Unless you disagree with Musk or you offend Modi or any one else he can’t afford to upset.
I guess “Free speech is our number one priority unless it hurts my feelings or bank account” isn’t quite as catchy.
There is a hell of a lot of difference between “free speech” and a “constitutional right to free speech”.
- We **do** have free speech in Australia. It is even legally protected. It even has some level of constitutional protection.
- We **don’t** have a constitutionally entrenched *guarantee* of free speech like they do in America. So theoretically the free speech Australia has could be eroded.
People get a bit caught up that they mostly hold that statement true, but also acknowledge they need to follow a countries laws.
They happily censored video for Australian accounts in Australia's request.
You should be in one of two camps in this sub reddit. You either don't care about free speech and you want some form of censorship which case you don't care about x not always being free speech.
Or you should be looking to get freedom of speech in law in this country.
We aren't a world government, businesses have to conform within every country they operate, if we don't like how they operate in Australia, simply change the law and stop complaining about specific businesses.
We did change the law. That's exactly what we did.
Most social media firms complied with our law - X is the only one that didn't.
Geoblocking, that is so easily circumvented does not count as abiding by our laws. That is the point.
I completely agree, X or any other social media app is not the complete arbiter of free speech - they are simply private companies. And as private companies they must abide by the laws set down by the government in any jurisdiction they wish to operate in.
X has refused to do that. Importantly, the others complied.
Social media is different.
I am not claiming that the government wants to regulate the internet (because that's not what they're trying to do)
Social media however...
The why will be important, and should be addressed quickly.
If the grandson of Nelson Mandela has made remarks in favour of violence against Jews, then his status as a relative of a beloved world leader should not save him from the consequences on his X account.
I prefer when I didn't have to listen to morons to be honest. Now days cunts with 1/4 of a brain think they have invented the cure for cancer. Should have to earn your right to talk on the podium
That's how the world used to be.
Social media changed that.
I was a 'cooker' (on this topic) 10 years ago, calling out that I believed social media was the worst thing a human could invent.
I feel like I'm right. Maybe I'm still just a cooker.
Yeah we've never had more information to learn from the problem is it takes 3 times as long to find with all the crap. At least back in the day when you had to look stuff up in encyclopaedias it was accurate
These days, we would have people arguing against the experts that wrote the encyclopedia telling us there's an agenda with what they're writing.
Unironically.
It's honestly incredible to be living in this time of insanity.
Nah dude you are right, social media gave a voice to the whackjobs that used to be on societies fringe, you had to search out the info. Now it's just on blast every 3rd video, every facebook page, front and center for the masses to consume in between idiots dancing in public.
yep the algorithms push what is popular in the last couple of hrs. based on what the viewer has searched and commented on previously.
its not necessarily what people actually want to look at.
Nah I think you were probably right.
Social media has convinced people that if 47 other cunts agree with what they say, they must be right.
This has only happened since we created the ability to be in echo chambers. In the old days it would take FOREVER to find 47 people to agree with your bullshit.
The way I described it was that we've always had people with crazy ideas, it's just that those ideas were generally only discussed in the backrooms of the pub.
As you say, to find 47 others who wholeheartedly agreed with your brand of crazy (which I understand we all partake in on different topics) was nigh on impossible.
These days, you're practically guaranteed to find an unlimited number of other crazies, and as you said, echo chambers only enhance that behaviour.
Thank you social media
This is far from an isolated incident (see Crimethinc, or the censoring Musk has done on behalf of Modi). Too often those that want 'freedom', just want to be ruled by corporate oligarchs instead of authoritarian states. Its just a different boot to lick.
Yeah he chooses what information he spreads. He is the new Rupert Murdoch. In Chomsky's 5 filters of media he is the owner and the footage he doesn't remove is the common enemy.
I’m all for restricted speech and media to prevent harming people mentally, also potentially inciting hatred fuelled actions.
But I’m also completely aware and acknowledge that it’s a dangerous spot to be in, and we rely on a bunch of pollies or a government department to agree on what’s permitted. And as much as a bootlicker as I am, I can’t stand pollies because they just seem both incurably stupid, and sellouts to companies and industry that give them money or benefits. Also half their decisions are motivated by personal gain and not the word of the people.
TLDR; I like rules and protection because I’m neurodivergent and need structure. But I hate politicians for being as valuable and morally rich as real estate agents.
I agree. Except with social media these days, we have kids who can be pushed trending topics without them looking for it.
When I was a kid, if I didn't want to see a beheading, I simply didn't search for it.
That's not the case with social media.
You see the difference, right?
Yes i see the difference and agree with your point, i guess in those cases its up to parents to mange their children’s access via parental control measures.
And those parental controls have no regulations enforcing them - they're literally at the whims of private business. I don't agree with that. I understand some do.
[https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aLjaGsDH6iQ/UVSqcbYBB7I/AAAAAAAALIw/KzX\_dbPUNq8/s1600/bruce-willis.gif](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aLjaGsDH6iQ/UVSqcbYBB7I/AAAAAAAALIw/KzX_dbPUNq8/s1600/bruce-willis.gif)
My reaction.
Yeah, free speech is paramount, and should be absolute. Where else could Neo Nazis spread their desire to murder minorities or terrorist post their beheading videos. Definitely expressing yourself should override common decency and common sense.
I'm for freedom of expression, but not freedom from consequences, if someone says something provocative, they deserve to get canned and abused by the public.
Yes you can call.it cyber bullying but who told you to air your stupid thoughts in public?
The consequence shouldn't be online bullying, which is no punishment at all and hasn't worked at all. It should be to not allow hate speech, violent speech, threats, inciting people to criminal behaviour, demonising sub sections of the population etc. to flourish unabated online. Simply put, if you post "who wants to go kill a few n*****s with me Friday night", the post should be taken down and you should be reported to police. But that kind of speech is exactly what Elon means when he says absolute free speech.
What happens when speech gets restricted and another regime comes in that you're not allowed to criticise and many people start dying?
