Thread

US criticises Australia's proposed algorithm opt-out laws as 'censorship'

112 points · 148 comments · 1659447091

nomilk · 1790133002 · focus · HN ↗
As is common in political shenanigans, the draft bill has a euphemistic label ('algorithmic opt-out') - what it actually does is allow unspecified bureaucrats such as the Minister for Communications to designate any individual piece of content as 'harmful' and have it banished from the internet.
As an Australian who just wants relatively free access to information (and the ability to freely/easily discuss it), it's frustrating.
And it's not the first time the Australian government has done this; last year they banned U16 from social media, several weeks later everyone was alerted to Bondi by... social media.. so they could get the heck out of there, but U16... they were left clueless and unable to get updates (news sites ran 30+ minutes behind real-time events and official sites like NSW Police took 70+ minutes to even announce there was a shooter).
1. gregoryl · 1790133851 · focus · HN ↗
  We elected a central-left government, and somehow ended up with center right. Its deeply frustrating.
  1. maximus_01 · 1790134000 · focus · HN ↗
    The days of the left being more supportive of free speech than the right are long over
    BLKNSLVR · 1790134997 · focus · HN ↗
    The Right/Republicans have always touted free speech. They love getting their hate out.
    The Left have always been a bit more 'censory', generally because of their bleeding hearts on behalf of the minorities that are the targets of the Right's exercising of their free speech.
    Such is my understanding. I don't really mind either stance, with the caveat that anything 'censory' has a chance of having it's definitions expanded (and admittedly, this is succumbing to the slippery slope fallacy).
    acoustics · 1790136656 · focus · HN ↗
    > The Right/Republicans have always touted free speech.
    > The Left have always been a bit more 'censory'
    Not "always", and not even now. It's always contingent and situational. Same goes for nearly every clause in the Bill of Rights.
    At various points the left has been associated with the fights against obscenity laws, against Cold War loyalty oaths, against blacklisting, against bans of books.
    At various points the right has been associated with the fights against desecration of the American flag, against the teaching of human evolution in schools, against depictions of sex in media, against anti-war demonstrations.
    Danox · 1790140026 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    RealityVoid · 1790140098 · focus · HN ↗
    The right is just as "censory" as the left with things they don't like.
    But I think both "the right" and "the left" are kind of reductive and caricatures. I guess forcing you to go in a camp is one of the great woes of American politics.
    BLKNSLVR · 1790145771 · focus · HN ↗
    > But I think both "the right" and "the left" are kind of reductive and caricatures. I guess forcing you to go in a camp is one of the great woes of American politics.
    100%, it only seems to fuel the already-present tendency for tribalism.
    linkregister · 1790135521 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, nah, the Australian right has been casting pro-Palestinian speech as anti-semitic.
    In the States, the right has been supportive of government suppression of speech, including the communications agency (FCC) threatening broadcasters into cancelling an interview with a politician in the opposition party. The right's free speech record is far worse in the US and Australia.
    Admittedly, neither side of the aisle have good free speech practices in most of the rest of the world.
    bamboozled · 1790135876 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    bigyabai · 1790136115 · focus · HN ↗
    Palestine can exist alongside Israel. You are the only one "picking sides" here.
    bamboozled · 1790136190 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s precisely my point. Those people will have to learn to live side, and it’s not going to happen when people are taking sides, buying into propaganda etc.
    Like I said, it’s not a football game where you run around Sydney with your face painted screaming “from the river to the sea” it will solve nothing.
    bigyabai · 1790136370 · focus · HN ↗
    Palestine isn't annexing neighboring nations or refusing humanitarian corridors to starving civilian populations.
    It's okay to be pro-Palestine if you want to promote peace. Likud certainly isn't making any headway on rapprochement.
    bamboozled · 1790136722 · focus · HN ↗
    I guess the issue was October 7 happened , which was an attack on a “peace and love” festival full of teenagers. Was that too a promotion of peace ?
    I’m not saying there is a right side. I’m saying both sides have issues. Hence my point about being anti-war being a better option.
    linkregister · 1790139255 · focus · HN ↗
    There's some merit to your viewpoint because Hamas was at one time democratically elected. I don't think there's a strong case for claims that the majority of Palestinian people supported the October 7th attack on either military or noncombatant targets. One being that the majority of Palestinians were not of voting age at the time.
    October 7th being an illegal attack justified a military response from the Israeli Defense Forces to secure their border, and most of the world agreed. Opposition solidified when IDF conducted mass destruction of civilian structures and independent observer-corroborated systematic murder of noncombatants, many of whom were children.
