WTF is that about? that was totally pathetic and total cringe.
Constance B GibsonThursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 7:50pm
Hahahahaha.
freeride76Thursday, 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 HardingFriday, 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.
batfinkFriday, 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.
batfinkFriday, 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)
batfinkFriday, 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.
AndyMFriday, 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 GibsonWednesday, 27 Oct 2021 at 1:30pm
"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."
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?
"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."
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.
boxrightTuesday, 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.
blindboyTuesday, 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?
BlowinTuesday, 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.
blindboyTuesday, 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.
BlowinTuesday, 30 Nov 2021 at 4:37pm
Your judgement on what constitutes worthwhile personal expression is subjective and not representative of the broader community.
Vic LocalTuesday, 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.
BlowinWednesday, 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.
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.
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 GibsonWednesday, 8 Dec 2021 at 4:28pm
GuySmileyWednesday, 8 Dec 2021 at 5:42pm
Constance B Gibson wrote:
Constance, what about the island’s most infamous resident @info-#alwaysacomment?
Constance B GibsonWednesday, 8 Dec 2021 at 5:50pm
#NoComment.CreepyIsAsCreepyDoes.
CockeeWednesday, 8 Dec 2021 at 5:50pm
Let's all hope that indo's not also Thomas D.
Constance B GibsonThursday, 13 Jan 2022 at 12:06pm
H2OThursday, 13 Jan 2022 at 12:40pm
Woody may be spinning in his grave
CockeeThursday, 13 Jan 2022 at 3:01pm
Didn't know Zuck played guitar - the things you learn from the internet never cease to astound.
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."
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-dreamingTuesday, 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 GibsonWednesday, 27 Apr 2022 at 4:33pm
I guess we won't be seeing the likes of these again on Twitter anytime soonish?
batfinkWednesday, 27 Apr 2022 at 4:35pm
Ha ha ha ha ha. Gold there Constance.
indo-dreamingWednesday, 27 Apr 2022 at 5:41pm
thermalbenThursday, 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.
DudeSweetDudeSweetThursday, 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.
SupafreakThursday, 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 .
DudeSweetDudeSweetThursday, 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.
stunetThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 8:14am
So will he send more SpaceX satellites into lower orbit?
If so, fuck that.
flolloThursday, 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.
'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.
DudeSweetDudeSweetThursday, 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.
Free Speech, comments and the recent High Court decision
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/
WTF is that about? that was totally pathetic and total cringe.
Hahahahaha.
You're probably right.
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.
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.
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)
Plenty of older surfers too. Totally agree.
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.
https://apnews.com/hub/the-facebook-papers
Facebook papers…lol. Cyber Gulf of Tonkin.
Yay!
Keep up to speed!
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1453283532948787208?refresh=1635402264
A pretty pic to keep SN on HIS radar!
"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...
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?
I wonder what will happen with Twitter in this country, in the comments section in this link they have even written songs about Fauci. https://twitter.com/nahasnewman/status/1465148641228820486?s=21
"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-...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Your judgement on what constitutes worthwhile personal expression is subjective and not representative of the broader community.
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.
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, what about the island’s most infamous resident @info-#alwaysacomment?
#NoComment.CreepyIsAsCreepyDoes.
Let's all hope that indo's not also Thomas D.
Woody may be spinning in his grave
Didn't know Zuck played guitar - the things you learn from the internet never cease to astound.
#WaitingOnZuck
https://theconversation.com/publishers-take-on-facebook-and-google-for-f...
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
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….
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.
I guess we won't be seeing the likes of these again on Twitter anytime soonish?
Ha ha ha ha ha. Gold there Constance.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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...
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.