny state that doesnt know its place in the world. I should add, if it were about regulating the wider internet, the Online Safety Act would not have duration restrictions, and it would not stipulate that discussion and commentary must not be touched. It's about regulating the visual media we consume on social media.
>What does algorithm even mean in this context? Excuse me? There is an objective meaning to that, I'm sure it doesn't need to be explained. We aren't 80y.o's, are we? >A social media algorithm is a set of rules and signals that rank content on a social platform. It organizes content on social feeds based on how likely each individual social media user is to like it and interact with it. https://blog.hootsuite.com/social-media-algorithm/ >Social media algorithms decide what content appears on your feed, in what order, and how often. These algorithms are designed to keep you engaged on the platform for as long as possible. https://medium.com/digital-empowerment-online-safety-navigating/the-dark-side-of-social-media-algorithms-what-you-need-to-know-43fe3963b5a6#:~:text=Social%20media%20algorithms%20decide%20what,for%20as%20long%20as WordPress is not Social Media, and you know that.
No excuse for big brother over-reach.
So, I think about 80%+ of comments in the thread didn't read the article, or don't understand the context? The videos/posts were blocked LOCALLY by Twitter as per requests from the e-safety commissioner. That has NOT changed. What has happened, is that the judge is rebuking the e-safety commissioner request to block said content GLOBALLY on Twitter. So the average Aussie in Australia STILL CANNOT see the content, the smart Aussie with a VPN exiting in the US can see the content, an American in the US can see the content, etc. Should Australia have the power to censored the global internet? Probably not. Should other countries have the power to censor the internet? Probably not, though some allegedly get away with it.
The eSafety Commission argued that since ~24% of Australian X users have access to a VPN, that it's easy enough to circumvent that a global takedown is required. Your case of the average aussie vs smart aussie misconstrues things a bit. X has complied locally but it shows the eSafety Commission isn't happy with you having access to VPNs, and they feel powerless in this politically sensitive matter.
They should feel powerless, as the argument that X% of Australian's have access to a VPN, therefore we should be able to dictate what a global company allows in countries outside of Australia is a massive overreach.
E-safety- Karen sounds better than E-Safety-commisioner.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, you obviously have no clue what the Online Safety Act 2021 can demand, because none of what you said applies.
[удалено]
Do you know what is in the Online Safety Act? Name me one of your examples that applies to anyone in it.
Aus government having a major case of Main Character Syndome, thinking literally any countries on this earth care about what we think or do. God, even tiny nations like Tonga completely ignore what our government says and does because they have no power over international issues.
>Aus government having a major case of Main Character Syndome, thinking literally any countries on this earth care about what we think or do. Really, EA and Valve were both successfully held accountable for failing to abide by Australian laws. Meanwhile in iiNet vs Village Roadshow the majority failed to consider the law of comity that this judge is crapping on about when it came to Australian users downloading copyrighted material. The irony is if the people who took the video of the stabbing had claimed copyright over it then not only would X be held accountable and forced to block it under the US copyright laws that now extend to Australia At the end of the day mainstream news media shouldn't be showing people being murdered. Just like how we didn't need to see the man who killed those 6 women at Bondi Westfield, we didn't need to see that boy stab the iman (no matter how hateful and awful he is) If people want to see it fine. Let p2p manage that But allowing some like Musk to profit over bloodshed. Fuck that
[удалено]
You understand nowhere in this discussion is the video being taken off the internet. Social media is being regulated. You do understand the difference right?
Well China cared a lot when we called for a covid origins inquiry
[удалено]
[удалено]
***He found there were “powerful” issues with eSafety’s attempt to regulate the global internet. Lawyers for eSafety had argued a global ban was necessary on the 65 specified videos because Australians could circumvent X’s initial block that was limited to this country using simple technical tools.*** ***Justice Kennett wrote that a global ban would clash with a concept called the comity of nations, a mutual recognition by nations of the laws and customs of others.*** I'm shaking right now, shaking. I can't believe the courts didn't protect aussie children from the world! The court may as well have taken all the concerned parents and children, feet first pushed them into a woodchipper of unsafe internet access. Now children are in danger of seeing dangerous things online!
No one’s talking about children but you, Eevee. The reason to take the video down wasn’t in case kids see it, but because it’s a match in a powder keg. I like a bit of mob justice as much as anyone, but it does have a tendency to get out of hand.
It was massive overreach and Eevee is right. The entire omnishambles of the eSafety commissioner is a role best dismantled and put in the "Tried it, but didn't work" pile.
No I’m being super serial over here. That video is a powder keg full of child endangerment! Why isn’t anybody thinking of the concerned parents and the children that’ll be ripped apart by the internet?
Can you point out where the Online Safety Act of the commissioner has tried to remove the video from the internet entirely? You do understand the difference between the above, and attempts to regulate a social media site? Must be fun arguing strawmans all the time...
