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. 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. 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...

         1. 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.

            1. 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.)

               1. 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:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49811633">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49811633

                  Significantly shorter than yours and answers the question (yours frankly doesn’t) without assumptions.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.