    While two wrongs don't make a right, it's justified to support a people who are the victims of a genocide according to credible observers.
    bamboozled · 1790158433 · focus · HN ↗
    I agree, I just don't think you can really be only "pro-palestine" because it's sort of like the same thing in reverse.
    If Hamas was in-charge of the situation , what do you think would happen to Israelis, you think they'd be well looked after by Hamas?
    What should be happening if we had good world leadership is Israel would be bought under control through sanctions, we'd investigate and prosecute war criminals on both sides and the world would help eliminate Hamas and Iran (because they help Russia kill people in Ukraine) and support Hamas, but yeah, not in that world.
    Realistically October 7 was a huge, huge disaster for the Arabs in the region.
    linkregister · 1790173643 · focus · HN ↗
    Your dogged equating of support for the Palestinian people with support for Hamas is elevating a minority view.
    This would be like my claiming that all Liberal Party of Australia members hate aboriginals. Many do, but that is not how the majority of Liberals see it. Or a claim that all US Republicans are racist. Not sure what nationality you are, but you should get the picture.
    bamboozled · 1790176632 · focus · HN ↗
    Are you saying that most Palestinians don't believe in Hamas, or their message? At one point they were elected...
    Have you ever read this? <a href="https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/doctrine-hamas" rel="nofollow">https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/doctrine-hamas
    Anyway, it's ironic because if you look at all the hate directed at Israel, you could only draw the same conclusion. People hate Israelis, even though it's largely their government doing the fighting ?
    If you read that doctrine, you will see propaganda is a major part of Hamas' modus operandi, and many westerners fall for it too. It's actually amazing how many point form the 1998 charter people seem to be repeating now, in 2026.
    Back to my point really, if you gave control of the area back to Hamas (because who else would run things), what do you think would happen to innocent people in Israel? If all the people who attended those protests were successful, what do you think the outcome would be ?
    linkregister · 1790183950 · focus · HN ↗
    I think you have a genuine dogmatic blind spot here.
    1. Popular "pro-Palestinian" movements in the West largely do not support Hamas. Sometimes its iconography appears! Just as Nazi iconography sometimes appears at Republican events. This does not imploy majority support!
    2. Belief the genocide of the Palestinian people should be halted does not imply support for Hamas.
    3. Palestinian self-rule does not necessitate an armed Hamas leadership of the Palestinian territory.
    4. Support for Palestinian people and condemnation of the Netanyahu government does not imply an anti-Jewish belief. The majority of American Jews condemn Netanyahu!
    There is something in your belief system that erroneously tightly couples Hamas with Palestine. Hamas control of the Gaza strip is only a decade old.
    imawakegnxoxo · 1790139414 · focus · HN ↗
    We have nothing to do with this war, and just because "one side invaded the other" does not make either of them right - both sides have been murdering each other over religious garbage for 100s of years
    This isn't our business and we shouldn't be involved
    Thinking that we, as Australians, need to get involved looks to me like "aw these poor little brown people don't know what they're doing they need a big strong white man to sort it out!"
    Picking a side here isn't advocating for peace it's posturing
    linkregister · 1790140408 · focus · HN ↗
    > both sides have been murdering each other over religious garbage for 100s of years
    The Mandate for Palestine and Jewish resettlement started in 1917 after the first world war.
    Unless you're talking about the Roman expulsion of Jews from Judea in the 2nd century CE? The claim is still quite a stretch.
    imawakegnxoxo · 1790146051 · focus · HN ↗
    I did specify over religious garbage and not over this specific piece of land
    Regardless, the point is we aren't "fighting for peace and freedom," we're just murdering a bunch of people in a different country over something we have nothing to do with
    linkregister · 1790138631 · focus · HN ↗
    The majority of supporters of Palestianian people are not doing that.
    [deleted] · 1790136483 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    Dylan16807 · 1790136513 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think moving them would be necessary, but moving them 30 miles into what is currently Israel proper is far from a genocide.
    Unless you think all of Israel would cease to exist or something, but that's not the stakes here at all.
    peterashford · 1790137654 · focus · HN ↗
    Being pro Palestine in no way implies a "reverse genocide". JFC
    bamboozled · 1790160790 · focus · HN ↗
    If you gave the leadership of Palestine (?) what they want, what do you think that would mean for Israelis ?
    linkregister · 1790138590 · focus · HN ↗
    > Being “Pro Palestine” would mean a reverse “genocide”
    No, that's not the popular viewpoint. You're expressing a niche viewpoint or the inaccurate viewpoint propagated by some political actors.
