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. 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.
    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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.