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

111–120 of 168 posts

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

#111

Post by mewse »

Eelongate wrote: post #59
mewse wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But 0.9 bar isn't equal to 1. Oh! I see what you did there! This is a foundational problem in our anthropogenic decimal system of math (which we only use because of the evolutionary accident of a modal (n.b.: not average) human happening to have ten fingers); the whole issue doesn't even exist in the only correct representation of numbers, ternary (base-3). For example, let's multiply 1 / 3 * 3: In decimal `1.0 / 3…

In a ternary system, wouldn't 1.222... equal 2?

Yes; the joke I was going for was that decimal one half would be written as 0.1 bar when converted to ternary. And then multiplying that value by 2 gives you 0.2 bar. Which is equal to ternary 1, in the same way that decimal 0.9 bar equals 1.

I find it really fascinating that different numeric bases all suffer from this same issue, but for different values. That the division by three which breaks decimal representation survives in ternary, but the division by two which is fine in decimal breaks ternary.

Of course, it seems to me that the real underlying problem is that we insist on writing these values out as an infinite series of fractional digits in the first place, instead of keeping the values in a precise fraction form. One third times three equals one; there’s no controversy there even in decimal. It’s only when someone insists on actually performing the division and representing that initial “one third” value as being a zero followed by an infinite number of fractional threes that the whole “omg 0.9 bar equals one??” paradox appears.

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

#112

Post by mistrial9 »

SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #60
BFLpL0QNek wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia is a highly compliant/obedient society. It’s also highly litigious, lots of fines for anything and anything. It’s the defamation capital of the world. Yes this will be enforced, it’ll be enforced selectively against critics of the current government. There is a video of the announcement with the current PM grinning and smirking in the background like a little kid when this is discussed https://www.reddit.co…

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 -…

> incestuous relationship between the media and the politicians

the name Conrad Black comes to mind for some reason ...

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

#113

Post by stephen_g »

mrjangles wrote: post #95
Intermernet wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

ABS and SBS are far, far left wing. Channel 7,9,and 10 are centrist, but 7 leans left, 9 leans right. 10 is interesting because it currently has one of the most left wing shows on TV (The Project) but also used to have one of the most right-wing shows (The Bolt Report), so I guess I'll put them in the center to be fair.

That's extremely telling to consider The Project as 'left wing'. Basically everybody on the left hates The Project, it's definitely not 'left wing' unless you are looking from a very right wing perspective.

SBS could reasonably be described as 'generally left wing' (no, not "far, far left", that's ridiculous). The ABC has shifted right massively lately from being centre left recently - personalities like David Speers and Leigh Sales basically becoming Government spruikers, Insiders and Q&A becoming infested with a lot of "false balance" (i.e. get a right-wing personality with no qualifications on to debate this PhD climate scientist), etc.

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

#114

Post by teakettle42 »

sofixa wrote: post #109
version_five wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes agreed. All the more so because it's a voluntary, pretend environment. There is a sibling post grasping to explain why the wild west was not as romantic as it seems and pretending the analogy holds for the internet. The post is silly, but at least the west was a real place that people had to live in. Acting like we need to monitor and regulate every corner of the internet is absurd, but then again, this is Austra…

No, it isn't voluntary or pretend. For most people today it's a natural extension of their lives, which they use daily, if not hourly. Where two decades ago you'd call a friend to talk, or send physical mail to communicate or physically go to a store or send mail to pay your taxes,today all of those are online. Most young people grow up with all of those things online and have never known anything else. For them, and…

> many people make their self worth based on Instagram or whatever

That’s unhealthy; why should promoting unhealthy social media adoption be our policy priority?

> Real life people are impacted, up to and including death (radicalisation and joining a terrorist group,

This occurred before the Internet, too. The answer is more speech, education, and enabling people — not censorship.

> or driven to suicide through harassmwnt, to name two "fun" ones)

Then we need to focus on individual resiliency - not building a hug-box.

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

#115

Post by stephen_g »

lazyeye wrote: post #31
satori99 wrote: post #9

Scott Morrison made a big deal of his intention to use the recent meetings between world leaders to build an international consensus around this issue. Instead, he was humiliated when the president of France called him out as a liar over his mishandling of submarine contracts, and no one wanted to talk to him.

A very partisan take I think.

I think few in Australia would disagree that Scott Morrison is a liar. That was the first thing I really noticed about him even before he was PM, it's nice that the French contract is finally bringing it to the fore.

It's insane. The Crikey guys came to the same conclusion I had - he doesn't just use big, strategic lies for political advantage - he lies about the small things when it's not even necessary, and they come back to bite him.

I actually, seriously and honestly think he might have an actual personality disorder (like NPD or something). It's not normal, even for a politician...