    RealityVoid · 1790140787 · focus · HN ↗
    It is a super popular viewpoint in certain populations. It might not be _your_ view point, but there are may people who want exactly this. They usually won't say it out loud because they want all the support they can get.
    Should I remind that Palestine is against the two state solution? What would happen with the Israelis if Palestine will be free from the river to the sea?
    Both sides are damnable in this conflict, but I don't buy this idea of the gazans "just wanting peace".
    8note · 1790135788 · focus · HN ↗
    ... right wing freedom of speech is defined with a simple rule.
    you're allowed to say anything you want as long as bari weiss determines that you are sufficiently zionist and wont say anything that isnt zionist enough
  2. [deleted] · 1790134469 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  3. elephant81 · 1790134872 · focus · HN ↗
    What on earth is centre-right about the ALP? Its essentally Fabian at this point.
    Nursie · 1790140565 · focus · HN ↗
    They're in bed with the resource and gambling sectors, and other big business.
    Their record on making actual changes to benefit the people of the country vs keeping their donors sweet is pretty terrible lately. They've half-arsed so much in the last few years it's becoming a meme.
    Fabians, AFAICT, pride themselves on evidence-based policy direction. That would have (for example) implied a full ban on gambling advertising as the government's own enquiry recommended, rather than whatever watered-down industry sop Albo actually pushed through.
  4. nullbio · 1790135322 · focus · HN ↗
    I think you meant to say: We intended on electing a central-left government, and got a far-left Fabian government.
    Nursie · 1790140671 · focus · HN ↗
    Far left? LMFAO, what planet are you from?
    Labor is in bed with big business, the gambling lobby and the resources sector. Ain't nothing 'left' about any of that.
    The only people who think Labor are far left are those who have swallowed the ON/Wannabe-MAGA propaganda, as they try desperately to portray the mainstream as radical. The problem is that Albo's a boring, grey, middle-of-the-road, managerial type of PM so it's laughable to anyone with half a brain.
    Don't get me wrong, there are a ton of problems with how Labor are going about governing, this is not an endorsement of them. But the idea they're far anything is such utter brainrot.
  5. ipaddr · 1790135471 · focus · HN ↗
    You got exactly what you voted for. The left is pro censorship now. From political correctness to deplatforming, to right speech to labeling things misinformation to forgetting my body my choice when Covid came along. This is the natural end of wokism.
    linkregister · 1790140105 · focus · HN ↗
    You're getting downvoted for the factual inaccuracy of your statement. The party in control of government in the United States has gone to extraordinary lengths to chill free speech. From overt viewpoint discrimination for broadcast television to banning press outlets critical of the administration, to deporting people in legal statuses for political speech, there is no modern parallel by any other political party. The right wing's support for free speech has enormously fallen.
    ipaddr · 1790195573 · focus · HN ↗
    The left wing owns the institutions, big tech and the media and have been controlling speech for the last number of years. Perhaps you've haven't gone to a workplace reeducation class where white people mostly males are berated for the privilege they have because they are white. Or maybe your covid post haven't had your meta account banned or the post labelled misinformation because you wanted to share science.
    Trump has been not letting people in the country, kicking them out of schools and searching phones at borders to find out if they have made any posts against Jews.
    That's nothing to do with the right wing and everything to do with the Jewish lobby. He has been attacking the right wing for the same reasons. Tucker Carlson, Joe Kent, Majorie Green etc all have been attacked, investigated, fired for speaking against Israel.
    Trump silences those against Israel while the left silences those against Men in Women's sports, bathrooms, gender surgery for toddlers. Also anyone who questions covid, diy and white men in general.
    The right wing is the only place allowing to have free speech. And Fox News isn't considered right wing.
    linkregister · 1790204925 · focus · HN ↗
    Don't try to "no true Scotsman" your way out of this. From H2 2016 to H1 2026, the Republican party supported Trump with overwhelming approval.
    ipaddr · 1790210776 · focus · HN ↗
    2016 Trump is different from 2026 Trump. His popularity is 29%; many jumped ship over Epstein and many more over Iran. His core supporters in 2016 are not his core supporters now.
    linkregister · 1790288102 · focus · HN ↗
    In Q1 2026, Trump was popular with Republicans despite many free speech violations occurring during 2025. His unpopularity started with the Iran war. Republicans were on board with the abuses as long as the targets were libs. He was elected to own the libs. The timeline is clear.
