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

141–150 of 168 posts

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

#141

Post by 879r9p6292 »

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.

The courts are a part of the government, the judicial branch to be precise. It also wasn't a lie, Peter Dutton is a rape apologist. The Australia government punishing someone for saying something truthful about one of their ministers doesn't make it any less true.

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

#142

Post by 879r9p6292 »

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…

Can you really say electoral participation confers 'real democratic legitimacy' when it's coerced?

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

#143

Post by windows2020 »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #32
gcau wrote: post #2

>The online world should not be a wild west where bots and bigots and trolls and others are anonymously going around and can harm people I can't express how much I hate this. The online world SHOULD be a wild west, away from government reach, in my opinion.

There should be both. There should be wild free parts for grownups who can't easily be traumatized, manipulated or tricked and also fenced gardens for those vulnerable (kids, grannies, religious etc whoever is easily trollable). Places where every non-techie goes nowadays (i.e. Facebook) should be censored and guarded strictly, the rest should be free and wild.

There already is both... they're little worlds called websites. Maybe we'll see people migrate back towards smaller forums in the future.

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

#145

Post by retox »

People are sociable animals, if they have an opinion and don't see other people with the same, _some_ people will think it's a bad/wrong opinion and go with whatever the acceptable/popular opinion is.

Controlling online discourse is thought control and artificial consensus creating. See reddit for example.

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

#146

Post by doctor_eval »

joeman1000 wrote: post #82
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.

I don’t really agree. Unless one is actively seeking a diverse media diet, what we see of both parties is heavily influenced by media concentration. As a country, we largely see what Murdoch’s media wants us to see, so any kind of progressive action or policy of the Labor party is going to be painted in a negative light for most people.

This was a huge problem for Julia Gillard in particular. Despite being one of the most effective prime ministers in Australian history[0] you didn’t hear about this from the MSM at the time. Supposedly serious commentators complained in the Murdoch press about her _choice of clothing_ [1].

With powerful filters like this, blurring the achievements and policies of even the very leader of the government of the day, it’s always going to be difficult to distinguish between the parties.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/28/austra...

[1] https://www.sbs.com.au/guide/article/2021/09/09/australias-f...

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

#147

Post by seoulmetro »

sneedenheimer wrote: post #33
gcau wrote: post #2

>The online world should not be a wild west where bots and bigots and trolls and others are anonymously going around and can harm people I can't express how much I hate this. The online world SHOULD be a wild west, away from government reach, in my opinion.

>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'.

Troll has come to mean "anyone who acts bad" to like 90% of the people who use it these days. It has no meaning anymore. "Trolling" just means "doing something I don't agree with".

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

#148

Post by NoPicklez »

gcau wrote: post #2

>The online world should not be a wild west where bots and bigots and trolls and others are anonymously going around and can harm people I can't express how much I hate this. The online world SHOULD be a wild west, away from government reach, in my opinion.

You say that, but are you then against the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)?

A regulation set out to protect the information rights of the individual.

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

#149

Post by lysp »

Update overnight from assistant minister to the attorney-general:

> When defamation ruins reputations and destroys livelihoods, there needs to be an avenue to peel back the mask of the username, get to the identity of the person who’s engaging in appalling and trolling behaviour that breaches our laws if they were don’t face to face, so that person who has been defamed or have their reputations destroyed or faced criminal acts online can get accountability for that, can take them to court, can sue if necessary or can deal with them through the police.

The Guardian's commentary here:

> There was this bit, which states what the legislation is actually about. The government is focussing on children and women in its sell of the legislation – but it’s actually all about defamation actions. Which, given the expense, is not an option for the vast majority of people.

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

#150

Post by throw868788 »

joeman1000 wrote: post #82
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.

While there are upsides to compulsory voting this is one of its downsides IMO. Because you can't "refrain to vote" the parties know all they have to be is slightly better than the alternative and they will get your vote. In some ways it entrenches the two-party preferred system and means they only have to differentiate on minor issues. In the end they don't have to be good to get your vote, they just have to be slightly better than the next party in line.

If you are not satisfied with either party you still need to vote. Even if you vote for a minor party you know many who aren't as engaged in politics will vote for one of the two majors anyway on relative, not absolute basis limiting the power of your "politically engaged" vote.

That's my impression of Australia's politics. There's no perfect system.

Post reply on HN