• expired

[eBook] Free Kindle Book - Animal Farm & 1984 by George Orwell @ Amazon AU & US

2662

George Orwell died in 1951 and wrote 1984 in 1948. It's scary to see how his fiction based warning novel has literally eventuated after all these years.

Great book and cones with bonus Animal Farm, a political satire about corruption of power and greed.

Enjoy

Amazon US

WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

In 1984, London is a grim city where Big Brother is always watching you and the Thought Police can practically read your mind. Winston is a man in grave danger for the simple reason that his memory still functions. Drawn into a forbidden love affair, Winston finds the courage to join a secret revolutionary organization called The Brotherhood, dedicated to the destruction of the Party. Together with his beloved Julia, he hazards his life in a deadly match against the powers that be.

Related Stores

Amazon AU
Amazon AU
Marketplace
Amazon Cloud Reader
Amazon Cloud Reader

closed Comments

        • Seems a bit of a weird way to finish a post on a website centred around bargains, don't you think?

          Here's an opportunity to explain the use of the word "honk" if it's something other than recently co-opted Clown Pepe / 4chan reason.

          In before the predictable "honk" reply.

          • +4

            @Nomadesque: Officers Nomadesque and WinstonWithAY of the Meme police reporting for duty.

            • @rokufan: No policing going on here. Just asking for clarification in the same way that I'd ask someone with a swastika on their sleeve whether they're a devout adherent of Buddhism or a Nazi.

              No pressure to answer if you don't want to. It's just a simple question.

              • +3

                @Nomadesque:

                No policing going on here. Just asking for clarification

                Says, while holding his pen and police notebook after making an indirect Nazi accusation.

                • @rokufan: You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with being policed and generally uncomfortable answering simple questions so I'll leave your alone with your neuroses.

                  For my part, I'm aware that symbols and memes mean different things to different people so was merely asking for clarification.

                  I haven't encountered many people using the word "honk" repeatedly in an OzBargain thread so was interested to understand what its meaning was for those using it. I'm aware that there's been a recent rise in its use within the alt-right community so was wondering if there was a correlation.

                  • @Nomadesque: Yes, memes have different meanings to different people. I suggest you go with the innocent one in this instance as it seems to fit the context. That being, we are living in an absurd clown world, honk! Or you can go with the insane leftist fantasy that the world is suddenly populated with Nazis.

                    • @rokufan: In what way are we living in an absurd clown world?

                      I ask in the global context of conservative / populist governments being elected the world over and a general trend towards nationalism and insular foreign policies.

                      Unless, of course, that's the absurd clown world you're referring to?

                      • @Nomadesque: Clown world, or honk, is shorthand for progressive idiocy. If you want examples, I suggest you do your own research, there are plenty of examples in the media everyday.

                        • @rokufan: Seems a bit lazy just to reply "honk" to someone without attempting some form of counter argument if you don't agree with their point of view.

                          I understand that being pithy and dismissive is an acceptable substitute for debate these days, but you aren't going to even partially bring people around to understand your point of view by doing so.

                          I'm still not understanding how this notion that the entire world's perspective is represented by an absurd clown given the general trends in politics. Perhaps you can point me towards some specific examples of how governments are generally acting in a specific policy area as an illustration?

                          Remember that I'm not you, so I'm unlikely to draw the same conclusions by reading the news as you have.

                      • @Nomadesque: Here you go, definition from Urban Dictionary:

                        clown world

                        A phrase used to describe the current state of affairs in regards to the world (usually socially or politically). The word is employed as to state that something is ridiculous or nonsensical, in a way, "only could this be real, in a world run by clowns (clown world)"

                        An article claiming that "Genital mutilation of girls in Islamic countries is a feminist act." could be followed /responded to by the statement, "clown world"

                        https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=clown%20worl...