    I appreciate your willingness to debate the topic. People like you make HN an interesting place to spend time.
    tupaarnaq · 1790228842 · focus · HN ↗
    How does "the left" silence those against "Men in Women's sports etc etc"? People keep yapping about it all the time. It's the entire Republican party platform. And COVID. Jesus F. People keep yapping about Fauci the whole time. Never shut up about him. Grilled from day one. Entire congressional hearings devoted to grilling him. My social media feeds are filled with people wishing summary execution on him. Yap yap yap. Zero consequences. It's the politically correct thing to do. Everything you whine about is the official platform of the ruling party of the US, not of some purple haired Starbucks barista in Brooklyn.
    H. Christ almighty, you people sure do have an enormous victim complex.
    Godsend69 · 1790246888 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
  6. shermozle · 1790139769 · focus · HN ↗
    The last time the Australian Labor Party was a centre-left government was around the mid 1970s.
2. iso1631 · 1790134664 · focus · HN ↗
  The Australian Minister for Communications is Anika Wells, the elected member for parliament with 64.52% after second-round counting
  Calling democraticly elected people you dislike a "bureaucrat" is disingenuous
  1. ThrustVectoring · 1790134771 · focus · HN ↗
    Electing a censor doesn't make them any less of a censor.
    iso1631 · 1790134991 · focus · HN ↗
    And?
    Not everyone wants to live in a society where the American form of limited free speech is the accepted societal norm. Australia can choose its own views, so can France, and Britain, and Turkey, and China. It's not a colony of the us.
    nonethewiser · 1790135194 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah and its good if Australia becomes a more like China in this regard
    p-e-w · 1790135477 · focus · HN ↗
    It should be no problem to call things by their name (censorship) then.
    Censorship is the government suppressing information. If people actually believe that this is how things should be, let the government introduce official “censorship bills” and call publicly for “additional censorship measures”.
    The fact that they aren’t doing that demonstrates that they feel the need to hide what they are really doing, which speaks of an inherent wrongness that has nothing to do with a US/non-US culture divide.
    iso1631 · 1790139774 · focus · HN ↗
    The post did not use the name "censorship", it just tried to trivialise the democratic will of a country which does not want to give more power to US billionaires, claiming it's just the whim of an "unspecified bureaucrat"
    US views on the limited freedom of speech the US government allows are different to those of the limited freedom of speech that Australia, Germany, etc allow
    All those countries limit freedom of speech, it doesn't make anything that doesn't exactly copy American "freedoms" (and indeed lack of freedom) wrong.
    Of course argue this and HN will flag you
    The more speech you have, the more powerful you are. That means those who can have more speech and more targetted speech (i.e. people who are wealthier) are more powerful. Not everyone likes that. You might, that doesn't make you right.
  2. roenxi · 1790134992 · focus · HN ↗
    "Disingenuous" implies someone is doing something on purpose. Anyone calling a Minister an unelected bureaucrat is just mistaken - obviously a minister isn't an unelected bureaucrat. They're an elected bureaucrat.
    That said, whoever this Anika Wells woman is the law looks like a bad idea and it is nice that the US has found it in their interests to say something helpful.
  3. _kb · 1790135323 · focus · HN ↗
    For context: personally strongly in favour of legislation that will kneecap algorithmic feeds in almost any way.
    A big concern with these (and other associated laws) being pushed through is it grants the eSafety Commissioner powers to edict what’s allowed.
    That position is appointed, not elected.
  4. [deleted] · 1790135402 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
3. rdtsc · 1790135897 · focus · HN ↗
  Thanks. Reading it at first seemed like “the people” here is you know, end users, people toggle some settings on their devices, not a government employee deciding. It turns out a government employee doing it. Yeah, just because US government is goofy doesn’t somehow make others sane or good.
4. dclowd9901 · 1790136851 · focus · HN ↗
  Can you elaborate how this might be different than laws in Germany that disallow certain speech around white supremacy? Or laws that disallow violent rhetoric?
  1. selcuka · 1790137532 · focus · HN ↗
    > Can you elaborate how this might be different than laws in Germany that disallow certain speech [...]
    Those laws explicitly declare what they ban. This one doesn't.
