|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol  You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this:   Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’ neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind Like trump has captured yours? I suppose it's just a giant coincidence that you parrot his language and takes on whatever issue he is trying to pump it. Also weird, did you see albanese with Biden? Weird, didn't you say there was a coup with biden? What is he doing as the president as the US still? I can't keep up. He's a lame duck. If he's meeting Albo you know its nothing important. Your accusation that I'm 'pumping' any issue Trump takes on is a complete lie. You're stuck in a binary world arguing inconsequential issues with people who aren't even present on this forum. Again, where was the coup?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this: Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’ neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind Like trump has captured yours? I suppose it's just a giant coincidence that you parrot his language and takes on whatever issue he is trying to pump it. Also weird, did you see albanese with Biden? Weird, didn't you say there was a coup with biden? What is he doing as the president as the US still? I can't keep up. He's a lame duck. If he's meeting Albo you know its nothing important. Your accusation that I'm 'pumping' any issue Trump takes on is a complete lie. You're stuck in a binary world arguing inconsequential issues with people who aren't even present on this forum. Again, where was the coup?
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this: Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’ neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind Like trump has captured yours? I suppose it's just a giant coincidence that you parrot his language and takes on whatever issue he is trying to pump it. Also weird, did you see albanese with Biden? Weird, didn't you say there was a coup with biden? What is he doing as the president as the US still? I can't keep up. He's a lame duck. If he's meeting Albo you know its nothing important. Your accusation that I'm 'pumping' any issue Trump takes on is a complete lie. You're stuck in a binary world arguing inconsequential issues with people who aren't even present on this forum. Again, where was the coup?
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this: Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’ neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind Like trump has captured yours? I suppose it's just a giant coincidence that you parrot his language and takes on whatever issue he is trying to pump it. Also weird, did you see albanese with Biden? Weird, didn't you say there was a coup with biden? What is he doing as the president as the US still? I can't keep up. He's a lame duck. If he's meeting Albo you know its nothing important. Your accusation that I'm 'pumping' any issue Trump takes on is a complete lie. You're stuck in a binary world arguing inconsequential issues with people who aren't even present on this forum. Again, where was the coup?
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this: Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’ neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind Like trump has captured yours? I suppose it's just a giant coincidence that you parrot his language and takes on whatever issue he is trying to pump it. Also weird, did you see albanese with Biden? Weird, didn't you say there was a coup with biden? What is he doing as the president as the US still? I can't keep up. You're stuck in a binary world As are you it seems
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this: Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’ neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind Like trump has captured yours? I suppose it's just a giant coincidence that you parrot his language and takes on whatever issue he is trying to pump it. Also weird, did you see albanese with Biden? Weird, didn't you say there was a coup with biden? What is he doing as the president as the US still? I can't keep up. He's a lame duck. If he's meeting Albo you know its nothing important. Your accusation that I'm 'pumping' any issue Trump takes on is a complete lie. You're stuck in a binary world arguing inconsequential issues with people who aren't even present on this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this: Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’ neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind Like trump has captured yours? I suppose it's just a giant coincidence that you parrot his language and takes on whatever issue he is trying to pump it. Also weird, did you see albanese with Biden? Weird, didn't you say there was a coup with biden? What is he doing as the president as the US still? I can't keep up.
