|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Sept 13, 2024 8:21:00 GMT 12
Meanwhile over the Tasman, from RCR Bites The Australian (Liebour) government has introduced "combating misinformation and disinformation" legislation to parliament, sparking free speech fears. MP Craig Kelly called the "Orwellian" Bill "a dark day for our nation". The Bill aims to give the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) the power to stop “seriously harmful” misinformation and disinformation. Its definition of “serious harm” includes the vilification of a group or individual based on numerous categories.
excerpt Liberal Senator for South Australia Alex Antic said the bill showed these were “worrying times for free speech” and that he was concerned about how it would be combined with the government’s new Digital ID system.
“[The bill is] troubling in the framework of what’s going on around the world, we’re seeing interventions from government in places like Brazil, and we’ve seen the government proposing social media bans for children here,” he said.
“Safety can’t be used as a Trojan horse for cracking down on free speech, so a lot of concerns there, a lot of concerns how that will roll out with Digital ID.
“And we saw what happened with the Digital ID bill that was passed by this government, earlier in the year they effectively just forced it through the Senate without any debate, I really hope that’s not going to be the case with [this bill].”
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 13, 2024 8:45:51 GMT 12
The "leaders of the free world" wouldn't engage in mis-information would she? When you have the moderator and fact checker on a MSM debate platform lying and supporting misinformation who you going to turn to? Cindy was all about promoting the "truth", that didn't go well did it. She coached Kamala too, "reimagining democracy" etc. This is fake news. CNN never reported any such information and neither has any other news outlet. A misinformation campaign designed to discredit Harris and credit Trump with winning the debate. It's called election interference. The amplification of this fake news is the problem. The damage is done. 1000s of people now believe this lie. |
|
|
|
Post by em on Sept 13, 2024 9:39:20 GMT 12
Yeah I peruse the platform most mornings during my coffee rush , sorry to say it’s mostly left leaning legal and political journalist accounts . Also one American Shouty Mcshoutface far right meme generator account that’s possibly a Russian a shill or bot . Russia has one television broadcaster “RT” run by Margarita Simonyan in the beginning of the video below she openly talks about the Russian misinformation campaign . You would think Elon would kindly tell the Russians to piss off from his platform and stop meddling in US affairs ? . youtu.be/uBx7ogBHyBc?si=WYFzf4CEQ-GArXAk The idea of a worldwide free speech platform is great but not if the dude who owns it subtly steers the narrative to meet his and his acolytes own ends . In this case the Russian disinformation is aimed at influencing a trump win in November which gets Elon a place in a Govt overseeing “government efficiency” . There’s many other benefits to Musk and Co if the GOP wins the election , namely ushering in a digital currency that some of them have already heavily invested in . edition.cnn.com/2024/09/05/politics/trump-economic-plans-musk-government-commission/index.html . I haven’t followed the UK riots or the fallout but I do wonder what would happen here if the Treaty , Co governance issues etc got very tense . NZ has provided asssitance to Ukraine which puts us on the enemies of Russia list , along with the UK and most of the western world . Say that a major unrest was close to kicking off , there’s only as many police officers as gang members in NZ so that leaves the rest of the crims and nut jobs that want to join in plenty of latitude . Throw in gun owners , White and Māori with a grievance or itch to shoot at the other side . Russia sees some obvious unrest going on in an enemy country so creates a few hundred Murray Morrison and Hemi Hopoate social media accounts and stirs the pot . What steps should the govt take ? Stopping the country from blowing up takes precedence over the average Punter having a social media megaphone to inflame the situation I would imagine . Dunno about others but I would be very fucked off if another country set out to destabilise the civil peace and Govt of NZ using fake social accounts and paying shills to amplify . Elon musk wouldn’t be my hero either . |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Sept 13, 2024 11:22:23 GMT 12
Don't forget, Facebook, YouTube and a few others are very actively biasing the narrative of the US elections, they are getting away with it because their activity supports the existing regime.
|
|
|
|
Post by em on Sept 13, 2024 11:49:03 GMT 12
Yep nothing wrong with bias , it provides a balance of sorts . Page and Zuckerberg don’t seem to post on their platforms and I doubt they would aid and abet foreign Govts in spreading misinformation either . X is the premium platform to voice your opinion quickly and to a massive audience , that’s what Musk and Co bought it .