  2. jchw · 1790138077 · focus · HN ↗
    I think censorship is bad because it restricts expression, and I believe restricting expression is bad because I believe free expression is both a human right and incredibly important to free society. But obviously, there are times when we collectively are going to agree to restrict rights to some other benefit. The question is of balance. To what degree are we restricting expression, and to what end? Is it truly justified?
    I have no idea if this proposal is shit or not, I'm not steeped enough in it, but it's not enough to point to hate speech laws and say "censorship is okay here, why not there?" - well, the important details are literally everything else other than the part where it is censorship, so that's the part we need to address...
    latexr · 1790139800 · focus · HN ↗
    > it's not enough to point to hate speech laws and say "censorship is okay here, why not there?"
    That’s not what your parent comment is saying. Asking “how do these things differ” does not imply support for either thing, it’s a request for clarification. Not every question is an argument in disguise.
    jchw · 1790141607 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, merely asking how two things differ is not necessarily intended to be an argument in favor or against something. I used deduction based on context to figure out that part.
    Text being low bandwidth, I could be wrong, but what you're saying implies it's unreasonable to assume that making a comparison to something that people are highly sympathetic to isn't likely to be an appeal to sympathy for the other thing being compared. I just disagree, my interpretation was completely reasonable here. If it's wrong, well, it's not like I told them to go fuck themselves. It would then merely be a misunderstanding. Though, I doubt it.
    (To be honest, though, I also should say that I actually have no idea whether they would lean more for or against on the comparison. Not everyone is a fan of hate speech laws, after all.)
    latexr · 1790142533 · focus · HN ↗
    > I could be wrong, but what you're saying implies (…)
    You are wrong. My point is closer to “don’t make assumptions; it muddies and derails the conversation and leads to unnecessary unproductive disagreements”.
    Compare your original answer to a sibling response, which was made before yours.
    <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49811633">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49811633
    Significantly shorter than yours and answers the question (yours frankly doesn’t) without assumptions.
    iso1631 · 1790139937 · focus · HN ↗
    America constantly restricts expression it doesn't like. It's just that you believe being topless in the park is bad speech but calling for genocide is good speech. Billionaires using computers to slurp up and regurgitate others work is good, but people copying others work is bad. Saying "lets kill the president" is bad, but saying "lets kill the senator" is good.
    America does not have a monopoly on what good and bad speech is, and it certainly restricts speech, via legal means, via cultural means, and via application of force.
    jchw · 1790142440 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not personally a big fan of all U.S. restrictions on speech, but I don't really see your point, to be honest. The U.S. can right sometimes and wrong others. In principle, I don't really see why the U.S. government and its officials generally shouldn't be able to raise concerns about legislation and litigation that may impact U.S. businesses, especially if they believe they might impact inadvertently the rights of U.S. citizens. There are plenty of examples where I believe the U.S. official or agency was spot-on.
    If you are not a fan of U.S. soft power though, then it seems like the future will be brighter for you; we're certainly burning all of those bridges as fast as possible. But, that is really neither here nor there.
    iso1631 · 1790215315 · focus · HN ↗
    All countries restrict speech their government (which is the will of the people in a democracy) finds does more harm than good.
    America protects the speech of the rich and powerful but allows stoking division and outright propaganda. It hides a lot behind "it's not technically illegal but you'll lose your job if you say the wrong thing", or "you'll get arrested but if you're rich enough to afford a lawyer you might get charges dismissed"
    Perhaps solve those problems before criticising other countries for fighting back in the war.
5. dbetteridge · 1790138539 · focus · HN ↗
  Two options from what I could see.
  You can entirely opt out of algorithmic feed and just see an unfiltered list of your connections posts.
  Or if you choose the algorithmic option, there's some ability for the ministers to request content be removed.
  Could it be abused to remove content they don't like? Of course
  Is it a marked improvement on Meta/Tiktok getting carte Blanche to select what people see? I think so.
6. phsau · 1790138689 · focus · HN ↗
  You say draft bill, but can you link to it? I can only find descriptions from the PM: <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/my-feed-my-way" rel="nofollow">https://www.pm.gov.au/media/my-feed-my-way
  What you've described isn't part of this?
  "The draft laws provide eSafety with the power to issue removal notices for nudify apps or websites, and streamline the child cyber-bulling and adult cyber abuse schemes to enable eSafety to deal more quickly with this harmful material."
  1. nomilk · 1790139148 · focus · HN ↗
    > can you link to (the draft bill)?
    <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/exposure-draft-online-safety-amendment-digital-duty-of-care-bill-2026-september2026.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/docume...
