|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+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 it censors independent voices but it doesn't punish establishment media for making false claims, of which they make many and given they are bestowed a position of authority have many magnitudes greater effect on vulnerable minds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+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?
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Still has not articulated what is wrong with this Bill and what section he disagrees with. Just vague general statements
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+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?
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+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”. You do realise Facebook is used by Australians don't you? So any censorship and/or curation of content on that platform affects what Australians see? Even an 80 year old understands this. Im Australian and dont use facebook... In fact I would guess most 80 year olds would be intelligent enough to realise that facebook isnt a source of information at all, just a platform for vain people to pretend to be happy with their lives... You still havent done me the courtesy of explaining what your stance on this bill is? You asked a question, I think I gave a polite answer... now its your turn........
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+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?
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+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? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled? I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP. I'm not here to answer your questions. Ok. Here's my stance. I don't care. What's yours? Can I join you on the fence? Haven't read it, nor know anything about it yet still.
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
He's trying really hard to troll, but appears to lack any opinion other than being disgruntled
It's hard to troll when most of the other posters here are pretty reasonable and don't see things in black and white.
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+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? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled? I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP. I'm not here to answer your questions. Has bipartisan support. Try again. it was tabled by the ALP whether it has 'bipartisan' support from ALP-lite (aka the Liberal Party) is irrelevant So is your problem solely that it comes from the "other side"? Did your mother not teach you to use your words when you were younger? This
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xOk so you still have not clearly articulated your problem with parts of the bill or the bill itself.
The onus is not on us to comment. You brought it up. You give us an overview of what it is and what you disagree with. so I take it you were completely unaware of this bill? You really have your finger on the pulse don't you... Goi it, you haven't read it or know the intricacies of it. You need others to do the thinking for you so you can come up with a counter No, I'm not here to sell you anything. That would be an exercise in futility. I'm more interested in the justification the collective here have for this bill. Given you weren't even aware of its existence your participation in this thread is nothing more than noise. Well, again.. the onus on what's wrong with it lies with you. I didn't say anything was wrong with it. Its tabled before parliament this week, therefore its news. Its a significant bill. However you have no opinion on it, or can't explain/understand anything about it? Ok - we have got it.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+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? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled? I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP. I'm not here to answer your questions. Has bipartisan support. Try again. it was tabled by the ALP whether it has 'bipartisan' support from ALP-lite (aka the Liberal Party) is irrelevant So is your problem solely that it comes from the "other side"? Did your mother not teach you to use your words when you were younger? Yours clearly didn't teach you. Evidently more so than yours, so... again leads me to why you ask questions with a viewpoint on this specific issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+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? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled? I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP. I'm not here to answer your questions. Has bipartisan support. Try again. it was tabled by the ALP whether it has 'bipartisan' support from ALP-lite (aka the Liberal Party) is irrelevant So is your problem solely that it comes from the "other side"? Did your mother not teach you to use your words when you were younger? Yours clearly didn't teach you.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+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? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled? I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP. I'm not here to answer your questions. Has bipartisan support. Try again. it was tabled by the ALP whether it has 'bipartisan' support from ALP-lite (aka the Liberal Party) is irrelevant So is your problem solely that it comes from the "other side"? Did your mother not teach you to use your words when you were younger?
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+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? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled? I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP. I'm not here to answer your questions. Has bipartisan support. Try again. it was tabled by the ALP whether it has 'bipartisan' support from ALP-lite (aka the Liberal Party) is irrelevant
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+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? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled? I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP. I'm not here to answer your questions. Has bipartisan support. Try again.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+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? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled? I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP. I'm not here to answer your questions. Ok. Here's my stance. I don't care. What's yours?
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+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? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled? I brought it up because I'd like the forum to explain to me why its needed and why its a good thing, given it has been tabled by the ALP. I'm not here to answer your questions.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+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? Let me rephrase then, since you brought it up: Can you explain and justify to me why you think it's a bad thing? As you brought it up, you clearly are implying it's not a good thing. Did you bring these issues up with your MPs when you heard about the bill being tabled?
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xOk so you still have not clearly articulated your problem with parts of the bill or the bill itself.
