Thread

1. 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. 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.

         1. 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.

            1. nonethewiser · 1790135194 · focus · HN ↗

               Yeah and its good if Australia becomes a more like China in this regard
            2. 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.

               1. 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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.