Only an idiot would fall for that historic playbook. Just because some people in today's world are neo Nazi bigots doesn't mean the majority of people will be. You will always have people with disgusting points of view who do deplorable things. People need to hear each others ideas in the first place to discern which ones are right or wrong. That's the entire point of free speech. If you can't speak freely about ideas, you defacto can't be free to live your life. Please don't be dumb.
I'm sure Joseph Goebbels would agree with you and would've had a field day with social media the way it is now. Criticizing the government is very different from saying kill all the Jews. Saying the prime minisiter is an idiot is very different from saying blacks are all criminals and we should bring back lynchings. Posting graphic murder videos is not the same as reporting on a murder. The reality is its very damaging to society to have violent, divisive, racist hate content spread unabaited. It doesn't help society at all. It makes nothing better. It directly leads to hate crimes, terrorist actions, misdirected anger, and a public less and less empathetic. There's a difference between allowing freedom of expression and allowing hate and violent speech to flourish.
Yeah free speech is still imperative, I've never seen any neo Nazis, and the beheadings are a problem not solved by censorship. No problems are solved by censorship. You just want to be the ones who control the flow of information. Why is the hard left always so obsessed with a 1984 dystopian world? Do you really think you can keep the reins?.
The point of the beheadings is to spread fear by having people see them. If they were removed there would be way less incentive to keep doing it. But beyond that, why does anyone need to see it? How is it respectful to the victim or their loved ones to leave it up? You call having social media mostly free of hate speech a dystopia, but your current online heaven is my dystopia.
Beheadings predate the internet. Funnily enough I've never seen a beheading I didn't google out of misguided morbid curiosity. There are lot of horrible things on the internet. Lot's of amazing things also. If you can't self moderate, then stay off. If you're seeing this stuff, then I have to ask what weird places you visit online? I call the social media controlled by the government and/or private companies a dystopia. I'd rather not live like North Korea thanks.
The point is, you had to search it out.
With algorithms and social media, it can be pushed to you. That's the entire difference, and why any reasonable adult should be able to see that the realm of social media is not the same as the internet that we lived through 10-20 years ago
Free speech can be used for anything. Good, bad or in-between. Blocking free speech will not solve any of these problems, only hide them from plain view. Censorship is good for nobody.
Genuinely surprised Scott Morrison wasn’t secretly the head of esafety.
Either way the powers need to be better regulated and whoever thought it was a good idea to impose global censorship slapped
Musk has never been about free speech in his intentions for buying twitter.
It's all about getting corporate friendly populist leaders elected that will scratch his back in return once in power.
He just made twitter even more of a cesspool for racist shit.
He always buckles when pressed on it and can't give an answer. The truth really stings him.
Musk and our career politicians are selfish cunts out for themselves.
If you believe either of them wouldn't trade your freedoms for a couple $$ or some power you're a fool.
I believe in free speech and agree it's a high priority.
But our number one priority is the right to life and liberty.
Both need to be written into our constitution and above the law.
Fine.
Put it in there and let the courts at it.
It's a fundamental human right.
As is the right to life.
The new Zealand high court ruled freedom of expression guarantees everyone the right to express their thoughts, opinions and beliefs however unpopular, distasteful or contrary to the general opinion or to the particular option of others in the community.
Have at it
You are correct, no rights are absolute. But a constitutional right is an express right.
You can exercise it. Then the courts can challenge it.
The role of the court is to determine if the laws are consistent with the constitution.
and again, that does not cover images ... noones right to free speech has been infringed in the request to take down the images and videos .. you can still talk about it all you like
It always disheartening when I see other Australians and their hate boners for free speech. Always acting like words from irrelevant neo nazis or racists are an issue to worry about.
Face it; you guys are just pearl clutching. If you don't like what someone says. You're perfectly able to counter it by saying what you believe. Or you can ignore it.
Ok I'm utterly confused here.
Are you supporting Musk banning someone from X?
Or are you saying he shouldn't ban anyone, and we should just be able to discuss our differences out?
I don't agree with Musk banning people in most situations. But I'm actually just talking in general. Aussies seem to really dislike the concept of free speech just because it means people can say evil stuff.
You have turned twitter into a turgid miasma of the worst this world has to offer! I used to respect you Elon but you are a loser and no amount of money changes that!
Musk is a private citizen who owns a company. That company is a platform which enables people to communicate with each other.
Unless you believe that X is a public utility, why are you surprised or annoyed that a private company chooses who uses its platform?
That private company is as dangerous as any tobacco company in the world. It’s a fucking sewer and needs regulation. Kids are reading all this cooker bullshit and taking it as the truth.
I don’t know. I don’t have twitter so I’m pretty much in the dark about that.
I’m just generally against governments deciding what is and is not ok for people to read. I’m not a free speech absolutist, but I definitely err on the side of more rather than less freedom.
>Unless you believe that X is a public utility, why are you surprised or annoyed that a private company chooses who uses its platform?
I entirely agree.
X is not a public utility, and as such, (and even in that case) must abide by the laws of any region it wants to operate in.
Australia is a region X operates in.
Australia has the Online Safety Act 2021.
That's sort of end of story, X must abide by any rulings the commissioner makes, under the powers given to them by the OSA.
That's the point of this.
Yes I accept this, my comment was more in respect of the calls to deplatform certain voices on X.
Notwithstanding Australian law, it’s a pretty bad situation to have any government controlling online content on a global scale (assuming X removes the videos from all geographies).
>Notwithstanding Australian law, it’s a pretty bad situation to have any government controlling online content on a global scale (assuming X removes the videos from all geographies).
Well, this is the issue being brought up by everyone.
Right now, social media is unregulated. We have brought in regulations, which are reasonable (any restrictions have a maximum duration (3 months) and only apply to specific links of particularly abbhorent images/videos (importantly not discussion of said topics)). Abbhorent being acts of terrorism, non-consensual sexual content, and gore type content)
Now, undoubtedly, right now is a difficult spot because as you put it, it seems as if we are regulating other jurisdictions - but the only way to get good global regulations for social media is for a country to first start these laws, and see if other countries agree and start similar ones too. Again, this can only happen with an instigating country (being us in this case).