|
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Sept 13, 2024 12:22:02 GMT 12
that’s what Musk and Co bought it . That's not my take on it. Musk bought it because of all the censorship that was going on and the people that were being shut down for no good reason. |
|
|
|
Post by em on Sept 13, 2024 13:07:07 GMT 12
that’s what Musk and Co bought it . That's not my take on it. Musk bought it because of all the censorship that was going on and the people that were being shut down for no good reason. Do you think his Saudi and Russian X corp co-investors thought the same ? |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Sept 13, 2024 13:44:55 GMT 12
The "leaders of the free world" wouldn't engage in mis-information would she? When you have the moderator and fact checker on a MSM debate platform lying and supporting misinformation who you going to turn to? Cindy was all about promoting the "truth", that didn't go well did it. She coached Kamala too, "reimagining democracy" etc. This is fake news. CNN never reported any such information and neither has any other news outlet. A misinformation campaign designed to discredit Harris and credit Trump with winning the debate. It's called election interference. The amplification of this fake news is the problem. The damage is done. 1000s of people now believe this lie. I'm in with Ducky, the idea CNN said that I find hard to believe.
Why? CNN is media and being so hates one of the candidates with a passion, in CNN's case they hate Trump so they will not say anything positive about him or negative about her. That's headline media in the 2000's, deeply invested one one side or the other but vary rarely both. DM is also right in saying media are very strong on election interference, just as it was in NZ, Aussie, the UK and sadly far further.
As to 'neither has any news outlet', the irony of that call is a wee giggle considering how many news outlets there are and no way has Ducky checked the mall. So there we have a very good example of how easy it is to post genuine 'misinformation'. I did leave off 'blatant' to give Ducky the benefit of doubt.
But they both lied and lied frequently during the debate, only tribally captured toadys think otherwise. Depending on which media you choose to follow you will be told of the lies but only one candidates not both.
The only thing we know for a fact is come November Americans will vote for either a retard or dickhead. On the road to that result there will be tears, many from people with no skin in the game but trigger very easily, and 99% of what we are told will be 100% bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Sept 16, 2024 14:27:46 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Sept 16, 2024 14:47:17 GMT 12
Misinformation does not equal criticism. The bill even defines what misinformation is as reasonably verifiable as false! Another wannabe the centre of attention party jumping official who sees the low hanging fruit of the easy to win over conspiracy mob. Nothing in this bill stops people from ctitizing their bank - it stops them from malking up false information and passing it off as true! |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Sept 16, 2024 15:12:48 GMT 12
it stops them from malking up false information and passing it off as true! Thank fuck for that. I have argued for years one of the planets biggest problems is marketing so very happy to see it being stopped.
|
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Sept 16, 2024 16:09:17 GMT 12
from the Institute of Public Affairs (Australia) on the Misinformation Bill “Misinformation legislation introduced into federal parliament today represents a chilling assault on every Australian’s right to free speech. The new Bill broadens provisions to censor speech, which even the government’s fatally flawed first draft did not include,” said John Storey, Director of Law and Policy at the Institute of Public Affairs.
The revised Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 grants the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) enormous power to fine social media companies if they are found to have failed to properly censor ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’. The new Bill contains three fundamental flaws: - A revised definition of ‘misinformation’ to mean content that is ‘verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive’ would create legal powers for politically biased fact-checkers to determine what is true and false (Clauses 13(1) and 13(2)).
- It creates an unelected and unaccountable star chamber bureaucracy with the power to launch investigations and hearings to ensure compliance with censorship guidelines that can target mainstream Australians (Schedule 2, Clause 2).
- A new definition of ‘serious harm’ is even broader than the first bill and can potentially capture any difference of opinion (Clause 14). “The government’s proposed ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ laws are the single biggest attack on freedom of speech in Australia’s peacetime history, and have no place in a liberal democracy such as Australia,” said Mr Storey.
“The big tech companies will become the censorship and enforcement arm of the federal government to shut down debate and speech that it disagrees with.”