    On the intent of the Act:
    > The objects of this Act are to improve and promote online safety for Australians by ... imposing a duty on persons responsible for online services to ensure a safe online environment
    On special powers granted to the Minister:
    > the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine material or conduct, or a combination of material and conduct, that the Minister is satisfied may cause serious harm
    phsau · 1790160962 · focus · HN ↗
    Thank you.
7. jeffybefffy519 · 1790139321 · focus · HN ↗
  How you went from U16 social media ban to the worst terrorist attack in AU history since port arthur therefore social media good is staggering...
  1. nomilk · 1790140455 · focus · HN ↗
    Suppose government had instead banned spare car tires. 99.99% of the time, we wouldn't notice. But during an emergency the effects of such a ban become apparent. Similar with the social media ban.
    Consider the situation for a 15 year-old on or nearby Bondi at the time of the attack. You hear.. fireworks?.. a car backfiring..? and meh, you continue sipping your iced matcha latte.
    Sometimes having the choice to learn/see/hear information matters. Very often (like with a spare tire ban) nobody even notices the ban - but at certain times, it really matters.
    andwur · 1790143819 · focus · HN ↗
    Is this not a bias towards the status quo, conflating two entirely distinct problems?
    We have problem A: receiving timely updates for life threatening events has not been implemented, or poorly.
    Then we have problem B: social media companies have monetised engagement, without any guardrails to avoid detrimental effects, and continue to push to maximise this.
    Just because the status quo involves a high speed, low latency, flood of unverified information via social media, which tangentially solves problem A in cherry-picked examples, does not mean it has to always be the case. This same proposed solution is also rife for abuse, in the same way a legitimate early warning can be sent out it can just as easily be used to spread hoax events.
    Would it not make more sense to actually solve problem A, e.g. get the police to pull their finger out and use the emergency broadcast service available in just about every phone on the planet, and treat problem B as its own distinct issue? By conflating the two I don't see how we will ever solve either problem in any effective manner. By doing so we're essentially agreeing to a world where our best case scenario is the narrow intersection of A & B, while the rest of the time we're left with the full outer join of the two problems - bad access to verified emergency updates and a flood of engagement-bait crap on social media.
    To be clear, I do not agree with how this legislation is being put forward nor with how it is proposed to be controlled. This is layman's legislation at its worst for a highly technical subject, and even in a more charitable light I struggle to see it as anything but a distraction and power grab rolled into one, with little likelihood of solving the problem at hand.
    BLKNSLVR · 1790146081 · focus · HN ↗
    You can literally justify absolutely anything using that logic.
    That one time the toddler reached for his daddy's unsecured rifle and killed the intruder who had a history of perpetrating violent home invasions. Therefore, don't secure your firearms.
    roenxi · 1790148142 · focus · HN ↗
    That is the seed of a reasonable argument against securing guns - if you're expecting to have to use a gun to defend yourself, you want to have a gun and have it on hand and ready to use. If it is illegal to have the gun out of storage then that is a problem in the event of being attacked by someone.
    It seems unlikely that the toddler to be using a gun effectively though.
    jeffybefffy519 · 1790195776 · focus · HN ↗
    By your logic then, shouldn't algorithms be banned? If a U16 is going to turn to social media, and the feed is not in chronological order then how do we even guarantee that they will see what is happening in the moment when an algorithm is making the choice for them...
    Seems more like, if they see something suspicious or are worried about it - dont go to your phone, just leave the situation as fast as possible. As usual, education and critical thinking is the answer.
8. ikr678 · 1790146071 · focus · HN ↗
  Social media could have just as easily spread misinformation about the Bondi incident. It was a failure of the NSW Police to not use the SMS emergency warning systems, which is not a good reason to keep everyone on social media.
9. akst · 1790153833 · focus · HN ↗
  > As is common in political shenanigans, the draft bill has a euphemistic label ('algorithmic opt-out') - what it actually does is allow unspecified bureaucrats such as the Minister for Communications to designate any individual piece of content as 'harmful' and have it banished from the internet.
  Not a fan of the paternalistic/nanny state attitude of the current government or that ministers track record, but isn't this two separate things which they intend to do?
  1. nomilk · 1790154596 · focus · HN ↗
    > isn't this two separate things which they intend to do?
    Precisely. This bill is being sold to the public under a benign label, but smuggled along with it are some dubious affordances. The same was accomplished with 'age verification for U16s', which, if named correctly, would have been called 'everyone (not just U16s) must present a licence or use a VPN to use the internet'.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.