The onus is not on us to comment. You brought it up. You give us an overview of what it is and what you disagree with. so I take it you were completely unaware of this bill? You really have your finger on the pulse don't you... Goi it, you haven't read it or know the intricacies of it. You need others to do the thinking for you so you can come up with a counter No, I'm not here to sell you anything. That would be an exercise in futility. I'm more interested in the justification the collective here have for this bill. Given you weren't even aware of its existence your participation in this thread is nothing more than noise. Well, again.. the onus on what's wrong with it lies with you. I didn't say anything was wrong with it. Its tabled before parliament this week, therefore its news. Its a significant bill.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xOk so you still have not clearly articulated your problem with parts of the bill or the bill itself.
The onus is not on us to comment. You brought it up. You give us an overview of what it is and what you disagree with. so I take it you were completely unaware of this bill? You really have your finger on the pulse don't you... Goi it, you haven't read it or know the intricacies of it. You need others to do the thinking for you so you can come up with a counter No, I'm not here to sell you anything. That would be an exercise in futility. I'm more interested in the justification the collective here have for this bill. Given you weren't even aware of its existence your participation in this thread is nothing more than noise. Well, again.. the onus on what's wrong with it lies with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+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”. I follow a couple of medical science debunkers on Instagram. They have a hundred thousand followers or whatever but they're debunking people who have millions. It makes you sick to think, like you said, gullible adults are endangering their kids lives because some doula from Nimbin is saying don't give your kids a vitamin K shot. ( As an example. ) Who are these 'medical science debunkers' you follow?
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xOk so you still have not clearly articulated your problem with parts of the bill or the bill itself.
The onus is not on us to comment. You brought it up. You give us an overview of what it is and what you disagree with. so I take it you were completely unaware of this bill? You really have your finger on the pulse don't you... Goi it, you haven't read it or know the intricacies of it. You need others to do the thinking for you so you can come up with a counter No, I'm not here to sell you anything. That would be an exercise in futility. I'm more interested in the justification the collective here have for this bill. Given you weren't even aware of its existence your participation in this thread is nothing more than noise.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+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”. I follow a couple of medical science debunkers on Instagram. They have a hundred thousand followers or whatever but they're debunking people who have millions. It makes you sick to think, like you said, gullible adults are endangering their kids lives because some doula from Nimbin is saying don't give your kids a vitamin K shot. ( As an example. )
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Currently enroute to Sardinia but delayed in Doha. This thread looks fun.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xOk so you still have not clearly articulated your problem with parts of the bill or the bill itself.
The onus is not on us to comment. You brought it up. You give us an overview of what it is and what you disagree with. so I take it you were completely unaware of this bill? You really have your finger on the pulse don't you... Goi it, you haven't read it or know the intricacies of it. You need others to do the thinking for you so you can come up with a counter
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xYou haven't articulated your issue with it? or what parts of the bill you are opposed to go up 3 posts, you'll find I have on the flipside, nobody has been able to answer my OP question yet There is absolutely no clear reference to the bill, its contents or specific points in relation to it. Just vague statements
nobody needs to answer your question because nobody here had probably even read it to make an informed comment on it, like you obviously have.., I assume. interesting how you assume you speak for everybody else Isnt that what you've done with this entire thread ffs lol
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xYou haven't articulated your issue with it? or what parts of the bill you are opposed to go up 3 posts, you'll find I have on the flipside, nobody has been able to answer my OP question yet There is absolutely no clear reference to the bill, its contents or specific points in relation to it. Just vague statements
nobody needs to answer your question because nobody here had probably even read it to make an informed comment on it, like you obviously have.., I assume. interesting how you assume you speak for everybody else Isnt that what you've done with this entire thread ffs lol
|
|
|
|
|
Lupi33
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 291,
Visits: 0
|
+xOk so you still have not clearly articulated your problem with parts of the bill or the bill itself.
The onus is not on us to comment. You brought it up. You give us an overview of what it is and what you disagree with. so I take it you were completely unaware of this bill? You really have your finger on the pulse don't you...
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Ok so you still have not clearly articulated your problem with parts of the bill or the bill itself.
The onus is not on us to comment. You brought it up. You give us an overview of what it is and what you disagree with.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|