given this forum is largely inhabited by leftists, would I be correct in assuming you think this bill is a good thing?

discuss...

actually... dumb question... of course you do...

let me rephrase.. can you explain and justify to me why you think its a good thing?

1. There is an Aus Politics thread already 
2. What an adult way to start a conversation 

you talking about 'adult ways to start a conversation' after reading what you post here is rich

when I post in existing threads, you say start your own thread, when I start a new thread you say find an existing thread to post in.... can't win

Life is tough

Ill have a go:

Fundamental human rights dictate that EVERYONE (humans only, sorry to all the animal lib nutters) has the right to an opinion and the right to express that in any way that isn't derogatory, inflammatory or violates anyone else's rights....  But thats just an OPINION... The problem with social media and the new way of disseminating information in our age is that OPINION can be easily disguised as NEWS when there is no legality or journalistic ethics behind what is and isnt reported...  Previously newspapers, magazines, radio and TV broadcasters were (and are still) obliged to fact check their reporting, have credible sources for what information they are presenting as news and comply with industry codes.... Editorial content from right wing or left wing dildos is just that EDITORIAL opinion.... people have the chance to agree or disagree with whoever they see fit.... but this new communication method twitter/tiktok,instagram and all the other shit i neither know or care about doesn't have that regulated "feature". Our kids (and dumb gullible adults) are led around by the shiniest pair of boobs or slickest pink Lamborghini and anything this trash says is "news"... Legislation HAS the onligation to keep up.

This Bill, if passed, will make electronic platforms accountable for self regulating themselves from wack jobs spreading lies and masquerading it as truth-bombs.... and if they dont, then they rightly dont deserve to have access to our "airwaves" 

Im interested though to hear why you (presumably) don't think its a good idea? I hope your answer isn't just a lazy "freedom of speech " diatribe, we live in Australia where no such protection exists in OUR Constitution.... NOR can you hide behind the "freedom of the press" as this is clearly understood to apply to accredited journalistic intent and NOT any Joe Blow nutter ranting on the internet, regardless of how many "followers" they have. 

The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals. 

so who is the arbiter of truth then?

Zuckerberg recently admitted he was pressured by the US administration to censor inconvenient content.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY9iwFZ7lM

The irony here is that much of the opinions on this forum by regulars are informed by misinformation.

The issue is a lack of the ability of people of lower IQ to disseminate fact from fiction...propaganda from truth.   Having a central arbiter of truth solves nothing in this regard as everyone has their biases, motivations and... donors.

I couldn't give a shite about the US mate, they can grind themselves into the ground... The arbiter of truth is "the truth" If you want to state something that goes against undeniable scientific or legal proof as the news then you should either be forced to reveal your "proof" or be clear on the fact you are presenting an OPINION...... 

The Journalist Code of Ethics (https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/) states that journalists should “scrutinise power” and commit themselves to “honesty, fairness, independence”, they must not “give distorting emphasis” and must have a “respect for truth”.

The real irony is that a "central arbiter of truth" would have absoluely NO issue with anything posted on here... this is a forum, a site where (often uninformed and quite frequently seriously delusional) anonymouse posters offer their opinions on hwta is happeing in the world... NONE OF IT can in anyway be considered news..... If Albanese came out and tweeted that "aboriginals are eating cats and dogs in Alice springs ... its true I saw it on the news" THAT is problematic.  Can you not tell the difference?

OMFG I just realised why jonsmith stopped posting. hAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH I'm a  fool.... Sorry Lupi carry on. 

You go you! Don't let anyone stop you from believing in your truth!

Probably won't answer this because it will require some kind of thinking. 

Fantastic answer.

The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. 
As an aside I get a cringey chuckle when you see the posts (or receive the emails at times) where people have taken an American right-wing post and substituted Australia in it, along the lines of;

"The Australian Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech. Our founding fathers fought for it. God Bless Australia, we are one nation under God!".

At that point, I genuinely wonder if they believe what they're (re)posting, or they're just trolling.
Surely no Aussies are that thick.


Surely?

so "the news" is always the truth?

misinformation is only dangerous if it comes from a position of authority... no one has more authority than the mainstream media and the government...

and yet they are constant purveyors of misinformation, whether it be via traditional media channels or online... much of which has literally harmed millions of people

misinformation in the mainstream media likely incited the person to shoot the US presidential candidate

What relevance does this have to anything?

I'm well aware free speech doesn't exist in Australia, my question was about the Misinformation Disinformation Bill before parliament.  Try to stay on topic.

You do realise Facebook is used by Australians don't you?  So any censorship and/or curation of content on that platform affects what Australians see?  Even an 80 year old understands this.

You haven't articulated your issue with it? or what parts of the bill you are opposed to 

go up 3 posts, you'll find I have

on the flipside, nobody has been able to answer my OP question yet

There is absolutely no clear reference to the bill, its contents or specific points in relation to it. 

interesting how you assume you speak for everybody else

I wish I could post a link to the bill however this is what the government are currently providing us with

Our services aren't available right now

We're working to restore all services as soon as possible. Please check back soon.20240913T093647Z-r19db56f64bj5m2v69ppygu89800000001w00000000073ph

hahahahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

jonsmith was at least (usually) attempting to be a polite about things (if not condescending)

Here you go - I swear I didn't block you from our services :hehe:

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r7239_first-reps/toc_pdf/24106b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

Ok so you still have not clearly articulated your problem with parts of the bill or the bill itself. 

so I take it you were completely unaware of this bill?

You really have your finger on the pulse don't you...

Isnt that what you've done with this entire thread ffs lol

Isnt that what you've done with this entire thread ffs lol

Goi it, you haven't read it or know the intricacies of it. You need others to do the thinking for you so you can come up with a counter 

Currently enroute to Sardinia but delayed in Doha.

This thread looks fun.

I follow a couple of medical science debunkers on Instagram. They have a hundred thousand followers or whatever but they're debunking people who have millions. It makes you sick to think, like you said, gullible adults are endangering their kids lives because some doula from Nimbin is saying don't give your kids a vitamin K shot. ( As an example. )