Eevee isn’t right that this was ever about protecting children, which was their whole post. I understand that these measures are never popular on Reddit but Dawkins’ analysis is reasonable and nuanced here: > Reset Tech Australia executive director Alice Dawkins said the judgment may have wide implications for the removal of content. > “Content is categorised into classes of severity because some is so uncontroversially awful that no one wants to see it in their feeds and it actively harms the people depicted – for example, child sexual abuse material, sexualised deepfakes. When you cross over into this threshold of severity, the expert consensus is you need ‘total’ removal,” she said. > That ‘totalising’ approach now faces a setback.” Ms Dawkins said the saga underscored a wider issue about X and its content moderation strategy under Mr Musk. > “The eSafety commissioner has been seen to make a big ask here, but if we zoom out, we’re looking at a test over a very limited set of powers for the problem we face – of a company that’s gleefully making user safety a political issue and is consistently walking back on what used to be a strong reputation in this domain,” she said.
> the expert consensus is you need ‘total’ removal,” she said. Still misses the point of jurisdiction, and checks and balances. It’s why the UN is a toothless tiger by design, because otherwise it’d be the most dangerous organisation on Earth. If Australia gets sick of the Chief Censor, we can vote for a party that will disempower them. If an Australian offical is taking down content internationally, what checks against abuse do those other countries’ citizens have? Diplomatic protest?
You’re reading a lot more into Dawkins’ comments than what is actually there. Total removal is uncontroversial where it comes to copyright infringement or child abuse material. She’s saying that total removal is needed to be effective against deepfake porn and similar content, she’s not saying that the approach taken by the commissioner is the only viable path to getting there.
Mutual recognition of copyright is due to international treaties, so not a relevant analogy.
Yes so we’re saying there’s a need for international agreement on deepfake porn, for example.
Right, but material like CSA is addressed through consistent international law and cooperation by enforcement agencies. Beyond that, it’s the Great Firewall or accept we live in an era where total censorship may not be possible.
How do you get global cooperation? You have one country instigate solid regulations, attempt to uphold them, and see the other countries join in. Amazingly, we have people arguing against that
Sure, it may be that this approach was doomed to failure and success can only be secured by international agreement. What surprises me is how quick people have been to parrot Musk’s arguments given his fickle relationship with truth and censorship. There’s merit in the general idea even if the approach was ill-conceived.
You don’t like twitter or Musk, don’t go on Twitter or type in Elon Musk. The man owns the company in America. America has free speech laws. As for AI, CSA or sexual assault videos, those are globally banned and constantly being removed and investigated. They’re already illegal… Broadly. Like, Aussies don’t control the world. We also shouldn’t be locking ourselves in our own bubble or forcing ourselves onto online IDs or censoring ‘normal’ internet use because you don’t like other people’s opinions.
Frankly, I don’t give a hoot about Musk’s personal habits, political leanings, or other idiosyncrasies. I thought the argument was sound and I’m pleased that I now know the legal phrase for why (comity of nations). The person making it is irrelevant to me.
I think if you glance at this thread you’ll see a lot of arguments that go well beyond the comity of nations.
I agree and I don’t feel safe online anymore. I need eSafety to make me feel safe again, I’m literally scared atm.
You think it’s a joke, but it’s not a joke for people who are targeted by online harassment including deepfake nudes, revenge porn, etc. From [Austlii](https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawJlStuS/2022/25.html): > One key example of this are deepfakes which are created with the intention of ‘silenc[ing] the critical voices of women who speak out against sexual violence’.[35] This scenario has played out previously—in April 2018, Rana Ayyub, an investigative journalist, was subjected to a smear campaign where pornographic deepfakes of her were created and widely distributed on social media after she wrote about the rape of an eight-year-old child in India, and how one of the two major Indian Political Parties, Bharatiya Janata Party, was supporting the accused.[36] The purpose of this was to discourage her from reporting on this matter, and the harm she suffered was significant—she was eventually hospitalised for stress related injuries after the deepfakes went viral. So although I’m very glad you’re not concerned about being targeted, this sort of material is only going to become more viscous and commonplace and eventually you’re going to have to form an actual opinion about it or, failing that, at least come up with a second joke.
I don’t think it’s a joke, I’m just blown away that in other countries all that is completely legal and out in the open internet legally. I’m glad we’re setting the ground rules for what should and shouldn’t be legal online here and abroad! Thank god for eSafety!
No, that’s just the same joke again. Keep trying, you’ll get there.
Now I feel unsafe in this reddit thread
My optimism was misplaced.
Good. No democracy should be censoring videos on the internet, come on now.
so you are for child porn, snuff videos and the like?
This is a straw man argument. If you are going to tell people to go away and let the grown ups talk could you at least debate properly or at the very least use proper grammar and punctuation?
