Thread

1. thwarted · 1790133617 · focus · HN ↗

   > "We ask that Australia clarify how exactly 'harm' and 'risks' shall be determined... ensuring these definitions do not encroach on protected speech," the US said in its submission.

   Australia should put this submission in the circular file. The US government's opinion about any of this shouldn't matter to Australia, especially when the intent is to allow users to elect to use the natural state of no-algorithm time-based-ordering presentation of the content. This is like saying that an impact study needs to be done to determine if walking to the end of the block is safe enough to be allowed rather than blasting people out of a cannon towards the end of the block. Or saying that people should not be able to eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner in that order if they choose to.

   > Another worry was that the proposed laws could affect Australia's "reputation as a jurisdiction that enables innovation," the submission said.

   How magnanimous of the US to be concerned about this for Australia.

   1. godwinson__4-8 · 1790136737 · focus · HN ↗

      Australia and the United States have mutual interests and investments in the Pacific. Underlying this is a sense of shared cultural values and shared legacy as former British colonies.

      To act as if the United States is sticking its nose in Australia as if it's Venezuela or something shows a rather pedestrian understanding of Australian history and geopolitics.

      If the United States retreats from the world the Australian people will be among those who suffer the most. The interest in each other is mutual.

      Edit: I'm not endorsing any particular intervention I'm merely pointing out the parent comment's framing (basically Australia should just ignore the United States or vice-versa) is silly given the reality of the relationship between the two countries, especially right now given how Australia views the present risks associated with the growing threat of Chinese hegemony in the Pacific.

      1. BLKNSLVR · 1790146748 · focus · HN ↗

         If the US 'retreats' from Australia because Australia acts like a sovereign country and makes it's own laws as it sees fit, then Australia is better off without them.

         The reality is nowhere near as stark, however. Australia can tell the US to go fuck itself over it's latest comments and nothing will likely come of it. Maybe some temporary tariffs - more punishment for US citizens and a slight dip in Australian exports. Big fucking whoop.

         It will not 'ruin the relationship' to anywhere near 'retreats from Australia' levels. Australia possibly holds quite a good hand given how important Pine Gap is to US interests in that entire quadrant of the globe. Australia could probably flex on that.

         1. MomsAVoxell · 1790165028 · focus · HN ↗

            Pine Gap is not a ‘good hand’, it is a shackle and we Australians are bound by its oppressive function just as negatively as are the 2 billion people whose human rights it abrogates every millisecond of the day.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.