Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australia to introduce new laws to force media platforms to unmask online trolls

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 168 posts

Re: Australia to introduce new laws to force media platforms to unmask online trolls

#81

Post by etherael »

SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #74
etherael wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are no concentration camps, no military round ups Yes there are, not a troll, straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. https://youtu.be/vQok3GMMSAI > and no forced medication* in Australia. That part is true but I never said there were yet. I said clueless information walled gardens were constantly advocating for them with very little push back exactly because they're in walled gardens where that is the n…

Well I'm an Australian citizen, so I am "the horse" as well, so let me share some first-hand information. The military was engaged on a short term support basis to assist with logistics, contract tracing, swabbing for tests, etc [0]. The oft-repeated claim that the military was deployed to forcibly contain people in quarantine is false. Australia often deploys its military internally to help mitigate natural disaster…

I am also an Australian citizen although I have not lived there for many years now and after seeing what became of it during covid I intend to renounce it as soon as it is practical and I certainly never intend to return.

With regards to the cover story, you do understand that in many previous deployments of military roundups and concentration camps, they were not accompanied by announcements of "we are the evil empire now and are deploying our military against our own citizens to round them up and place them in concentration camps?". Because this is the exact defense I am hearing from aforementioned Facebook drones and I don't see how it's not predicated on the assumption that they're not military roundups and concentration camps until the government proudly and loudly announces them as such.

I could believe the Facebook drones in question are just not very bright, but I don't assume that at all for this particular forum and you seem a lot less naive than that.

Would the exact same protests from any of the other previous or extant regimes who have offered the same explanations for their actions have held water for you? And if not, why do they in this instance?

Re: Australia to introduce new laws to force media platforms to unmask online trolls

#82

Post by joeman1000 »

doctor_eval wrote: post #79

Because of mandatory voting, Australia is one of the very few countries in the world where the government has real democratic legitimacy. A very large percentage of the population votes, voting is easy, the voting systems are preferential and reasonably fair, and so a majority of the voting population actually did vote for the government of the day. The Australian system is certainly not without its issues, but it is…

But both of the two main parties do relatively the same shit. It’s like choosing between Pump water or Mount Franklin… either way you get a raw deal.

Re: Australia to introduce new laws to force media platforms to unmask online trolls

#83

Post by mrjangles »

cube00 wrote: post #67
bamboozled wrote: post #23

I read a lot of these wacko things coming out of Australia, but is any of it really enforced? Wasn't there a thing about banning encryption? I remember when Malcolm Turnbull made the quote: “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,” [1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema...

They came down hard on a defamatory tweet this week https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-24/peter-dutton-wins-def...

This isn't the government though. Australia has strict laws where if you tell lies about someone they can sue you for damages. This is an individual politician, using the same avenues that any other member of the public can also use, to sue someone for defaming him.

Re: Australia to introduce new laws to force media platforms to unmask online trolls

#84

Post by mdoms »

doctor_eval wrote: post #79

Because of mandatory voting, Australia is one of the very few countries in the world where the government has real democratic legitimacy. A very large percentage of the population votes, voting is easy, the voting systems are preferential and reasonably fair, and so a majority of the voting population actually did vote for the government of the day. The Australian system is certainly not without its issues, but it is…

The state of Australian politics is a complete and utter shambles. Every single Australian should be thoroughly embarrassed by this. In my opinion mandatory voting is up there among the very worst, most destructive forces any democracy has undergone.

Re: Australia to introduce new laws to force media platforms to unmask online trolls

#85

Post by lazyeye »

dools wrote: post #64
lazyeye wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A very partisan take I think.

Nope, wholly accurate

For people who arent familiar with Oz politics I'II fill in the blanks a bit to compensate for the selective partisan filter here.

France was pissed of with Australia because they took a perfectly legal exit on a contract for submarines. This kind of staged contract is normal for large military tenders as once committed you are locked into an effective monopoly. So with each stage there is typically an exit path to keep pressure on the vendor who would otherwise have no incentive to perform.

After many delays and cost overruns, Australia took a completely legal exit on the French contract and took up another commitment for UK/US nuclear submarine tech. This was a vastly superior option and pretty much everyone agreed it was the right decision. This is particularly the case, as the strategic situation in the Pacific is radically different to when the French sub contract was taken. As you would expect Australia played its cards close to its chest before informing the French they wanted an exit. This is perfectly normal approach as anyone would do in a similar situation whether they were buying a car or a Boeing 747, let alone something with massive geo-political consequences like a defence contract.

Scott Morrison was accused of being a liar by the French who pretended they weren't aware the sub contract was at risk. A text message was leaked that showed, in fact, the French were aware and Macron had lied. A lot of people have been suggesting Macron was simply playing up to nationalist sentiment in an election year (same for the current French/UK fishing disputes etc).