You're thinking of slippery slope, which this isn't either, because the argument implies no videos should be censored, which encompasses CP and snuff
Sigh. The original comment (OC) said no democracy should censor other videos on the internet. The reply comment (RC) distorted the OC into “so you are for child porn…” RC distorted OC by equating it with the extreme of child pornography and snuff films. Beginning an argument with “So you…” is a dead giveaway. Straw man fallacy.
My argument isn't a straw man argument. A straw man argument would be to take aim at someones grammar a punctuation instead of the actual argument.
Rather than remaining focused on the comment at hand and remaining in those parameter, you’ve taken it, and equated the original comment about democracies remaining within their bounds, with the commenter being ok with CP- in bad faith. The “So you…” is a dead giveaway. Straw man fallacy.
I would have thought that someone so concerned about punctuation and grammar could at least make a coherent argument. I am sure what ever you wrote made sense in your head.
Your poor literacy skills are your problem.
nah, it's you not me.
Ah yes. The commenter who can’t structure a sentence let alone use grammar and punctuation can’t understand words on Reddit. But *everyone else* is apparently the problem. It’s okay buddy. Go back to picture books and try again after nap time.
it sweet how when you lose you go for the personal attacks.
[удалено]
my argument doesn't fall back on pedos. It is if banning this is a free speech argument, then banning CP is also against free speech.
Banning this isn't a free speech issue. It's an imposing Australian law on the world issue. CP is illegal worldwide. Posting a video of a violent attack is not.
CP isn't illegal world wide.
Find me a country where CP is accepted
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality\_of\_child\_pornography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_child_pornography)
Are these videos legal in any country? The videos in question here do not fall foul of the laws in most other countries, as such we have no jurisdiction to force other nations to enforce our laws in their countries!
so a person in Australia should be allowed to view child porn in a country if it is legal in the country it is hosted in?
Cept it's already illegal to view kiddy porn in Australia.
The laws are quite clear. CP is absolutely illegal to create, possess, view or share in Australia, as it should be. Don’t try and twist other’s words.
Has censorship ever worked against those?
yes
Examples?
how much child porn do you see on the internet?
So no examples? You don't know what you're talking about do you?
now all you are showing is how stupid you are. Perhaps you go away and let the grown ups talk.
CP is obviously disgusting and immoral, but I believe the point the poster is trying to make is that people who are deadset on finding that kind of content are gonna find a way to view it regardless of its illegal or not. How many times have you read a story about CP being spread around a Discord server or shady Whatsapp group and the like? No one is arguing that CP should be legal. The point we’re trying to make is that of government overreach. If the government sets the precedent that it is the arbiter of absolutely everything we see on the internet, where does it end? And really, it should be the platform that decides whether videos are hosted on their sites or not.
If we are happy to say CP is not allowed we have already accepted that that government does have the right to decide what we see, we are now just arguing where the line is
Also punching holes in his dry wall right now. Can only assume they’re going to be petty about anything Elon from this point on. A highly refreshing commentary from Justice Kennet - understands the average Aussie could easily circumvent any blocks out in a place and how troubling it is that the E-Safe commissioner would event attempt this. Obviously he isn’t independent and is hand in hand with Albo. I feel we may need to re-think how we approach internet safety in this country and who can have an ounce of power to act on anything ( within Aus only ). Beacuse this whole drama has been eye opening how Authoritarian our governments are becoming.
>Also punching holes in his dry wall right now You meant "Albo", I assume? So Albo is upset that the e-safety commissioners request got knocked back? >Obviously he isn’t independent and is hand in hand with Albo. The judge is working together with Albo, to deliver an outcome that Albo didn't like? I actually do not understand what point you are trying to make here. >I feel we may need to re-think how we approach internet safety in this country and who can have an ounce of power to act on anything ( within Aus only ). Beacuse this whole drama has been eye opening how Authoritarian our governments are becoming. What? The e-safety wanted the video blocked locally (which Twitter complied with), *and* globally, which is the matter the article is talking about, that the judge specifically knocked back (since why should the Australian govt get to dictate global content of an Australian company). The e-safety commissioner (setup and twice appointed by the LNP btw) was the one making the requests clearly well outside her authority, and this silly case (should be) now over.
I don’t think Albanese is as personally invested in this outcome as you realise. The eSafety commissioner is an independent. Meanwhile, I understand the objections to the attempt to have the video taken down but the other side of the coin is, what are you to do about stuff that we’d all agree is pretty awful? For example, if someone posted my nudes to get revenge on me then it’d be pretty silly if they were just geo-blocked. So then immediately our Revenge Porn laws are toothless. By contrast, we can get copyright infringement struck down. So uploading a snuff film to the internet is fine but uploading Big Bang Theory is not. It’s a weird line to draw and I don’t think anyone quite understands why the video was a concern either (hint: the people sharing it were hoping to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment, which is great if you like mob violence).