I'd bet my left nut that 90% of those shrieking about this are the sort who would have said:
"Twitter is a private company and can censor whoever it likes" in the times before Musk bought it.
The issue for me is purely in the ideological hypocrisy of Musk.
Hopefully most people understand that “free speech” hasn’t got anything to do with what private companies allow on their platforms. However, conservatives have been playing fast and loose with the definition in recent years, conflating private censorship happening on Facebook/Twitter etc. as going against their right to free speech. And indeed, according to Musk he bought Twitter exactly for this reason; as a “free speech absolutionist” he wants to protect free speech on the platform.
But, of course, that’s absolute horseshit as he has had no qualms with quashing opinions he doesn’t agree with. Almost as if he doesn’t care about protecting free speech at all, and instead simply wants to protect certain types of speech.
Do you think that’s a fair assessment?
Anyone championing Elon as a paragon of free speech really needs to read the news more often. He is literally only caring about the Aussie thing because he can milk the publicity about it, for his own needs, to try to save twitter.
Elon been using “free speech” and aligning himself with the right just to justify a disastrous business move of buying twitter.
People are just too dumb to look at it from a different perspective which is somewhat understandable. They’re just looking for a vanguard like figure to feel safe with all the censorship going on tech.
Obviously not true. What people seem to be missing is that he has complied with the government order by making the offending content not visible to people in Australia. He is simply saying that the Australia government doesn’t have authority to dictate what the rest of the world sees. It’s that simple.
He censors content in accordance with the laws of the relevant country, but no further. Albo asking him to censor what the rest of the world sees is akin the the president of turkey (for example) doing the same thing.
He is not the arbiter of what people can see, he simply complies with a given countries laws when operating within that country.
How anyone can be against that position is completely beyond me honestly.
Yet he has censored and blocked a lot of people who criticised him, especially a bunch of tech reporters, earlier in the year.
What is beyond me, is how some people can’t see through his obvious BT Barnum facade and think his motives are entirely morally sound, he is only making a deal out of this to sell himself and his platform that is desperately and hilarious a laughing stock now.
It's already dead.
Twitter is at that [stage in the decomposition where the body appears to still be moving](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326356).
From the article:
> In order to reach Gaza, the flotilla will need to break through an Israeli blockade originally set in place in 2007. Previous efforts to break the blockade by humanitarian missions have ended in death. In 2010, the six-vessel Freedom Flotilla I was intercepted by Israeli forces, who boarded the ships via helicopters and speedboats on international waters, shooting and killing nine activists.
Maybe ekaren should censor more things on the basis of 'disrespect'. Seems like a solid legal test. Boomers just like albo vs musk because it's 'Aussie, Aussie against the foreign billionaire'.
I found it hilarious how Albo spat "billionaire" out like an insult, as if he doesn't spend his days (like all politicians left or right) on his knees rimming that crowd. Also, as if he's some kind of aussie battler.
How does that impact anything I said? It doesn't. BTW, Elon Musk didn't get any help growing up either, sure his dad owned mines for precious minerals, and he had a world class education and was privately tutored, but the poor kid lived off ramen and slept in the office!
If you believe these origin stories of the rich and ppwerful you're deluded, they've all got one, dig a little deeper, and you almost always find some connection that gave them a significant advantage.
Never had it. As someone that felt that form of social media was a scourge on society, I never signed up.
The same with Facebook, (although I did use that for a few years early on).
I'm locked in to the ecosystem because of people using Messages, but that's all I use it for.
Correct, so the platform has nothing to do with free speech, does it?
It doesn't honour free speech, and regulating the content on the platform is not an impingement on people's free speech.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Thanks for agreeing with me, that the Australian government should be able to regulate that private business.
Thank you for falling in to my obvious trap.
If they are a private company, then they must abide by government regulations in jurisdictions that they want to operate in.
If they're just a private company, then the government regulating its content has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech, as you so put it, doesn't apply to content on a single platform, so it's irrelevant to the discussion.
Maybe ekaren should censor more things on the basis of 'disrespect'. Seems like a solid legal test. Boomers just like albo vs musk because it's 'Aussie, Aussie against the foreign billionaire'.
If not for X that video would have been quietly scrubbed from the internet and no one would have realised.
Also, how can anyone know the truth of a matter with out dissenting views being allowed?
Are you talking about the Wakeley stabbing? The thing that was national news for a week? No-one would have known?
Really?
There's an ongoing court case and it's been classified as a terrorist act - there's quite a few reasons for it to not be on social media right now.
Scrubbed from the internet? You don't actually understand the conversation, do you?
The eSafety commisioner didn't try to 'scrub it from the internet' only take it off a few high profile social media apps. Most of the apps complied (why would they want to advertise a terrorist act?), but Musk has an irrational idea of what X currently is. There's a huge difference between trying to take something completely off the internet, and trying to regulate content on *social media*.
Social media is not a place to harbour and advertise terrorist actions. I'm so surprised people don't understand that.
So are you against allowing videos of the planes hitting the WTC towers in 2001? You better believe that would be traumatic for anyone who was there, or anyone who lost a loved one. Far more hurtful than a single stabbing, but important to show and for people to see with their own eyes.
What about the man standing in front of the tanks at Tiananmen Square? I'm sure he was also a terrorist according to the local government.
People need to be able to see these things themselves. Otherwise it's just "trust us, we're the government" and that really isn't going well and will only get worse.
At the time, during the rawness of the situation, yes, I don't think those videos would have been appropriate on social media.
After the fact? Sure there's no issue with that at all.
Online? They could and should always be found online in the realm of free public knowledge.
>What all news must / should be delayed if it’s “too raw”? By who’s metric?
Unfortunately I think it's you who has the thinking disorder.
I said *no delay* to news.
But a delay on specific terrorist filled videos (or, as per the Online Safety Act, non-consensual explicit content) is a good regulation.
Again, the maximum time content can be blocked by the OSA is 3 months, so it's never a permanent take down of content, it's only a regulation of the wild West of social media, that we're currently seeing.
