Free Speech, comments and the recent High Court decision

thermalben's picture
thermalben started the topic in Friday, 10 Sep 2021 at 6:28am

Michael West has produced a great explainer of the recent High Court decision regarding free speech on Social Media platforms. 

Michael and his team have done some incredible investigative journalism over the years, check out his site and please subscribe if you like his work. 

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 7:49pm

WTF is that about? that was totally pathetic and total cringe.

Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 7:50pm

Hahahahaha.

freeride76's picture
freeride76's picture
freeride76 Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 8:09pm
Constance B Gibson wrote:

If you've been attuned for all these years, there wouldn't be any wondering involved.

Speaking of wondering, I wonder what Albini would make of the term "performative woke signalling"?

No, don't answer.

You're probably right.

Ben Harding's picture
Ben Harding's picture
Ben Harding Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 7:15am
Blowin wrote:
etarip wrote:

Ah, wasn’t a directed comment blindy. I’d guess the kids would see the majority of the commentators on here as ‘old’. Myself included.

There would be plenty of young surfers on here who just are not interested in a 50 page argument over the current definition of Left Wing interspersed with 25 pages of bickering . Or was that 50 pages of bickering and 25 pages or arguing?

When I was sub 35 I hardly gave a rat’s about that stuff and life was better for it.

I always wondered about where younger surfers are on forums likes these and others. I thought there were plenty on here. Steve wrote an article about why we quit a couple weeks back. It hurt a nerve with a lot of people, myself included, and inspired them to the share their age and some anecdotes on why they're surfing, trying to surf, or not surfing.

To be honest, the age demographics blew me away. Alot of my mates & peers are v political and opinionated across the spectrum. Yet I saw probably 3 commenters out of hundreds under 40.
At the time I felt alot of the crew on here were my age (nearly mid 30s) or younger or a tad older, with 50s topping it out.

It put things in perspective for me, age doesn't really change the younger person within you at all, no matter how much life beats you down or your body breaks down around you. You are the same person, more or less, and thats refreshing to see. Youth is very must wasted on the young is something I reflect on alot these days. If I could have my time again I'd buy that 335k 3 bedda on the waters in palmy on the Canal back in 06' striaght after highschool. I digress.

These days I come on here for dribs and drabs; it's all in the headline. It's exhausting work trawling thru key takeaways deep in the comment section, the stamina of some is impressive.

batfink's picture
batfink's picture
batfink Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 12:19pm
blindboy wrote:

It will be interesting, if Morrison and Barnabubby get there way and ban anonymous posts, to see which SN posters will be willing to own up to their previous identity.

Have thought about that BB. Would be happy to now as I’m unemployed. Being in a job makes you vulnerable even if you don’t say anything nasty. Used to spend far too much time on (at the time, realsurf) forums. Would have been clear that I was doing a lot of it on work time, although that was 10 or more years ago now.

But now if I changed to my name I’d have to let everyone know I used to be Batfink, if I wanted to have some background. Not that that’s a real problem.

Which is why I tend towards rebutting poor arguments rather than abusing other posters. Sometimes though, when on the drink, I may not have lived as close to that ethic as I’d liked.

batfink's picture
batfink's picture
batfink Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 12:35pm
brutus wrote:
Blowin wrote:
etarip wrote:

Ah, wasn’t a directed comment blindy. I’d guess the kids would see the majority of the commentators on here as ‘old’. Myself included.

There would be plenty of young surfers on here who just are not interested in a 50 page argument over the current definition of Left Wing interspersed with 25 pages of bickering . Or was that 50 pages of bickering and 25 pages or arguing?

When I was sub 35 I hardly gave a rat’s about that stuff and life was better for it.

ah yes ignorance is bliss....

There is a line to be drawn there, somewhere. I’ve been heavily engaged in keeping up with media stories for about 35 years now, politics, economics, sport, social movements etc. Have come to a point now where I’m not sure that extra bit of news is adding much value to my life. Also now there is just so much, and such variance in quality.

I’ve subscribed to Crikey for around 20 years now, got onto it very early in the piece (and as usual, thought I was a latecomer). Unlikely to re-subscribe, not to save money but just to avoid having more opinions landing in my inbox. I think I reached saturation point a fair while ago, and now that my life is my own every moment is a moment I could be doing something else.

So curating the in-feed is essential, and maybe getting out of some to devote more time elsewhere.

I’ve known of friendlyjordies for a while now without bothering to watch too much. The guys a smartarse, undoubtedly, but sometimes you need one, and he does it well. That a 20 something can totally school a batch of middle aged politicians says more about the pollies than Jordy, and frankly he goes after politicians in a way that old media used to but don’t have the guts to do anymore.