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this: Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’ neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind you don't want to be like those grubby free thinkers who horror of horrors actually research topics from...(whispering) "the internet" no you want to be like the cool kids who are informed by such trusted sources as Q&A, The Feed, Triple J, Karl Kruszelnicki :laugh: ...he wears loud shirts coz so you know he's cool right
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this: Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another You’re more of a free thinking ‘do your own research guy’
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this: Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you. I hate Sky News FYI they exist for people like you to get worked up so you can play culture wars back and forth with gullible Liberal voters while the big issues are largely ignored or slanted you're both as bad as one another
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this: Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal. Exactly right. He's read (or seen it on Sky news) that it's 'bad' but doesn't exactly know why yet. Wait a couple of days Loopy and Rita will tell you.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x[quote]trusted sources lol You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this: Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Not your sources. You. He's waiting for someone in the MAGA circle to issue a one-liner so he can then mimic the language as per normal.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xtrusted sources lol You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this: Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Who said it was to stop 'the news'?Your above post is the most retarded thing I've read on this forum and that's saying something. ...according to sources familiar with the matter. Establishment media publishes misinformation constantly and independent journalists keep them accountable. The only difference between one and the other is the former are backed by corporate sponsorship. It doesn't make them any more credible than anyone you meet down at the local pub. ...according to sources familiar with the matter. Once again, you're making my point for me with your imbecilic take which you think is some kind of a win. ...according to sources familiar with the matter. trusted sources lol EDIT: But.. one good point you've raised, which I've bolded above. You still haven't outlined what you think is wrong with this bill. You. Yourself. Not your sources. You.
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xtrusted sources lol You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this: Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted. Who said it was to stop 'the news'? Your above post is the most retarded thing I've read on this forum and that's saying something. ...according to sources familiar with the matter. Establishment media publishes misinformation constantly and independent journalists keep them accountable. The only difference between one and the other is the former are backed by corporate sponsorship. It doesn't make them any more credible than anyone you meet down at the local pub. ...according to sources familiar with the matter. Once again, you're making my point for me with your imbecilic take which you think is some kind of a win. ...according to sources familiar with the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
^^^ LoL.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xtrusted sources lol You're missing quite a lot of the bill there, that clearly states this is for online platforms (social media/Facebook/X/Truth, etc). But, what would define "Professional news content"? Good question actually. But this bill isn't to stop the news itself, it's regarding the sharing of information on websites/apps. Best would probably be something linked to the Australian Press Council, which includes: public members”, who have no affiliation with a media organisation Nominees of media organisations, including major publishers of newspapers and magazines; a nominee for small publishers, as well as a nominee for the principal union for employees in the media industry Independent journalist members, who are not employed by a media organisation. And this is basically to stop bullshitters parroting bullshit online with no sources. If you have a source (even if it's dodgy, but is at least comparable to what I'm about to go in below), then go for it. That's the whole point of discussion, is it not? As much as johnsmith used to be on the wrong side of everyone's arguments, at least he would try to incorporate sources that somewhat resembled valid publications. Even better, the pages you decided to skip over actually define this: Also. it looks like you're using an out of date Bill. Please do update it. I think you'll find there are no longer any references to "Content authorised by governments" in the manner that you highlighted.
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
trusted sources lol
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]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. 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 i t 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 Mate, telling you now - the legacy media has infected him with the woke mind virus. Go argue it with Rita. I'm not interested in 'culture wars'. Trump 2024 baby! If you want to get in the ring with Trump supporters there are plenty of forums available. I suspect you lack the courage to take them on though. As I've said before, my position on Trump is lesser of two evils, but I have problems with some of this foreign policies, and warp speed, so I'm not the person to debate. No chance I'd take on a trump supporter! They'd destroy anyone with their intellect and lack of woke mind virus - they don't listen to the legacy media and never got warped by getting an education. besides I am with you and them - it was a coup! when I read your posts I observe your lack of self awareness keep fighting the good fight Some people may criticise you for starting a thread on something you haven't even read, or understand but I think you've made some really articulate points, maga baby! Almost feel sorry for someone who has clearly only posted in echo chambers to come here and then be hit, smack in the face, with actual nuanced arguments. Nightmare stuff for the young fella. RUOK? you're projecting yourself there champ
