←back to thread

134 points salutis | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
nomilk ◴[] No.45135766[source]
The choice citizens have now is between an 'internet licence' (submit ID's to myriad sites), or an 'internet tax' (VPN).

Super annoying!

Given Australia doesn't even require Age Verification on porn sites (only on social media sites), the incentives hint this was strongly supported by legacy media (90% of Aussie media is owned by two companies, Newscorp and Nine Entertainment).

The internet licence will make it difficult for both authors and readers on alternative media platforms. And it will outright prohibit young people from getting information from non-permitted sources (of course, legacy sources are not affected - incidentally, they're probably more harmful than the prohibited sources). (I've long said, to try to think clearly after watching 'the news' is akin to trying to operate heavy machinery after consuming alcohol).

replies(8): >>45135790 #>>45135801 #>>45135814 #>>45135959 #>>45136108 #>>45136314 #>>45136947 #>>45137651 #
delusional ◴[] No.45135814[source]
> of course, legacy sources are not affected - incidentally, they're probably more harmful than the prohibited sources

What a silly idea. The modern world was built while traditional media existed. The decay and backsliding conicides with modern day social media. How does that point to traditional media being the culprit?

replies(2): >>45135862 #>>45136168 #
1. nomilk ◴[] No.45135862[source]
In the extremes, both ideas are right. In terms of timeliness, relevance, quality, rigour, variety, discussion and debate the worst content on social media is orders of magnitude worse than the worst content on mainstream media.

But the inverse is also true: the best content on social media is orders of magnitude better than the best content on mainstream media.

An individual should be able to choose what works for them, not have the government disallow swaths of sources.