In a perfect media world there would be no place for friendlyjordies, or Michael West, or Renew Economy, and lots of other sites, but old media has vacated the ground. Democracy needs these sites. ( and if you’re buying a car, don’t do anything until you’ve trawled through John Cadogan’s YouTube channel)

batfink's picture
batfink's picture
batfink Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 12:40pm
Blowin wrote:

There would be plenty of young surfers on here who just are not interested in a 50 page argument …

Plenty of older surfers too. Totally agree.

AndyM's picture
AndyM's picture
AndyM Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 12:46pm

Good post Batfink.

“I’ve been heavily engaged in keeping up with media stories for about 35 years now, politics, economics, sport, social movements etc. Have come to a point now where I’m not sure that extra bit of news is adding much value to my life.”

I’ve heard it called infobesity, I’ve also heard it called the new propaganda, just the sheer volume and pace of info which just buries things and makes it disappear.

Being a discerning consumer is crucial.

Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson Wednesday, 27 Oct 2021 at 1:30pm
Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin Thursday, 28 Oct 2021 at 2:02pm

Facebook papers…lol. Cyber Gulf of Tonkin.

Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson Thursday, 28 Oct 2021 at 5:25pm

Yay!

Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson Thursday, 28 Oct 2021 at 5:26pm
Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson Tuesday, 2 Nov 2021 at 4:44pm

A pretty pic to keep SN on HIS radar!

thermalben's picture
thermalben's picture
thermalben Monday, 29 Nov 2021 at 11:36am

"Social media companies could be forced to reveal the identities of anonymous users in an effort to crack down on online trolling, under new laws being drafted by the federal government."

"A key part of the new rules is clearing up who takes responsibility for content published online. A recent High Court case found that the person managing a public page on social media was responsible for comments made by others on that page, rather than the social media company that runs the platform.
It meant, for example, that if a media outlet posted a news story on Facebook, it holds legal responsibility for any potentially defamatory comments made by others on that post. These new laws will push that legal responsibility onto the social media company."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-28/social-media-laws-online-trolls/1...

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Monday, 29 Nov 2021 at 12:41pm

About bloody time. Social media companies have been profiting off abuse misinformation and insults using some sort of faux libertarianism as an excuse. You.publish it, you own it. Happy with your work over the years Ben?

Supafreak's picture
Supafreak's picture
Supafreak Monday, 29 Nov 2021 at 6:06pm

I wonder what will happen with Twitter in this country, in the comments section in this link they have even written songs about Fauci.

thermalben's picture
thermalben's picture
thermalben Tuesday, 30 Nov 2021 at 8:20am

"Earlier this year, England's footballers were subjected to sustained online abuse. If anonymity was a factor in aggressive online behaviour, you'd expect abuse to have come from anonymous accounts. But 99% of the accounts banned were not anonymous."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-11-30/online-bullying-trolling-...

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Tuesday, 30 Nov 2021 at 10:22am

So what? The issue is not the anonymity it is the abuse and the misinformation. The fundamental issue is ethical publishing. The ethical responsibility of web sites for the material they put into the public domain is the same as that of those producing hard copy.

boxright's picture
boxright's picture
boxright Tuesday, 30 Nov 2021 at 10:35am

Not quite. The govts most recent push is for anonymity to be either omitted or users easily traced, in the belief that it will end abuse. I tend to think they're a decade too late as there seems less need to hide behind a fake name these days. Abuse is out in the open.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Tuesday, 30 Nov 2021 at 4:10pm

The proposed legislation is for the benefit of public figures to enable them to sue sites for defamation. My point is not about the legislation but the fundamental reason why abuse and misinformation have become rampant. I mean does anyone really believe that protecting the owners of the sites responsible serves any purpose beyond increasing their profits?

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin Tuesday, 30 Nov 2021 at 4:21pm

The sites that don’t censor provide invaluable and rare platforms for free speech. That’s worth protecting. Very much so. If a business profits whilst providing the platform then good for them as they are providing a service which people value highly enough to pay for it.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Tuesday, 30 Nov 2021 at 4:29pm

Free speech is under no threat threat in Australia. Providing outlets for bigotry, misinformation about the pandemic, personal abuse, climate denialism and political manipulation is not defending g free speech it is under-mining it as governments will continue to tighten regulations as the existing freedoms are abused.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin Tuesday, 30 Nov 2021 at 4:37pm

Your judgement on what constitutes worthwhile personal expression is subjective and not representative of the broader community.

Vic Local's picture
Vic Local's picture
Vic Local Tuesday, 30 Nov 2021 at 4:54pm

Let's look at the realities of the situation here.
Anyone taking action using these proposed laws is going to need very deep pockets. Defamation is a rich person's game.
There's a pretty good reason why Scumo wants to limit what people say about powerful people. Probably has something to do with him leading the most corrupt govt in Australian history.