                        • @rokufan:

                          An article claiming that "Genital mutilation of girls in Islamic countries is a feminist act." could be followed /responded to by the statement, "clown world"

                          It's a clown statement by those who utter it. I wouldn't go as far to say that it describes "the current state of affairs in regards to the world".

                          There's no evidence of that being a widely held view as far as I know. No government has ever uttered that statement as far as I'm aware.

                          Doesn't seem like something that warrants much attention, let alone a reason to decry the state of the world, to be honest.

                          I would be interested in reading that article, if in fact it actually exists.

                          • +1

                            @Nomadesque: How do you feel about sex on birth certificates being optional or choose your own? And yes, this is government policy in some states in Australia. Sounds like clown world material to me.

                            • @rokufan: I think I'm confused.

                              I thought people used it to express how crazy (or circus like) things can get regardless of left or right and that honking was just a comical exclamation?
                              Isn't it also part of the meme that a reporter was trolled into thinking it was racist even though it's not and it was almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy when they started a huge Twitter thing?

                              I must be getting old or something…

                              • +1

                                @mapax:

                                I thought people used it to express how crazy (or circus like) things can get regardless of left or right

                                It can be that, just general crazy. But it is normally used by non-leftists mocking leftist insanity.

                                Isn't it also part of the meme that a reporter was trolled into thinking it was racist even though it's not and it was almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy when they started a huge Twitter thing?

                                The left don't need much encouragement to find racism everywhere.

                            • @rokufan: I think it's a better idea than forcing a sex on intersex people when they're newborns.

                              • +1

                                @Miss B: There are already existing accommodations in most jurisdictions for the extremely small number of genuine intersex people.

                                • @rokufan: Awesome, so they get to have indeterminate written on their birth certificate instead of male or female. Just leave it off, it solves the problem, it's not like it needs to be on there.

                                  • +1

                                    @Miss B: The discussion here is beyond the accommodation I mentioned. We are talking about the news laws like in Tasmania where genderless is the default for everyone - unless parents "opt-in" and state the biological sex. That's clown world in my book.

                                    • @rokufan: Default is blank, not genderless. I'm sure you can tick a box on the form when registering the birth if it's vitally important to you to have it on there.

                                      • @Miss B: Humans aren't "blank".

                                        I'm sure you can tick a box on the form when registering the birth if it's vitally improtant to you to have it on there.

                                        Welcome to clown world.

                            • @rokufan:

                              How do you feel about sex on birth certificates being optional or choose your own?

                              Never heard you could "choose your own" at birth. Source for that? My understanding is that it's optional or the birth gender. You can't put "transgender" or "intersex" or another term as far as I'm aware. I think the ability to change what's listed on your birth certificate only kicks in when you're 16 or something in the states it applies to.

                              As for it being optional, I don't really see an issue. I can't remember the last time I read my birth certificate and felt more comfortable that it stated that I'm male. Perhaps you're different. There's a whole bunch of stuff on birth certificates that could be taken off with zero effects, including the occupation of your parents at the time you were born which to me seems even less relevant on a document that confirms someone's identity.

                              When it comes to other people, I couldn't care less what they need to do to feel better about themselves if it doesn't impact on me. I tend to leave that sort of thing to shrill culture warriors on the left and authoritarian cucks on the right.

                              • @Nomadesque: Tasmania makes gender optional on birth certificates after Liberal crosses floor
                                https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-10/birth-certificate-gen...

                                Other Labor states are in the process of implementing similar laws QLD, NT, WA.

                                I think the ability to change what's listed on your birth certificate only kicks in when you're 16 or something in the states it applies to.

                                Nope. This is from day one. Parents can choose, including leaving blank. And note, this is an "opt-in" system, meaning that the default is genderless.

                                As for it being optional, I don't really see an issue. I can't remember the last time I read my birth certificate and felt more comfortable that it stated that I'm male.