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

#116

Post by sofixa »

teakettle42 wrote: post #114
sofixa wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it isn't voluntary or pretend. For most people today it's a natural extension of their lives, which they use daily, if not hourly. Where two decades ago you'd call a friend to talk, or send physical mail to communicate or physically go to a store or send mail to pay your taxes,today all of those are online. Most young people grow up with all of those things online and have never known anything else. For them, and…

> many people make their self worth based on Instagram or whatever That’s unhealthy; why should promoting unhealthy social media adoption be our policy priority? > Real life people are impacted, up to and including death (radicalisation and joining a terrorist group, This occurred before the Internet, too. The answer is more speech, education, and enabling people — not censorship. > or driven to suicide through haras…

> That’s unhealthy; why should promoting unhealthy social media adoption be our policy priority?

Nobody should promote it, people should fight against it, but until that changes, it should be taken into account.

> This occurred before the Internet, too. The answer is more speech, education, and enabling people — not censorship.

Before the Internet the potential reach was much more limited. Recruitment for ISIS online, for instance on Twitter, was highly successful where before they would have struggled to reach disillusioned youth in France or Indonesia for instance. More education, ideally secular, is needed, but how do you force that to happen in Indonesia for instance?

> Then we need to focus on individual resiliency - not building a hug-box.

How ? How do you make it so everyone is immune from, for instance, rape threats or personalised ( e.g. racial) harassment online ?

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

#117

Post by stephen_g »

ksec wrote: post #104

This is sort of off topic. >users who post defamatory comments Wouldn't that be more like Twitter Mob. Does the word "Troll" means something different in Australia, or is it the headline written by Reuter using the word "Troll" differently to what I understand, or does "Troll" means something differently in the US given Reuter is an US media. Just what is "Trolls"?

Recently that word has been co-opted in our politics and media here in Australia to mean "people who criticise us online, often a bit rudely".

It's a really dire state of affairs. Hopefully this is just the death throes of a collapsing party in Government, there is an election in a few months and the party in charge is polling terribly (as they should be), and there's also a really strong independents movement to get more independent candidates who are pro-integrity and pro-climate action on the crossbench (which could make a massive improvement in our politics, because while the opposition is a lot better in a lot of ways than the currently ruling party, in some areas they do the same crap).

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

#118

Post by sojournerc »

sofixa wrote: post #116
teakettle42 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many people make their self worth based on Instagram or whatever That’s unhealthy; why should promoting unhealthy social media adoption be our policy priority? > Real life people are impacted, up to and including death (radicalisation and joining a terrorist group, This occurred before the Internet, too. The answer is more speech, education, and enabling people — not censorship. > or driven to suicide through haras…

> That’s unhealthy; why should promoting unhealthy social media adoption be our policy priority? Nobody should promote it, people should fight against it, but until that changes, it should be taken into account. > This occurred before the Internet, too. The answer is more speech, education, and enabling people — not censorship. Before the Internet the potential reach was much more limited. Recruitment for ISIS online…

Just like real immunity, it requires exposure and a robust personal defense. The last thing you do for a healthy immune system is put a body in a sterile bubble.

There were mean, bad people before the internet too. We can deal with that fact, or fail attempting to get rid of them with censorship, while harming real information and exchanges in the process.

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

#119

Post by stephen_g »

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.

It doesn't necessarily have to be lies, although truth is a possible defense - but there are issues around parliamentary privilege when politicians sue where it might not be possible for the defendant to mount a truth defence even if it's on the public record that they said something! Our defamation laws are really screwed up - basically, you need to prove that you didn't defame somebody instead of the burden of proof being on the plaintiff to prove it, and you need to have massively deep pockets to sue for defamation (you will likely part with hundreds of thousands of dollars, unless you can get costs awarded - not really anything most 'any other member of the public' can actually do), and you need the same kind of cash to successfully fight somebody suing for defamation against you. It's basically a war of who can pay for the best lawyers.

The internet comedian Friendlyjordies managed to settle very favourabliy because he managed to crowdfund literally a million dollars to fight when John Barilaio sued him. Otherwise that wouldn't have been possible for him to even think about fighting it.

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

#120

Post by Radim »

etherael wrote: post #107
SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I understand the imagery is extremely disturbing, and the worst nightmares of the idea of a concentration camp, which are actually extermination camps, is not what is being executed at the moment by the Australian government, but the fact is, it's a concentration camp all the same. The idea existed long before Nazi Germany and has been executed many places outside it since. Even if it were absolutely true that every…

> Even worse is that people I've known and respected my entire life, intelligent people … are defending, and even calling for the escalation of these tactics.

It's a spectrum. More a question of temperament than intelligence:

Some people desperately wish to told there's someone out there, looking out for them. A wise enlightened leader, preferably in a tie or a white lab coat.

"Just follow orders and everything will be alright."

Others prefer to assume responsibility and evaluate risk on a case-by-case basis. This end of the spectrum is more sparsely populated, because it requires personal struggle and sacrifice. So such people are always a minority, with obvious implications for democracy (AKA the rule of the majority).

Most people oscillate somewhere in between, swayed by pragmatic incentives and currents of social zeitgeist.

Post reply on HN