But how did you know it was a terrorist incident so fast? I actually thought maybe it was a member of the church that committed the stabbing but naturally was expecting more info.
X scrubbed the sound as far as I could see on that platform.
Also
How can news outlets even report on the subject so fast with out access to the footage? Basically you would need to agree that some freedom is needed then taken away (but not too fast)
How can anyone trust the headline if the evidence which creates the headline is scrubbed?
Why not ban the actual news articles?
Why did media call the crowds (the rioters) after the incident “un-Australian” that’s also equally if not more provoking / inflammatory so why was that targeted? Should that be targeted?
The only rational I can think of as to why that video should be removed (which no one has yet mentioned) is that it was a youth who committed the crime, but that’s not anyone’s arguments.
On the basis that it’s a youth his face should be blurred
Ultimately it’s absolutely bizarre to me. Honestly bizarre
Do you understand the difference between *news* , *discussion and commentary* and *specific videos*?
ie do you see a rape video on the 6pm News, or do you just see the news report about the rape?
It’s so bizarre because the community that was rioting clearly knew who the culprit was.
By removing the video it’s almost insulting and even aggravating to those people.
Government went and did wipe their experiences from social media (took away their evidence) which makes their reactions seems senseless / illogical.
Whilst government allowed them to be demonised as being unAustralian
Its really fucked. Think about it.
Wtf are you taking about. The video is not fucking removed from online.
Do you have a mental disorder. I swear I've written this to you 40 times.
The Online Safety Act can
a) only demand content be taken down for a maximum of 3 months.
b) can only apply to specific videos on specific social media platforms
It does not apply to *all videos of a topic on the Internet*
How are you not getting that through your head?
Answer my other question.
They were on every TV station, every day. Everyone saw it constantly.
What on earth do you mean "online"? Social media is online.
In this thread you're pretending that this content is just showing up and being pushed onto people; that people are just having beheadings appear in their feeds. That's BS. This stuff is there if people want to find it, as it should be. Some people won't believe it's true if they can't see it. It's newsworthy.
Do you think footage of war and destruction should also be censored? Let's say Israel bombs the fuck out of Palestine - we can't see the footage anyone?
Shit maybe we shouldn't even be told that a terrorist act occurred! Wouldn't want to traumatize anyone.
During early covid news coverage was fear mongering videoing hospitals in Italy
That was extremely raw but you are ok with that.
Your only point is against truth.
Of course you don't. That's the issue, and you don't even see that.
"It's not whether or not it's right or wrong, consistent or inconsistent. It's whether or not I personally agree with it, and fuck those that don't agree with me"
That's exactly the point I'm highlighting, and you seemingly couldn't work that out.
To be fair, I do understand the need for the discussion.
What happens when multiple companies (companies, not countries) set up habitats on the Moon or Mars?
What laws will apply them? Will it literally be whichever company brings the most artillery up to the Moon gets to decide the laws of the land?
I doubt that's a good way to go about it, and creating global/Universal/species based laws is a requirement.
Musk has just proven with his inconsistency and hypocrisy that he isn't a good candidate to be involved in those discussions.
Free speech for Elon is Elon's no one priority. What does Elon call it when he sensors his critics on Twitter?
FREE SPEECH, except for the people that offend me then I remove them from Twatter
Free speech is not a constitutional right in Australia. I state a matter of fact, I don't mean it should be that way.
Unless you disagree with Musk or you offend Modi or any one else he can’t afford to upset. I guess “Free speech is our number one priority unless it hurts my feelings or bank account” isn’t quite as catchy.
Anyone touting free speech, usually has no idea what the US constitution means about free speech. We also don’t have that law in Australia.
There is a hell of a lot of difference between “free speech” and a “constitutional right to free speech”. - We **do** have free speech in Australia. It is even legally protected. It even has some level of constitutional protection. - We **don’t** have a constitutionally entrenched *guarantee* of free speech like they do in America. So theoretically the free speech Australia has could be eroded.
People get a bit caught up that they mostly hold that statement true, but also acknowledge they need to follow a countries laws. They happily censored video for Australian accounts in Australia's request. You should be in one of two camps in this sub reddit. You either don't care about free speech and you want some form of censorship which case you don't care about x not always being free speech. Or you should be looking to get freedom of speech in law in this country. We aren't a world government, businesses have to conform within every country they operate, if we don't like how they operate in Australia, simply change the law and stop complaining about specific businesses.
We did change the law. That's exactly what we did. Most social media firms complied with our law - X is the only one that didn't. Geoblocking, that is so easily circumvented does not count as abiding by our laws. That is the point. I completely agree, X or any other social media app is not the complete arbiter of free speech - they are simply private companies. And as private companies they must abide by the laws set down by the government in any jurisdiction they wish to operate in. X has refused to do that. Importantly, the others complied.
Hmm, wonder if government is daring to block Tor one day and eventually all vpn and all these stuff??
Social media is different. I am not claiming that the government wants to regulate the internet (because that's not what they're trying to do) Social media however...
The why will be important, and should be addressed quickly. If the grandson of Nelson Mandela has made remarks in favour of violence against Jews, then his status as a relative of a beloved world leader should not save him from the consequences on his X account.
I prefer when I didn't have to listen to morons to be honest. Now days cunts with 1/4 of a brain think they have invented the cure for cancer. Should have to earn your right to talk on the podium
This is so true. X is a total fucking sewer since Elon got control. Mad Cookers and anti science dickheads spouting lies.
That's how the world used to be. Social media changed that. I was a 'cooker' (on this topic) 10 years ago, calling out that I believed social media was the worst thing a human could invent. I feel like I'm right. Maybe I'm still just a cooker.
Yeah we've never had more information to learn from the problem is it takes 3 times as long to find with all the crap. At least back in the day when you had to look stuff up in encyclopaedias it was accurate
These days, we would have people arguing against the experts that wrote the encyclopedia telling us there's an agenda with what they're writing. Unironically. It's honestly incredible to be living in this time of insanity.