                                Your BC is a statement of fact, it is not meant to affirm your feelings.
                                Biological sex is not gender - or at least that is what the trans activists use to claim (that gender/gender identity, is a social construct). You can no more choose your biological sex than how many arms and legs you were born with.

                                There's a whole bunch of stuff on birth certificates that could be taken off with zero effects, including the occupation of your parents at the time you were born which to me seems even less relevant on a document that confirms someone's identity.

                                Useless information? Genealogists and people researching their family trees would disagree. Parent occupation is invaluable information in searches.

                                When it comes to other people, I couldn't care less what they need to do to feel better about themselves if it doesn't impact on me. I tend to leave that sort of thing to shrill culture warriors on the left and authoritarian cucks on the right.

                                If objective reality comes second to feelings, you'll be right at home in clown world.

                                • @rokufan:

                                  Nope. This is from day one. Parents can choose, including leaving blank. And note, this is an "opt-in" system, meaning that the default is genderless.

                                  Uh, maybe read what I wrote again? I know that's the case. Parents can choose male, female or not to have anything (or 'X' in the ACT I believe). At 16 people are able to amend what's on their certificate without parental permission. I expect whether those people whose parents choose to omit their sex data decide do so or not will depend on how important it is for them to have their sex listed on their birth certificate. Personally if my parents did I wouldn't care and would happily leave that field blank, despite being a straight male.

                                  Note that not having anything doesn't mean that parents think their kid is going to be anything other than their birth gender. It's just a piece of paper that's not going to determine that person's gender identity when they're older. I honestly don't think I ever saw my birth certificate until I moved out of home and my folks gave it to me with other relevant documentation that I might need in adulthood. At no stage did I ever need to check it to work out what gender I was. I expect the same could be said for you as well?

                                  Your BC is a statement of fact, it is not meant to affirm your feelings.

                                  It's a fact that I was born by emergency caesarean section, but that's not on my birth certificate. I'm sure a lot of other facts surrounding my birth were omitted as well. Whether you think it's important to have certain facts on your birth certificate is a matter of opinion. I don't think recording the sex of the child or parent occupation is important. You do. You also still have the right to record your child's birth sex on their certificate. Having the option not to put anything doesn't take that right away from you. Porque no los dos?

                                  Useless information? Genealogists and people researching their family trees would disagree. Parent occupation is invaluable information in searches.

                                  Again, that's something that you care about and I don't. If you want to preserve your family's occupation data for easy searching by genealogists then that's your prerogative. I'm under no obligation to do the same.

                                  If objective reality comes second to feelings, you'll be right at home in clown world.

                                  If you aren't able to comprehend that your own reality is inherently subjective then I believe you might already be residing there.

                                  • @Nomadesque: So you know these laws exist in Australia, so why are you asking for proof then?

                                    What's stated on your BC is not a "right", it is a statement of facts. One of those facts being your biological sex - which is not a choice as much as some wish it to be. I note, you skipped that and went with a feelings argument. And do I really need to explain that some facts are more relevant than others?

                                    You have a bad case of post-modernism. Everything is subjective, everything is opinion, the only thing that matters is your own feelings.

                                    If enough people share this mindset we won't have a functioning society, ie. clown world. Honk!

                                    • @rokufan:

                                      So you know these laws exist in Australia, so why are you asking for proof then?

                                      My issue was with your assertion that you can "choose your own" at birth, which objectively isn't true.

                                      You can either have a birth sex listed or not. That's not "choose your own" sex. If you were allowed to put male when your child was born female I'd agree with you, but that can't happen in objective reality.

                                      I note, you skipped that and went with a feelings argument.

                                      I didn't? I merely pointed out that there are a lot of facts related to someone's birth that aren't on a birth certificate.

                                      Do you see how ironic is is to level the criticism that I'm arguing based on feelings when I actually don't care whether the option to choose to put a birth sex is made available, whereas you seem to be the one who has lots of unjustifiable feelings about things. You feel that birth sex must be included on a birth certificate. Your reasons for this are all to do with your own feelings. Honk!