“Under these laws even the truth will be no defence. If a citizen were to disseminate information which was factually true, but ACMA or a fact checker labelled it ‘misleading’ or ‘deceptive’ because it ‘lacked context’, then that information would fall within the scope of these laws,” said Mr Storey. The revised legislation has not taken into account the deep concern of many mainstream Australians who can now be targeted by an unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy for prosecution for simply stating genuinely held opinions online.
“The federal government has not listened to the concerns about free speech raised by mainstream Australians. Instead, they are pandering to its political base by actually broadening the censorship powers of ACMA, such as introducing by stealth a change to the definition of ‘harm’ to include ‘vilification’,” said Mr Storey.
Previous research by the Institute of Public Affairs found that fact-checking organisations were systematically biased and targeted the ‘No’ campaign in the Voice to Parliament referendum. That research found - So-called ‘fact-checkers’ published 187 fact checking articles related to the Voice – 170 of these assessments, or 91%, targeted claims of those who supported the No case.
- Almost every example supporting the No case was assessed to be false. 99% per cent of assessed claims supporting the No case were deemed ‘false’, whereas only 59% of the comparatively few claims assessed supporting the Yes case were deemed ‘false’.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Sept 16, 2024 16:47:08 GMT 12
Explain why they need the bit that exempts the Government, Academics and MSM from not being allowed to spread " content that is ‘verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive" Funny how the leaders, "experts" and propagandists don't like their own laws applying to themselves   |
|
|
|
Post by em on Sept 18, 2024 8:39:09 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by muzled on Sept 19, 2024 8:03:36 GMT 12
Nice writeup by Cramner.
Not sure I agree with Sumption when he says Ardern didn't realise how serious her words were. I think she was knew exactly what she was saying and it was a softener to her bullshit disinformation project and the likes mentioned below.
The War on Words: a threat to democracy
In her speech at the UN two years ago, Jacinda Ardern argued that words had become the new weapon of war, it was a comment that Lord Jonathan Sumption told me he found 'profoundly sinister'.
Philip Crump
Sep 18
Earlier this week, Donald Trump became only the second sitting or former U.S. president, after Gerald Ford, to have survived two failed assassination attempts. Events in the United States over the last month have been a stark reminder of how political rhetoric can become dangerously charged.
They also occur at a time when governments worldwide are increasing pressure on social media companies to regulate speech which they deem harmful. But as these efforts intensify, we must ask: where should the line be drawn between restricting speech and upholding the right to free expression?
Undoubtedly, social media has transformed how we communicate and how news is disseminated, with words spreading faster than ever before via platforms which bypass the traditional mainstream media.
In response, governments around the globe are taking decisive - and often aggressive - action against social media platforms.
Last month, Pavel Durov, the founder and CEO of Telegram was arrested in France amid an investigation into crimes related to child sexual abuse images, drug trafficking and fraudulent transactions associated with the Telegram app.
Following his release on bail Durov stated, “Using laws from the pre-smartphone era to charge a CEO with crimes committed by third parties on the platform he manages is a misguided approach”.
In the United States, Tiktok is challenging an “unconstitutional” law that could result in it being sold or banned in that country. TikTok argued in court on Monday that the law would have a “staggering” impact on the free speech of its U.S. users if it were allowed to stand.
Sri Srinivasan, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and one of three judges hearing the case said that if the law in question targeted only US-based companies, “there’s no doubt that would be a huge First Amendment concern”. Even though that is not the case given that the law is concerned with TikTok’s links to China, Srinivasan still expressed concern “about the speech consequences on U.S. consumers” if the ban comes into effect on January 19 next year as the law stipulates.
Closer to home, the Australian government is currently trying to pass new laws on misinformation and disinformation which could see social media companies fined up to 5% of their annual turnover for breaches. Earlier this week, Elon Musk responded to news of the proposal by calling the Australian government, “fascists”.
However, in the midst of this titanic battle between governments and free speech advocates, those in favour of greater regulation are not having it all their own way.
