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. 

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...

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?

Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up:

Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing?

As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled?

I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP.

I'm not here to answer your questions.

Has bipartisan support.

Try again. 

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 

I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP.

I'm not here to answer your questions.

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?

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. 

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

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”.

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

So the governemnt and "mainstream media" are lying to you... who is telling the truth? Just asking for a friend?

I asked you first.  Are they always telling the truth or not?  Yes or no?

No they are NOT always telling the truth (Not exactly sure who "they" is but the answer remains)...

OK your turn...... what exactly do you disagree with about this proposed bill?

Well if for example I thought censorship 'keeps people safe' then my issue might be that it censors independent voices but it doesn't punish establishment media for making false claims, of which they make many and given they are bestowed a position of authority have many magnitudes greater effect on vulnerable minds.  

That would be a valid concern if the bill isnt intended to be broadly applied across ALL electronic media published....  AND in essence is a broadening of currently existing broadcasting legislation anyway.... The only "established" media that seems to be getting all uptight about it is the extremist nutjob type that make a living peddling shit they don't even really believe themselves to feeble minded dimwits... 

You literally made my point for me.

Once again your poor comprehension abilities betray you.

You're far too mentally agile for me .... It must be hard to attempt to reasonably debate an issue when everyone else is so far beneath you? Condolences. 

pop another Vyvanse mate