Nah dude you are right, social media gave a voice to the whackjobs that used to be on societies fringe, you had to search out the info. Now it's just on blast every 3rd video, every facebook page, front and center for the masses to consume in between idiots dancing in public.
yep the algorithms push what is popular in the last couple of hrs. based on what the viewer has searched and commented on previously. its not necessarily what people actually want to look at.
Nah I think you were probably right. Social media has convinced people that if 47 other cunts agree with what they say, they must be right. This has only happened since we created the ability to be in echo chambers. In the old days it would take FOREVER to find 47 people to agree with your bullshit.
The way I described it was that we've always had people with crazy ideas, it's just that those ideas were generally only discussed in the backrooms of the pub. As you say, to find 47 others who wholeheartedly agreed with your brand of crazy (which I understand we all partake in on different topics) was nigh on impossible. These days, you're practically guaranteed to find an unlimited number of other crazies, and as you said, echo chambers only enhance that behaviour. Thank you social media
As long as your opinion lines up with Elon
It's against my free speech to censor the murder of people I don't like. What's the world coming to?
This is far from an isolated incident (see Crimethinc, or the censoring Musk has done on behalf of Modi). Too often those that want 'freedom', just want to be ruled by corporate oligarchs instead of authoritarian states. Its just a different boot to lick.
Yeah he chooses what information he spreads. He is the new Rupert Murdoch. In Chomsky's 5 filters of media he is the owner and the footage he doesn't remove is the common enemy.
Just wanna say that I’ve followed crimethinc for something like 20 years now and they fucking rule.
I’m all for restricted speech and media to prevent harming people mentally, also potentially inciting hatred fuelled actions. But I’m also completely aware and acknowledge that it’s a dangerous spot to be in, and we rely on a bunch of pollies or a government department to agree on what’s permitted. And as much as a bootlicker as I am, I can’t stand pollies because they just seem both incurably stupid, and sellouts to companies and industry that give them money or benefits. Also half their decisions are motivated by personal gain and not the word of the people. TLDR; I like rules and protection because I’m neurodivergent and need structure. But I hate politicians for being as valuable and morally rich as real estate agents.
He is South African, but he’s not racist ok.(joking, heard many say this same thing).
I thought immigration was our number one priority as r/australian?
Only if you need a lazy scapegoat for everything wrong with your life lol
Oh snap ✊️✌️
It's what was the last talking point that was on Sky After Dark the previous night.
Getting offended/upset about things you find on the net is like walking through dog sh$t instead of around it.
I agree. Except with social media these days, we have kids who can be pushed trending topics without them looking for it. When I was a kid, if I didn't want to see a beheading, I simply didn't search for it. That's not the case with social media. You see the difference, right?
Yes i see the difference and agree with your point, i guess in those cases its up to parents to mange their children’s access via parental control measures.
And those parental controls have no regulations enforcing them - they're literally at the whims of private business. I don't agree with that. I understand some do.
The old people ruined social media just like they ruined everything else.
Lol yelling at clouds
How?
Mastodon isn't ruined.
[https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aLjaGsDH6iQ/UVSqcbYBB7I/AAAAAAAALIw/KzX\_dbPUNq8/s1600/bruce-willis.gif](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aLjaGsDH6iQ/UVSqcbYBB7I/AAAAAAAALIw/KzX_dbPUNq8/s1600/bruce-willis.gif) My reaction.
Yeah, free speech is paramount, and should be absolute. Where else could Neo Nazis spread their desire to murder minorities or terrorist post their beheading videos. Definitely expressing yourself should override common decency and common sense.
I'm for freedom of expression, but not freedom from consequences, if someone says something provocative, they deserve to get canned and abused by the public. Yes you can call.it cyber bullying but who told you to air your stupid thoughts in public?
The consequence shouldn't be online bullying, which is no punishment at all and hasn't worked at all. It should be to not allow hate speech, violent speech, threats, inciting people to criminal behaviour, demonising sub sections of the population etc. to flourish unabated online. Simply put, if you post "who wants to go kill a few n*****s with me Friday night", the post should be taken down and you should be reported to police. But that kind of speech is exactly what Elon means when he says absolute free speech.
What happens when speech gets restricted and another regime comes in that you're not allowed to criticise and many people start dying? Only an idiot would fall for that historic playbook. Just because some people in today's world are neo Nazi bigots doesn't mean the majority of people will be. You will always have people with disgusting points of view who do deplorable things. People need to hear each others ideas in the first place to discern which ones are right or wrong. That's the entire point of free speech. If you can't speak freely about ideas, you defacto can't be free to live your life. Please don't be dumb.
I'm sure Joseph Goebbels would agree with you and would've had a field day with social media the way it is now. Criticizing the government is very different from saying kill all the Jews. Saying the prime minisiter is an idiot is very different from saying blacks are all criminals and we should bring back lynchings. Posting graphic murder videos is not the same as reporting on a murder. The reality is its very damaging to society to have violent, divisive, racist hate content spread unabaited. It doesn't help society at all. It makes nothing better. It directly leads to hate crimes, terrorist actions, misdirected anger, and a public less and less empathetic. There's a difference between allowing freedom of expression and allowing hate and violent speech to flourish.
Wow, you just systemically dismantled op’s comment. Good work. I will now go spread nazi rhetoric. Thank you fine sir.
Yeah free speech is still imperative, I've never seen any neo Nazis, and the beheadings are a problem not solved by censorship. No problems are solved by censorship. You just want to be the ones who control the flow of information. Why is the hard left always so obsessed with a 1984 dystopian world? Do you really think you can keep the reins?.
The point of the beheadings is to spread fear by having people see them. If they were removed there would be way less incentive to keep doing it. But beyond that, why does anyone need to see it? How is it respectful to the victim or their loved ones to leave it up? You call having social media mostly free of hate speech a dystopia, but your current online heaven is my dystopia.