In April, Australia’s eSafety commissioner issued an order to X requiring it to remove graphic content after clips of a Sydney bishop being stabbed remained on the platform. X complied with the order in Australia but declined to enforce it worldwide arguing that an unelected official in Australia should not have the authority to decide what citizens in other countries can see or read on social media.
Musk accused the commissioner of attempting to suppress free speech, prompting Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to hit back by calling Musk an “arrogant billionaire”. But despite all the name-calling and tough talk, the eSafety commissioner discontinued the federal court proceedings in an embarrassing retreat.
Earlier this week, France’s European Commissioner, Thierry Breton, who has been in the midst of a bitter and protracted battle with X over greater content regulation announced his immediate resignation.
In August, just after Musk had interviewed former U.S. president Trump on X, Breton issued a strongly worded letter in which he warned Musk of the “risk of amplification of potentially harmful content in the E.U. in connection with events with major audiences around the world”. It soon became public that the Commission’s President Ursula von der Leyen had not been informed about the letter and that other E.U. officials were concerned about becoming embroiled in the U.S. presidential race.
Linda Yaccarino, X’s chief executive, reacted to the news of Breton’s resignation by posting, “It’s a good day for free speech.”
Within days of Breton’s resignation another unrelated battle was also swinging in X’s favour as Brazil lifted a ban on the platform from operating in that country after X and Starlink agreed to pay $3.3 million in fines to the Brazilian authorities.
The ban had been imposed by Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes at the end of August after X had failed to comply with a court order. At the time Musk reacted by stating, “Free speech is the bedrock of democracy and an unelected pseudo-judge in Brazil is destroying it for political purposes.”
On Tuesday, the White House issued a rare rebuke to another country, criticising Brazil for enacting the ban in the first place.
“When it comes to social media, we have been very clear that we think that folks should have access to social media. It’s a form of freedom of speech,” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a White House briefing.
Even Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg is having second thoughts about where the line should be drawn between censorship and free speech as he expressed regret at bending to government demands for greater censorship during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Last month, in a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee he wrote, “In 2021, senior officials from the Biden administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain Covid-19 content, including humour and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn’t agree.”
“I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it”, Zuckerburg concluded.
At the heart of this push for increased regulation lies a desire to broaden what is considered to be hate speech, and to create a new category of speech which is considered harmful.
This trend is perhaps best exemplified by our former Prime Minister, Dame Jacinda Ardern.
Speaking at the United Nations two years ago, Ardern argued that misinformation has become the new weapon of war, suggesting that words can be just as dangerous as bullets. Her view, that online rhetoric can be equated to acts of physical violence, has arguably been influential in the global debate seeking to justify greater control over speech.
At the end of last year, I had the opportunity to meet and speak to the former U.K. Supreme Court Judge, Lord Jonathan Sumption, when he visited New Zealand for a speaking tour arranged by the Free Speech Union.
Sumption was particularly critical of Ardern’s suggestion that words could be as dangerous as bullets, commenting that, “I think that that was a profoundly sinister thing to say. I don’t think she realised how sinister it was. I doubt whether she thought it through.”
“Words are not coercive, whereas violence is. And for you to equate them therefore, that seems to me to be a really serious mistake which leads to a vastly increased volume of pure persecution.”
Sumption’s view is that the Common Law countries, including New Zealand, already have a perfectly satisfactory answer to this issue. In his words, “the limit of free speech is when you reach the point where somebody is being deliberately provocative and insulting to a group who can reasonably be expected to respond with violence. That’s a very narrow test, but it’s the right test because it preserves the right to free speech.”
“When you advance on to hate speech, you’re advancing into territory that’s very poorly charted, because the definitions are extremely loose, and you’re moving into an area where the objective of curtailing free speech is not to maintain the public peace but to protect people from being offended. I’m afraid that in a democracy, we’ve got to accept that you will be offended by many things.”
Sumption’s critique hits at the heart of this issue: the over-regulation of speech isn’t just a threat to free expression, it’s a threat to democracy itself.
You’re currently a free subscriber to Cranmer’s Substack. To post comments and to access all archived articles, please consider upgrading your subscription. If you’ve enjoyed this article, please feel free to share it with friends or family. Many thanks for your support - it’s much appreciated.
|
|