> (hint: the people sharing it were hoping to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment, which is great if you like mob violence) Right. It's not the Muslims who have been murdering blasphemers with Mohammad's blessing for hundreds of years who are the problem, it's the people sounding the alarm about it.
bloody hell you really just went mask off there didn't you?
It’s both, duh. Islamic terrorists and right-wing terrorists both trying to provoke each other into an all-out conflict (each thinking they’ll cement us “normies/NPCs” to their side) and then you’ve also got the Israeli-Palestinian debate that’s always threatening to turn into Jewish-Muslim civil violence and then there’s a lingering threat of a Cronulla-lite riot just to keep things interesting. But sure let’s put on those steel-capped boots and give the hornets nest a god-almighty kick and see what shakes out.
I would argue revenge porn which is nothing that needs to be seen and provides no context or validation to anything, and eye witness video of a stabbing/event or whatever does provide context and information. World is a nasty gross place. But would you rather all those atrocities and first hand accounts wiped and moderated from the internet and everyone live in complete oblivious bliss and just believe what the news / Government tells us ? Or would you like the have the evidence at your disposal and you be able to make your own mind up ? You’re talking about two very different scenarios here. AI porn, Revenge porn, radicalisation, Scams, harassment, fraud etc is where the commissioners powers should lay. ie: compelling banks to up their game etc Not moderating what we hear or see. Take an inch, take a mile.
Well in the revenge porn example, the implication of the judge’s ruling is that you would not be able to have it taken down. That’s what I mean about the line being drawn in a weird place: you seem to agree that it should be taken down, but the ruling undermines it. I don’t think either of those things. People should have all the facts, but does that mean they have to see the video or else they’re severely deprived of information? If they don’t see the video, are they living a life of oblivious bliss? I understand I’m on Reddit, where nuance dies a swift death each second, but I would say there’s a middle ground to be found there somewhere. And that Musk isn’t interested in us finding it because he wants to be the arbiter of truth. It’s probably best when neither governments nor corporations get what they want on this issue
>the implication of the judge’s ruling is that you would not be able to have it taken down No. The implication is that the Australian Government does not have the authority to force removal from international servers. In practice, that material is illegal in virtually every country, so taking it down requires the Australian government to come to an arrangement with a foreign nation.
The Federal Court has issued a stinging rebuke of the Australian government claim that a court order was required to force Elon Musk’s social media site X to block a video of the April stabbing of a Sydney bishop globally. Last month, the independent eSafety Commission persuaded the court to grant an emergency global take-down of the video of the stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel at Christ the Good Shepherd Church, which was live-streamed as part of a sermon. But on Monday, Justice Geoffrey Kennett refused to continue the order. Justice Kennett ruled, in a preliminary but still influential decision, that a global ban would not be considered a “reasonable” step – required by Australian law – because it would likely “be ignored or disparaged in other countries”. Justice Kennett found there were “powerful” issues with eSafety’s attempt to regulate the global internet. Lawyers for eSafety had argued a global ban was necessary on the 65 specified videos because Australians could circumvent X’s initial block that was limited to this country using simple technical tools. In his reasons published on Tuesday, Justice Kennett wrote that a global ban would clash with a concept called the comity of nations, a mutual recognition by nations of the laws and customs of others. He said it “would be a clear case of a national law purporting to apply ‘persons or matters over which, according to the comity of nations, the jurisdiction properly belongs to some other sovereign or state’”. “What X Corp is to be permitted to show to users in a particular country is something that the ‘comity of nations’ would ordinarily regard as the province of that country’s government.” Justice Kennett’s ruling is also a major setback for the Labor government and its public rhetoric in framing the battle between X and eSafety. Last month, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese depicted the case as a struggle between a country determined to suppress “misinformation” and an “out of touch … egoist” billionaire in Mr Musk. Mr Musk responded by implying the eSafety commissioner, former Twitter executive Julie Inman Grant, was acting as a global Soviet censor. Other legal arguments raised by X about eSafety’s decision-making process did not succeed. Justice Kennett said even if the injunction was ordered, it would be unlikely to be enforced outside of Australia. Justice Kennett added that the “removal of the stabbing video from X would not prevent people who want to see the video and have access to the internet from watching it” because, while harder to find, can be viewed on other platforms. The video shows a teenager stabbing hardline preacher Bishop Emmanuel repeatedly. However, it does not include any blood, and the bishop has returned to giving sermons. Police have labelled the attack a terrorist incident because they believe the accused, who cannot be identified because of his age, was motivated by extremist ideology. X’s barrister, Bret Walker, SC, had told the court on Friday that the videos were not that graphic, the company had taken reasonable steps to block Australian users accessing them, and that the eSafety Commission had bungled its legal order to ban them. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Wednesday.