                                      As I've said, not having a birth listed on a piece of paper makes zero difference to how that child will grow up in terms of their gender identity. That's an objective truth. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise then I think we're done here.

                                      You have a bad case of post-modernism. Everything is subjective, everything is opinion,

                                      Yep. Not constantly wanting to tell people how they should live their lives is pretty good way to keep one's blood pressure down.

                                      the only thing that matters is your own feelings.

                                      Not true. I care about the feelings of people who don't feel that sex needs to be included on a birth certificate. How about you?

                                      If enough people share this mindset we won't have a functioning society, ie. clown world. Honk!

                                      That sounds like something that you subjectively feel rather than being an objective and an independently / repeatedly demonstrable truth, unless you have evidence to the contrary (noting, of course, that society is still reasonably intact and operational in Australia).

                                      • @Nomadesque: Having a conversation with a post-modernist is like trying to catch an eel with your bare hands.

                                        I think we're done here. Thanks for being civil. All the best.

                                        • @rokufan: No worries. I hope you're able to succeed in your goal to establish your subjective experience of life as objective reality. Not a task I'd like to take on, personally.

                                          • @Nomadesque: My outlook is a bit more nuanced than that. But if it makes you feel superior, go with your feelings.

                                            • @rokufan: All I have to go on is what you choose to explain. I don't see much evidence in your words that you're open to people living their life in ways that deviate from your own personal values, even if those life choices have no impact on you.

                                              If we trip over on the first hurdle of acknowledging our own subjective biases that we bring to the discussion, it's pretty damn hard to have a reasonable debate from there. I'm sorry you feel like that is me taking a superior stance or postmodern rambling. I don't expect that I'll be the last person to pull you up on it if you choose to continue to debate that way going forward.

                                              • @Nomadesque: You have not refuted my argument. I'm arguing the factual purpose of birth certificates. And you are arguing how people feel about it - that's why I called you a postmodernist. Though, you seem to be pleased with the label.

                                                I'm sorry you feel like that is me taking a superior stance or postmodern rambling.

                                                Yeah, no. My sarcasm escaped you.

                                                This is a case of never the twain shall meet.

                                                • @rokufan: What is the factual purpose of a birth certificate in your eyes? Does the fact that birth certificates vary the world over make some certificates more legitimate than others?

                                                  I just read the Wikipedia article on birth certificates and found lots of references to including a name, nationality and parental relations but not much about gender. I'm just interested to know where you're getting your "list of the objective facts that must be on a birth certificate" from, other than your own head.

                                                  The only international standard around things that should be done when a child is born that I'm aware of is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which mentions name, nationality and parental relationships as things that should be registered.

                                                  I don't give a great deal of credence to international law given that it's largely optional in practice, but if we're talking about objective facts here then you must be aware of another similar document that requires gender to be recorded. I look forward to reading it.

                                                  • @Nomadesque: If you don't think biological sex should be on a birth certificate (a medical and identifying record), knock yourself out, there is a loud minority who agree with you.

                                                    • @rokufan: I'd say there's a majority who understand that having the option of not recording a gender on a birth certificate isn't an unreasonable choice to provide people, much in the same way that allowing same sex marriage doesn't diminish existing marriages or affect anyone other than the same sex couples who wish to avail themselves of that option.

                                                      I'm just happy that I don't have to carry around the burden of hating the choices of other people that have zero bearing on my life.

                                                      • @Nomadesque:

                                                        I'd say there's a majority

                                                        Nope.

                                                        hating the choices of other people

                                                        There's your problem. Facts aren't a choice. It's not about hate.

                                                        • @rokufan:

                                                          Nope.

                                                          I'm willing to admit that I don't know whether there's a majority as I don't have statistics. I'm just basing my thoughts on similar recent debates and supposedly democratic plebescite outcomes. What are you basing yours on?