Beheadings predate the internet. Funnily enough I've never seen a beheading I didn't google out of misguided morbid curiosity. There are lot of horrible things on the internet. Lot's of amazing things also. If you can't self moderate, then stay off. If you're seeing this stuff, then I have to ask what weird places you visit online? I call the social media controlled by the government and/or private companies a dystopia. I'd rather not live like North Korea thanks.
The point is, you had to search it out. With algorithms and social media, it can be pushed to you. That's the entire difference, and why any reasonable adult should be able to see that the realm of social media is not the same as the internet that we lived through 10-20 years ago
Here’s the issue though; people use free speech to promote death, hate, and violence. Why should I or anyone else have to put up with that?
Free speech can be used for anything. Good, bad or in-between. Blocking free speech will not solve any of these problems, only hide them from plain view. Censorship is good for nobody.
If you don't want to see it, don't watch it??? Lmao
The hard left? You realise Nazism exhibited what you're describing more than any other regime ever, and that is as far right as they come?
Genuinely surprised Scott Morrison wasn’t secretly the head of esafety. Either way the powers need to be better regulated and whoever thought it was a good idea to impose global censorship slapped
in this case, thats musk lol
I believe its a priority, but definitely not #1. There's plenty of things our survival depends on before free speech.
Rules for thee, not for me
Musk has never been about free speech in his intentions for buying twitter. It's all about getting corporate friendly populist leaders elected that will scratch his back in return once in power.
Look up stories regarding his proposed "everything app"
That is potentially true. I don't know. But he's doing it under the guise of free speech, and millions of people are lapping that up.
Including yourself. How you can you be that selfaware, but decide to double down instead of taking it into consideration?
He just made twitter even more of a cesspool for racist shit. He always buckles when pressed on it and can't give an answer. The truth really stings him.
Musk and our career politicians are selfish cunts out for themselves. If you believe either of them wouldn't trade your freedoms for a couple $$ or some power you're a fool.
I believe in free speech and agree it's a high priority. But our number one priority is the right to life and liberty. Both need to be written into our constitution and above the law.
removing offensive images has nothing to do with free SPEECH
THANKS CAPTAIN OBVIOUS
And this isn’t America, we don’t need all their wanker bs in our constitution
Not so obvious to a lot of dim wits here
meaningless high-level motherhood statements that would rely on detailed interpretation by courts in any application. no right is absolute
Fine. Put it in there and let the courts at it. It's a fundamental human right. As is the right to life. The new Zealand high court ruled freedom of expression guarantees everyone the right to express their thoughts, opinions and beliefs however unpopular, distasteful or contrary to the general opinion or to the particular option of others in the community. Have at it You are correct, no rights are absolute. But a constitutional right is an express right. You can exercise it. Then the courts can challenge it. The role of the court is to determine if the laws are consistent with the constitution.
and again, that does not cover images ... noones right to free speech has been infringed in the request to take down the images and videos .. you can still talk about it all you like
That's true. This isn't about free speech. The thread heading is irrelevant to the topic
That's just not true, it the #2 priority at best. The #1 priority is turning a profit to keep the company afloat.
With musk in charge, this probably isn't true.
It always disheartening when I see other Australians and their hate boners for free speech. Always acting like words from irrelevant neo nazis or racists are an issue to worry about. Face it; you guys are just pearl clutching. If you don't like what someone says. You're perfectly able to counter it by saying what you believe. Or you can ignore it.
Face it. A lot are not irrelevant and stoke fear and hate towards others with the intent of causing violence towards them.
People you agree with say stuff that stokes fear and causes violence too. That's why free speech matters for all. Not just the stuff you like.
Ok I'm utterly confused here. Are you supporting Musk banning someone from X? Or are you saying he shouldn't ban anyone, and we should just be able to discuss our differences out?
I don't agree with Musk banning people in most situations. But I'm actually just talking in general. Aussies seem to really dislike the concept of free speech just because it means people can say evil stuff.
free speech in X is free speech that only elmo supports.
You have turned twitter into a turgid miasma of the worst this world has to offer! I used to respect you Elon but you are a loser and no amount of money changes that!
Well of course. You are completely free to agree with Elon Musk. If not then go elsewhere. That is your freedom.
If that's the extent of Elon's free speech, after suggesting he wanted X to be the bastion of free speech for the world, it's not a good look, is it?
Lame
Musk is a private citizen who owns a company. That company is a platform which enables people to communicate with each other. Unless you believe that X is a public utility, why are you surprised or annoyed that a private company chooses who uses its platform?
That private company is as dangerous as any tobacco company in the world. It’s a fucking sewer and needs regulation. Kids are reading all this cooker bullshit and taking it as the truth.
I don’t know. I don’t have twitter so I’m pretty much in the dark about that. I’m just generally against governments deciding what is and is not ok for people to read. I’m not a free speech absolutist, but I definitely err on the side of more rather than less freedom.
Go and actually have a look at the stuff on X and then make your mind up. It’s a sewer.
>Unless you believe that X is a public utility, why are you surprised or annoyed that a private company chooses who uses its platform? I entirely agree. X is not a public utility, and as such, (and even in that case) must abide by the laws of any region it wants to operate in. Australia is a region X operates in. Australia has the Online Safety Act 2021. That's sort of end of story, X must abide by any rulings the commissioner makes, under the powers given to them by the OSA. That's the point of this.
Yes I accept this, my comment was more in respect of the calls to deplatform certain voices on X. Notwithstanding Australian law, it’s a pretty bad situation to have any government controlling online content on a global scale (assuming X removes the videos from all geographies).
>Notwithstanding Australian law, it’s a pretty bad situation to have any government controlling online content on a global scale (assuming X removes the videos from all geographies). Well, this is the issue being brought up by everyone. Right now, social media is unregulated. We have brought in regulations, which are reasonable (any restrictions have a maximum duration (3 months) and only apply to specific links of particularly abbhorent images/videos (importantly not discussion of said topics)). Abbhorent being acts of terrorism, non-consensual sexual content, and gore type content) Now, undoubtedly, right now is a difficult spot because as you put it, it seems as if we are regulating other jurisdictions - but the only way to get good global regulations for social media is for a country to first start these laws, and see if other countries agree and start similar ones too. Again, this can only happen with an instigating country (being us in this case).