Scott Morrison was also called a liar by the previous unsuccessful Australian Prime minister, Malcom Turnbull, who he replaced. Malcolm is well-known as someone with an axe to grind and a massive chip on his shoulder. Malcolm himself has been called out for lying in his recent autobiography. He was also recently called a liar by Ben Fordham, a journalist, details are here:-

https://www.2gb.com/hes-lying-ben-fordham-reveals-untold-sto...

So make of that what you will, but as always, the situation is a bit more complex than the partisan one-liners you read in the comments section.

Re: Australia to introduce new laws to force media platforms to unmask online trolls

#86

Post by Intermernet »

mrjangles wrote: post #80
SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that's a pretty fair assessment of the state of play here in Oz, and I'll add the point that most Australians have no idea this stuff is occurring. The media landscape in Australia is extremely consolidated, to the degree that there are only a few major media players, and they are almost completely aligned in their agenda and messaging. There is an incestuous relationship between the media and the politicians -…

> There is an incestuous relationship between the media and the politicians this is indeed correct, but then you say >hat party is almost always the conservative LNP, if you're ever wondering why Australia has such a prominent right-wing authoritarian streak, know that the Murdoch media has a dominant print market share, a monopoly on cable TV, and a large majority of the free to air TV market is ideologically aligne…

Wow, there's a lot of incorrect info in that comment! Which free to air TV channels are left leaning? Wasn't it the federal government that introduced the recent draconian surveillance laws? Wasn't it Peter Dutton who famously inflamed racial tension in Melbourne by blaming "African gang violence"? I think you may have consumed a little too much of that Murdoch press!

Re: Australia to introduce new laws to force media platforms to unmask online trolls

#88

Post by SturgeonsLaw »

etherael wrote: post #81
SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I'm an Australian citizen, so I am "the horse" as well, so let me share some first-hand information. The military was engaged on a short term support basis to assist with logistics, contract tracing, swabbing for tests, etc [0]. The oft-repeated claim that the military was deployed to forcibly contain people in quarantine is false. Australia often deploys its military internally to help mitigate natural disaster…

I am also an Australian citizen although I have not lived there for many years now and after seeing what became of it during covid I intend to renounce it as soon as it is practical and I certainly never intend to return. With regards to the cover story, you do understand that in many previous deployments of military roundups and concentration camps, they were not accompanied by announcements of "we are the evil empi…

To get to the truth of the matter, we will need to agree on what's actually happening. The phrase "concentration camp" provokes imagery of Nazi Germany, with overtones of the most egregious human rights violations.

What happened, in actuality, is that the Howard Springs mining camp was repurposed for quarantine. People have opted to go there instead of hotel quarantine. They are there for a total of 14 days, at which point they enter society at large. The army was providing transport to the location. People could have opted to stay at a hotel instead.

That's it.

At my core, I'm a civil libertarian. I am skeptical of government, and an anti-authoritarian. I am very, very much not a government apologist. But I am a strong believer in the importance of using facts as the basis of an honest, good faith discussion. My comments might just be a futile attempt to reduce the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect of this particular story.

Re: Australia to introduce new laws to force media platforms to unmask online trolls

#89

Post by cube00 »

mrjangles wrote: post #83
cube00 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They came down hard on a defamatory tweet this week https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-24/peter-dutton-wins-def...

This isn't the government though. Australia has strict laws where if you tell lies about someone they can sue you for damages. This is an individual politician, using the same avenues that any other member of the public can also use, to sue someone for defaming him.

Which would fine if they weren't also proposing that the public pay the legal bill for MPs to launch such action against the public.

If they're defending, sure, they need to be covered but if they want to go after the public they can pay for it themselves.

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/peter-dutton-sugge...

A YouTuber lost a truth defense because things a politician said in parliament are inadmissible in court so it's not reasonable to claim they are "using the same avenues that any other member of the public can also use". That politician could given up parliamentary privilege and made it a level playing field but he did not.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-05/john-barilaro-settles...

Re: Australia to introduce new laws to force media platforms to unmask online trolls

#90

Post by sneedenheimer »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #52
sneedenheimer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>trolls I hate their usage of 'troll' too. To me, 'troll' means a guy who argues about 0.9 bar not equaling 1 in a math forum. I have no idea what the hell these people mean when they say 'troll'.

The modern definition of troll seems to be more closely related to one of the personalities that got its start at a particular notorious imageboard, who constantly posts flamebait and thrives off of pushing the limits of how much they can upset others. I haven’t seen the original more innocuous definition used in a long time.

Oh, I consider flamebaiting trolling. But flamebaiting isn't cyberbullying or harassment or whatever these people think trolling means.
Post reply on HN