←back to thread

139 points stubish | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jackvalentine ◴[] No.44439355[source]
Australians are broadly supportive of these kind of actions - there is a view that foreign internet behemoths have failed to moderate for themselves and will therefore have moderation imposed on them however imperfect.

Can’t say I blame them.

replies(3): >>44439415 #>>44439676 #>>44439817 #
AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.44439817[source]
> there is a view that foreign internet behemoths have failed to moderate for themselves and will therefore have moderation imposed on them however imperfect.

This view is manufactured. The premise is that better moderation is available and despite that, literally no one is choosing to do it. The fact is that moderation is hard and in particular excluding all actually bad things without also having a catastrophically high false positive rate is infeasible.

But the people who are the primary victims of the false positives and the people who want the bad stuff fully censored aren't all the same people, and then the second group likes to pretend that there is a magic solution that doesn't throw the first group under the bus, so they can throw the first group under the bus.

replies(5): >>44439891 #>>44439944 #>>44440013 #>>44440547 #>>44441786 #
marcus_holmes ◴[] No.44439944[source]
This. This legislation has got nothing to do with moderation or "protecting children" - that's just the excuse that the government is using to push the legislation through. There are better ways of achieving that goal if that was the goal.

The actual goal is, as always, complete control over what Australians can see and do on the internet, and complete knowledge of what we see and do on the internet.

replies(3): >>44440173 #>>44440410 #>>44441712 #
l0ng1nu5 ◴[] No.44440410{3}[source]
Agreed but would also add the ability to prosecute anyone who writes something they don't like/agree with.
replies(1): >>44442122 #
1. account42 ◴[] No.44442122{4}[source]
They can already do that, see e.g. what the UK is doing in response to tweets. You don't need identity verification to have an ISP tell you the person behind an IP.
replies(1): >>44449008 #
2. AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.44449008[source]
IP addresses don't have anything like a 1:1 mapping to human beings and it's pretty trivial and inexpensive to get one from someone other than your ISP (e.g. use a VPN) if you have any concerns about that sort of thing.