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven 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. 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 i t 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 Mate, telling you now - the legacy media has infected him with the woke mind virus. Go argue it with Rita. I'm not interested in 'culture wars'. Trump 2024 baby! If you want to get in the ring with Trump supporters there are plenty of forums available. I suspect you lack the courage to take them on though. As I've said before, my position on Trump is lesser of two evils, but I have problems with some of this foreign policies, and warp speed, so I'm not the person to debate. No chance I'd take on a trump supporter! They'd destroy anyone with their intellect and lack of woke mind virus - they don't listen to the legacy media and never got warped by getting an education. besides I am with you and them - it was a coup! when I read your posts I observe your lack of self awareness keep fighting the good fight Some people may criticise you for starting a thread on something you haven't even read, or understand but I think you've made some really articulate points, maga baby! Almost feel sorry for someone who has clearly only posted in echo chambers to come here and then be hit, smack in the face, with actual nuanced arguments. Nightmare stuff for the young fella. RUOK?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven 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. 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 i t 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 Mate, telling you now - the legacy media has infected him with the woke mind virus. Go argue it with Rita. I'm not interested in 'culture wars'. Trump 2024 baby! If you want to get in the ring with Trump supporters there are plenty of forums available. I suspect you lack the courage to take them on though. As I've said before, my position on Trump is lesser of two evils, but I have problems with some of this foreign policies, and warp speed, so I'm not the person to debate. No chance I'd take on a trump supporter! They'd destroy anyone with their intellect and lack of woke mind virus - they don't listen to the legacy media and never got warped by getting an education. besides I am with you and them - it was a coup! when I read your posts I observe your lack of self awareness keep fighting the good fight Some people may criticise you for starting a thread on something you haven't even read, or understand but I think you've made some really articulate points, maga baby!
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven 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. 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 i t 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 Mate, telling you now - the legacy media has infected him with the woke mind virus. Go argue it with Rita. I'm not interested in 'culture wars'. Trump 2024 baby! If you want to get in the ring with Trump supporters there are plenty of forums available. I suspect you lack the courage to take them on though. As I've said before, my position on Trump is lesser of two evils, but I have problems with some of this foreign policies, and warp speed, so I'm not the person to debate. No chance I'd take on a trump supporter! They'd destroy anyone with their intellect and lack of woke mind virus - they don't listen to the legacy media and never got warped by getting an education. besides I am with you and them - it was a coup! when I read your posts I observe your lack of self awareness keep fighting the good fight
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven 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. 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 i t 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 Mate, telling you now - the legacy media has infected him with the woke mind virus. Go argue it with Rita. I'm not interested in 'culture wars'. Trump 2024 baby! If you want to get in the ring with Trump supporters there are plenty of forums available. I suspect you lack the courage to take them on though. As I've said before, my position on Trump is lesser of two evils, but I have problems with some of this foreign policies, and warp speed, so I'm not the person to debate. No chance I'd take on a trump supporter! They'd destroy anyone with their intellect and lack of woke mind virus - they don't listen to the legacy media and never got warped by getting an education. besides I am with you and them - it was a coup!
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven 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. 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 i t 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 Mate, telling you now - the legacy media has infected him with the woke mind virus. Go argue it with Rita. I'm not interested in 'culture wars'. Trump 2024 baby! If you want to get in the ring with Trump supporters there are plenty of forums available. I suspect you lack the courage to take them on though. As I've said before, my position on Trump is lesser of two evils, but I have problems with some of this foreign policies, and warp speed, so I'm not the person to debate.
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven 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. 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 i t 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 Mate, telling you now - the legacy media has infected him with the woke mind virus. Go argue it with Rita. I'm not interested in 'culture wars'. Trump 2024 baby!
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven 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. 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 i t 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 Mate, telling you now - the legacy media has infected him with the woke mind virus. Go argue it with Rita. I'm not interested in 'culture wars'.
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven 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. 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 i t 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 Mate, telling you now - the legacy media has infected him with the woke mind virus.
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven 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. 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 i t 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
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven 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. 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 i t 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven 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. 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 i t 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xgiven 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. 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 i t 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...
|
|
|
|