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.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin Wednesday, 8 Dec 2021 at 5:26am

Unfortunately Australia is now home to an ever growing number of spineless chicken shits who can’t wait to sue you because their fragile ego has been tarnished or they wish to de platform opinions they dislike or they’re just malevolent scum who really need to be wrapped in chicken wire and thrown overboard.

Be forewarned

https://theshot.net.au/general-news/defamation-a-users-guide-how-to-twee...

Vic Local's picture
Vic Local's picture
Vic Local Wednesday, 8 Dec 2021 at 7:37am
Blowin wrote:

Unfortunately Australia is now home to an ever growing number of spineless chicken shits who can’t wait to sue you because their fragile ego has been tarnished or they wish to de platform opinions they dislike or they’re just malevolent scum who really need to be wrapped in chicken wire and thrown overboard.

Be forewarned

https://theshot.net.au/general-news/defamation-a-users-guide-how-to-twee...

After threatening violence against other posters here on multiple occasions, I will just assume you want to silence people the old fashioned way. Bit rich you accusing others of having a fragile ego too champ.

Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson Wednesday, 8 Dec 2021 at 4:28pm

GuySmiley's picture
GuySmiley's picture
GuySmiley Wednesday, 8 Dec 2021 at 5:42pm
Constance B Gibson wrote:

Constance, what about the island’s most infamous resident @info-#alwaysacomment?

Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson Wednesday, 8 Dec 2021 at 5:50pm

#NoComment.CreepyIsAsCreepyDoes.

Cockee's picture
Cockee's picture
Cockee Wednesday, 8 Dec 2021 at 5:50pm

Let's all hope that indo's not also Thomas D.

Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson Thursday, 13 Jan 2022 at 12:06pm

H2O's picture
H2O's picture
H2O Thursday, 13 Jan 2022 at 12:40pm

Woody may be spinning in his grave

Cockee's picture
Cockee's picture
Cockee Thursday, 13 Jan 2022 at 3:01pm

Didn't know Zuck played guitar - the things you learn from the internet never cease to astound.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin Friday, 21 Jan 2022 at 5:49pm

thermalben's picture
thermalben's picture
thermalben Thursday, 10 Mar 2022 at 11:09am

Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson Wednesday, 23 Mar 2022 at 7:03pm
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Tuesday, 26 Apr 2022 at 7:05am

It looks like its going to happen, Elon Musk is going to buy Twitter.

I don't use the platform but a huge win for free speech, the man is an absolute legend, putting his money where his mouth is.

"Elon Musk has clinched a deal to buy Twitter for $US44 billion ($61.4 billion), in a transaction that will shift control of the social media platform populated by millions of users and global leaders to the world's richest person.

Key points:
The sale was unanimously approved by Twitter's 11 directors
Twitter shares rose about 6 per cent following the announcement
Donald Trump reportedly says he will not return to Twitter

Discussions over the deal — which last week appeared uncertain — accelerated over the weekend after Mr Musk wooed Twitter shareholders with financial details of his offer."

More https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-26/elon-musk-buys-twitter/101014798

DudeSweetDudeSweet's picture
DudeSweetDudeSweet's picture
DudeSweetDudeSweet Tuesday, 26 Apr 2022 at 7:13am

Interesting, Indo.

Musk has the right things to say about internet censorship but he has other ideas which are not so savoury. We will have to see how it all pans out. Superficially appears to be a positive development though.

Certainly more appealing than the alternative….

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Tuesday, 26 Apr 2022 at 7:44am

Im liking him more and more i think he has a real logically balanced mindset most of the time and for those that dont know he is not a conservative he votes Democrat, obviously pro renewables ect, but still against wokeness and not scared to call out crazy ideology (like meme above), and very pro freedom of speech ect

But yeah listened to some long interviews with him and some aspects of where he see's humanity going or believes should go, is downright scary and im strongly against, pimping humans brains with high level computer type tech type thing.

Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson Wednesday, 27 Apr 2022 at 4:33pm

I guess we won't be seeing the likes of these again on Twitter anytime soonish?

batfink's picture
batfink's picture
batfink Wednesday, 27 Apr 2022 at 4:35pm

Ha ha ha ha ha. Gold there Constance.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Wednesday, 27 Apr 2022 at 5:41pm

thermalben's picture
thermalben's picture
thermalben Thursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 6:25am
indo-dreaming wrote:

It looks like its going to happen, Elon Musk is going to buy Twitter.

I don't use the platform but a huge win for free speech, the man is an absolute legend, putting his money where his mouth is.

How is it a win for free speech?

I'm more interested in whether he can turn the business around. In the last nine years it's been a listed company Twitter has made a loss in all but two of those years. 2021 saw a loss of $221 million, 2020's loss was $1.14 billion.

DudeSweetDudeSweet's picture
DudeSweetDudeSweet's picture
DudeSweetDudeSweet Thursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 6:44am

Because Musk’s stated mission is to end the politically partisan censorship which currently occurs on Twitter.

How effective he will be and how committed to open discourse he truly is has yet to be determined.

Supafreak's picture
Supafreak's picture
Supafreak Thursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 7:11am

Google and Apple threatening to delete the App if things get out of hand . I personally think he’s wasting money that could have been better spent if he truly wants to help mankind .

DudeSweetDudeSweet's picture
DudeSweetDudeSweet's picture
DudeSweetDudeSweet Thursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 7:34am

Free speech is essential to civilisation. I think it’s an appropriate and admirable way to spend the money if it truly allows an equal voice to the population as Musk proposes.

The threat to freedom of speech is evidenced by the tech monopolies circling the wagons and claiming they’ll censor Twitter. Disgraceful state of affairs.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet Thursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 8:14am

So will he send more SpaceX satellites into lower orbit?

If so, fuck that.

flollo's picture
flollo's picture
flollo Thursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 8:28am
stunet wrote:

So will he send more SpaceX satellites into lower orbit?

If so, fuck that.

It's already very crowded, I hope not. Imagine tweets in the night sky. Sounds like some crazy science fiction but I can totally see it happening.

jwithay's picture
jwithay's picture
jwithay Thursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 9:20am

https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-start-up-launch-satellite-space-a...

'SpaceX and a Canadian startup plan to launch a satellite that will beam adverts into space. Anyone can buy pixels on the satellite's screen with dogecoin.'

Don't know about you crew, but I've often found myself gazing up in to the immense expanse of the night sky and wondering what the odds are for first goal kicker, or how long i can go interest free with the purchase of one of gerrys washing machines. I can fret no more! Pioneers, truly.

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/12/27/year-ahead-will-space-adver...

DudeSweetDudeSweet's picture
DudeSweetDudeSweet's picture
DudeSweetDudeSweet Thursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 10:19am

There’s a lot to find unappealing in Musk’s behaviours in multiple fields but none diminishes the positive actions he claims to be trying to establish with his Twitter purchase.

Perhaps I’m wrong but it’d be quite easy to imagine a class action civil suit leveraged at SpaceX if they start polluting the night sky with advertising. I’d like to think it’s the step too far which would see the insidious business of marketing finally meet its limits.

Though I’ve often thought that about the standard roadside billboards for years. Fingers crossed it never happens.

The Twitter purchase has potential to be great though. The totalitarians are revealing themselves at the possibility.