                                                          There's your problem. Facts aren't a choice. It's not about hate.

                                                          There you go again banging on about facts as if that's the issue at hand. I'm not disputing the facts you're talking about. So far you've failed to address why gender being present on a birth certificate is a required fact by any measure. I, on the other hand, have tried to draw from sources outside of my own brain and personal opinion to illustrate that gender being on a birth certificate is neither important nor required.

                                                          Not sure why you're still persisting in arguing on here given that you purportedly don't like writing and already said "see ya" to me in one of your previous comments? If writing pains you that much, why can't you just let it go?

                                                          • @Nomadesque:

                                                            I'm just basing my thoughts on similar recent debates and supposedly democratic plebescite outcomes.

                                                            Extrapolation fail. Irrelevant reference source.

                                                            This is very important to you, maybe let this go and have a chat with people who agree with you, it will improve your mood.

                                                            • @rokufan: I feel fine about this discussion and don't need to seek out an echo chamber to improve my mood.

                                                              I'll go for extrapolation of similar stats over no stats and a sample size of 1 any day.

                                                              Interesting unrelated stat: you were done with this discussion 8 hours ago.

                                                              Hmm.

                        • @rokufan:

                          Here you go, definition from Urban Dictionary:

                          I didn't draw attention to this before as I was trying to argue on topic and in good faith, but it's pretty damn funny that the one of the definitions of "clown world" in the link you posted was created by a user with the account name of Mr. Tarrant.

                          It's all about the lolz though, right?

                          • @Nomadesque: Wrong. That is not the definition or link I posted. Check again.

                            https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=clown%20worl...

                            Nonetheless, Ad hominem is a debating fail.

                            • @rokufan: Click on the link you posted and tell me if that definition is the second one on the page that comes up.

                              It's not an ad hominem for me to point something out in a definition that you've used to back up your own arguments. Maybe the first example of a self ad-hominem?

                              I do find it kind of cute that whenever I encounter authoritarian cucks desperate for approval and attention on the internet that you're so incredibly shy and coy about what you actually believe; but damn, I'd be happy if one of you actually expressed yourself openly for a change.

                              • @Nomadesque: The definition I pointed to was by 0w0.

                                It is an ad hominem. You are harping about an Urban Dictionary contributor from a separate definition that I didn't even use.

                                You're getting very petty now.

                                • @rokufan: Just filling the vacuum created by the dearth of actual views you're contributing despite being given ample opportunity.

                                  But surprised you're still here to be honest given that you're not a fan of typing.

                                  Honk!

                                  • @Nomadesque: I'll let you deal alone with your Lastworditis…

                                    • @rokufan: Thanks. I know from reading your posts in other threads that "lastworditis" is generally your sign off when you're done trolling.

                                      Hopefully you'll actually stay quiet this time instead of letting relevance deprivation syndrome get the better of you.

                                      Honk!

            • @rokufan: lmao

              "Wait a minute- someone's poking fun ova here!

              And ova here!

              Get a chopper in!

              We'll get to the bottom of this!"

              lmao

              • @SporadicUser: Haha, the lesser of the two intellectual pygmies finally tags back in! Good see you again.

                Honk!

                • -1

                  @Nomadesque: too funny not to- dig that "honk"; cheers for your help, easing it towards common use.

                  • @SporadicUser: Yep, happy to do what I can to assist in it not becoming an alt-right meme.

                    Naturally I have to acknowledge that it has nothing to do with any alt-right image boards, hasn't been used by the incel Pepe crowd and doesn't have an Urban Dictionary entry for "clown world" that was created by a user named Mr. Tarrant about a month after a person with the same surname killed 51 people. Oh, and the initial definition in Urban Dictionary is much better because it uses a slur against Muslims and feminists as an example of its use. Honk!