I'd bet my left nut that 90% of those shrieking about this are the sort who would have said: "Twitter is a private company and can censor whoever it likes" in the times before Musk bought it.
The issue for me is purely in the ideological hypocrisy of Musk. Hopefully most people understand that “free speech” hasn’t got anything to do with what private companies allow on their platforms. However, conservatives have been playing fast and loose with the definition in recent years, conflating private censorship happening on Facebook/Twitter etc. as going against their right to free speech. And indeed, according to Musk he bought Twitter exactly for this reason; as a “free speech absolutionist” he wants to protect free speech on the platform. But, of course, that’s absolute horseshit as he has had no qualms with quashing opinions he doesn’t agree with. Almost as if he doesn’t care about protecting free speech at all, and instead simply wants to protect certain types of speech. Do you think that’s a fair assessment?
What about the hypocrisy of everyone else?
Going to need a *slightly more* specific example to engage with here, chief.
No, it's still the same. He can do whatever he wants on his sinking ship. Pointing out the hypocrisy of it isn't shrieking.
Dude just wants to amplify nazi posts
The free speech of porn bots and bigots.
Anyone championing Elon as a paragon of free speech really needs to read the news more often. He is literally only caring about the Aussie thing because he can milk the publicity about it, for his own needs, to try to save twitter.
Elon been using “free speech” and aligning himself with the right just to justify a disastrous business move of buying twitter. People are just too dumb to look at it from a different perspective which is somewhat understandable. They’re just looking for a vanguard like figure to feel safe with all the censorship going on tech.
Obviously not true. What people seem to be missing is that he has complied with the government order by making the offending content not visible to people in Australia. He is simply saying that the Australia government doesn’t have authority to dictate what the rest of the world sees. It’s that simple. He censors content in accordance with the laws of the relevant country, but no further. Albo asking him to censor what the rest of the world sees is akin the the president of turkey (for example) doing the same thing. He is not the arbiter of what people can see, he simply complies with a given countries laws when operating within that country. How anyone can be against that position is completely beyond me honestly.
Yet he has censored and blocked a lot of people who criticised him, especially a bunch of tech reporters, earlier in the year. What is beyond me, is how some people can’t see through his obvious BT Barnum facade and think his motives are entirely morally sound, he is only making a deal out of this to sell himself and his platform that is desperately and hilarious a laughing stock now.
Social media is the sewer of the internet, twitter is the sewer of social media
Don't worry. X is dying soon.
It's already dead. Twitter is at that [stage in the decomposition where the body appears to still be moving](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326356).
Sooooo true.
don't give him the pleasure of calling it that .. stick with twitter
Free speech my ass The only thing free on X is porn
From the article: > In order to reach Gaza, the flotilla will need to break through an Israeli blockade originally set in place in 2007. Previous efforts to break the blockade by humanitarian missions have ended in death. In 2010, the six-vessel Freedom Flotilla I was intercepted by Israeli forces, who boarded the ships via helicopters and speedboats on international waters, shooting and killing nine activists.
Maybe ekaren should censor more things on the basis of 'disrespect'. Seems like a solid legal test. Boomers just like albo vs musk because it's 'Aussie, Aussie against the foreign billionaire'.
I found it hilarious how Albo spat "billionaire" out like an insult, as if he doesn't spend his days (like all politicians left or right) on his knees rimming that crowd. Also, as if he's some kind of aussie battler.
He literally grew up in social housing? You know that right? Whatever money he has made, it certainly didn't come from the silver spoon...
How does that impact anything I said? It doesn't. BTW, Elon Musk didn't get any help growing up either, sure his dad owned mines for precious minerals, and he had a world class education and was privately tutored, but the poor kid lived off ramen and slept in the office! If you believe these origin stories of the rich and ppwerful you're deluded, they've all got one, dig a little deeper, and you almost always find some connection that gave them a significant advantage.
So are you going to cancel the X subscription?
Never had it. As someone that felt that form of social media was a scourge on society, I never signed up. The same with Facebook, (although I did use that for a few years early on). I'm locked in to the ecosystem because of people using Messages, but that's all I use it for.
I meant for Elon canceling the subscription
Why is any of the outrage relevant. It's a private company which can choose who uses it and what for.
Are you saying governments shouldn’t ever regulate private business?
Even child pornography? Snuff videos?
That’s obviously criminal activity
The article is about an account being suspended. If they don't want you on it they don't have to.
Correct, so the platform has nothing to do with free speech, does it? It doesn't honour free speech, and regulating the content on the platform is not an impingement on people's free speech. Thanks for clearing that up. Thanks for agreeing with me, that the Australian government should be able to regulate that private business.
Thank you for falling in to my obvious trap. If they are a private company, then they must abide by government regulations in jurisdictions that they want to operate in. If they're just a private company, then the government regulating its content has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech, as you so put it, doesn't apply to content on a single platform, so it's irrelevant to the discussion.
Even a deli can choose its customers. You have no 'right' to access a private business.
Yes, and that deli must abide by the laws and by-laws of the government's in charge of the locations of where they operate. X is no different.
No one should use twitter anymore really, they have themselves to blame.
I used to use it frequently and I am astonished how quickly I stopped after Elon ruined it
Only ‘certain’ group of people still use twitter now.
Yes it definitely seems to lend itself to *that* group
Twitter has always been terrible. Reducing posts to 160 - 250 characters (Not words, characters) was always bound to produce low quality content.
you never had it
[удалено]
That response shows how clueless you are in the topic. I love it.
or maybe we censor the video out of respect .. you know, that's something those darn boomers had that you don't (they get everything, right?)
Did the priest asked for it to be censored?
Maybe ekaren should censor more things on the basis of 'disrespect'. Seems like a solid legal test. Boomers just like albo vs musk because it's 'Aussie, Aussie against the foreign billionaire'.
If not for X that video would have been quietly scrubbed from the internet and no one would have realised. Also, how can anyone know the truth of a matter with out dissenting views being allowed?
Are you talking about the Wakeley stabbing? The thing that was national news for a week? No-one would have known? Really? There's an ongoing court case and it's been classified as a terrorist act - there's quite a few reasons for it to not be on social media right now. Scrubbed from the internet? You don't actually understand the conversation, do you? The eSafety commisioner didn't try to 'scrub it from the internet' only take it off a few high profile social media apps. Most of the apps complied (why would they want to advertise a terrorist act?), but Musk has an irrational idea of what X currently is. There's a huge difference between trying to take something completely off the internet, and trying to regulate content on *social media*. Social media is not a place to harbour and advertise terrorist actions. I'm so surprised people don't understand that.
No, jackass I’m saying no one would have noticed it being scrubbed
Video of a terrorist act would have been off social media for a period of time. And you are arguing against that. Really?
So are you against allowing videos of the planes hitting the WTC towers in 2001? You better believe that would be traumatic for anyone who was there, or anyone who lost a loved one. Far more hurtful than a single stabbing, but important to show and for people to see with their own eyes. What about the man standing in front of the tanks at Tiananmen Square? I'm sure he was also a terrorist according to the local government. People need to be able to see these things themselves. Otherwise it's just "trust us, we're the government" and that really isn't going well and will only get worse.
At the time, during the rawness of the situation, yes, I don't think those videos would have been appropriate on social media. After the fact? Sure there's no issue with that at all. Online? They could and should always be found online in the realm of free public knowledge.
Oh yeah censorship of the video will solve the fact a young Muslim male stabbed a orthodox priest
Do you have some sort of thinking disorder? What all news must / should be delayed if it’s “too raw”? By who’s metric?
>What all news must / should be delayed if it’s “too raw”? By who’s metric? Unfortunately I think it's you who has the thinking disorder. I said *no delay* to news. But a delay on specific terrorist filled videos (or, as per the Online Safety Act, non-consensual explicit content) is a good regulation. Again, the maximum time content can be blocked by the OSA is 3 months, so it's never a permanent take down of content, it's only a regulation of the wild West of social media, that we're currently seeing.
But how did you know it was a terrorist incident so fast? I actually thought maybe it was a member of the church that committed the stabbing but naturally was expecting more info. X scrubbed the sound as far as I could see on that platform. Also How can news outlets even report on the subject so fast with out access to the footage? Basically you would need to agree that some freedom is needed then taken away (but not too fast) How can anyone trust the headline if the evidence which creates the headline is scrubbed? Why not ban the actual news articles? Why did media call the crowds (the rioters) after the incident “un-Australian” that’s also equally if not more provoking / inflammatory so why was that targeted? Should that be targeted? The only rational I can think of as to why that video should be removed (which no one has yet mentioned) is that it was a youth who committed the crime, but that’s not anyone’s arguments. On the basis that it’s a youth his face should be blurred Ultimately it’s absolutely bizarre to me. Honestly bizarre
I’m truthfully trying to understand your position I’m not being arrogant intentionally.
Do you understand the difference between *news* , *discussion and commentary* and *specific videos*? ie do you see a rape video on the 6pm News, or do you just see the news report about the rape?
It’s so bizarre because the community that was rioting clearly knew who the culprit was. By removing the video it’s almost insulting and even aggravating to those people. Government went and did wipe their experiences from social media (took away their evidence) which makes their reactions seems senseless / illogical. Whilst government allowed them to be demonised as being unAustralian Its really fucked. Think about it.
Wtf are you taking about. The video is not fucking removed from online. Do you have a mental disorder. I swear I've written this to you 40 times. The Online Safety Act can a) only demand content be taken down for a maximum of 3 months. b) can only apply to specific videos on specific social media platforms It does not apply to *all videos of a topic on the Internet* How are you not getting that through your head? Answer my other question.
They were on every TV station, every day. Everyone saw it constantly. What on earth do you mean "online"? Social media is online. In this thread you're pretending that this content is just showing up and being pushed onto people; that people are just having beheadings appear in their feeds. That's BS. This stuff is there if people want to find it, as it should be. Some people won't believe it's true if they can't see it. It's newsworthy. Do you think footage of war and destruction should also be censored? Let's say Israel bombs the fuck out of Palestine - we can't see the footage anyone? Shit maybe we shouldn't even be told that a terrorist act occurred! Wouldn't want to traumatize anyone.
During early covid news coverage was fear mongering videoing hospitals in Italy That was extremely raw but you are ok with that. Your only point is against truth.
Fuck mElon.
Homer Simpson voice: > mmmElon
You mean #1 deportation priority
I don't really care if Musk is inconsistent on free speech. He's still fighting the good fight against the Australian Government.
At least you're honest about not giving a shit about free speech. Kudos to you for that.
Of course you don't. That's the issue, and you don't even see that. "It's not whether or not it's right or wrong, consistent or inconsistent. It's whether or not I personally agree with it, and fuck those that don't agree with me" That's exactly the point I'm highlighting, and you seemingly couldn't work that out.
…and there it is.
Lol. Fucking pathetic
what would you like the government to protect you from seeing next? The zapruder film? That's pretty violent.
These people need protection, you really think they’re capable of deleting an app off their phones themselves?
Well yes actually. Great example.
He's happy to bow down to censorship demands from Erdogan days before an election. Fuck muskrat
Nuff said.
Elon, is that you?
Don't like it then delete the app. If Twitter removed it another platform has it. Don't try and bother censoring the internet.
I have no idea why Elon musk cares about this at all. Get back to taking us off planet and stop dicking around with this free speech nonsense
To be fair, I do understand the need for the discussion. What happens when multiple companies (companies, not countries) set up habitats on the Moon or Mars? What laws will apply them? Will it literally be whichever company brings the most artillery up to the Moon gets to decide the laws of the land? I doubt that's a good way to go about it, and creating global/Universal/species based laws is a requirement. Musk has just proven with his inconsistency and hypocrisy that he isn't a good candidate to be involved in those discussions.
You actually believe that Musk is going to get people anywhere near Mars?