                    As we know, the only time correlation equals causation is in clown world. For the rest of us normal people, we rely on our 100% testable objective reality where all symbols, memes and words mean nothing. Much like in Orwell's 1984.

      • honkety honk honk HOOOOOONK! mic drop. slow clap. door slam.

    • Yes all very necessary, keep track of the terrorists you Know.
      Scary is upon us, gps, auto drive cars, trains, planes, drones, recorded calls & txt, facial recognition - thought recognition.
      But the scarier have always been there, now with evolving controlling methods.
      This is not the world I was born into.
      Do I really want to know how to use the "3 sea shells".

    • Ha, love that movie.
      Although I still can’t work out the three shells.

  • +11

    Apparently this version is missing 30 or so pages so I'm gonna have to neg this. Free crap is still crap.

    • Interesting! Can you share what is on these missing pages?

      • +1

        30 pages of content and story…

        • I guessed that bit.

          Was there something specific about this content that caused it to be removed? Was it censored for some reason?

          • +8

            @MementoMori: Nope. Just a poor copy along with all the spelling, grammar and punctuation errors riddled throughout it.

          • +1

            @MementoMori: From review on the same page:

            "This edition is really messed up. It ends on page 70 and starts back up on a page 103. Coincidentally because that page doesn’t end the sentence and page 103 doesn’t start a sentence, my middle school age son, continue to read it without noticing. When he went to take the comprehension test he had to stop the test in the middle because it was asking questions about things he never read. When he went through the book carefully we realized it’s completely missed printed and is missing about 30 pages!"

            Another:
            "I enjoyed reading the book, but felt cheated because it was missing pages 71-102. It was a new book, so obviously this is a quality control issue for the publishing company. It also had probably 20 blank pages in the back followed by redundant pages 103-124. "

    • +7

      Can confirm. Had a look through and at page 70 it's halfway through a sentence then the next page jumps forward.

      You can get Animal Farm separately for $0 or buy the entire George Orwell collection for 99 cents.

    • +4

      Ahhhhh so they're teaching you 1984 the practical way.

  • +8

    Wow - amazing stuff looking back over his work.

    "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

    Exactly what we have going on now. 'We are all equal, equality now!!!' yet at the same time we have a heirachy of victimhood, whereby the more 'oppressed' you are the higher up you are and the more your opinion matters and the more 'privilige' you have the more you are scum.

    • +1

      I read animal farm at school and that quote still sticks in my mind 25 years later.

    • +12

      How wonderfully Orwellian of you to twist this around to say the disadvantaged are more equal - exact opposite of the book.

      • +1

        Actually, he is describing exactly what the progressives are doing now. How Orwellian of you to misconstrue his comments.

        • +1

          Was it a progressive government that oversaw an attack of the free press just recently or was it a conservative one?

          • +1

            @WinstonWithAY:

            an attack of the free press

            What a beat up that claim is. You mean investigating an illegal leak. Officials have made it clear that they are only interested in finding the leaker/s, the journalists are not the targets. The investigation is not exceptional.

            The true threat to freedom of speech is from progressives and big tech censoring their ideological opponents.

            • +1

              @rokufan: Yeah. "Illegal." Because the Australian public don't have a right to know what their service members are doing overseas and the atrocities they are committing. "Big tech." What a laugh. They have community guidelines, and these "innocent conservatives" have been abusing and violating those guidelines for so long and are now angry that they're being deplatformed like they were supposed to. Trust what the politicians say though, they never lie. It's actually so (profanity) hilarious someone who apparently praises Orwell like the second coming of Christ dismisses fascist actions by a supposedly democratic government.

              • +1

                @WinstonWithAY:

                Yeah. "Illegal." Because the Australian public don't have a right to know what their service members are doing overseas and the atrocities they are committing.

                You are all over the place. The recent "raids" are a separate issue from what you appear to now be talking about Assange. There are whistleblower protections in instances where it can be proven there is a public interest.

                "Big tech." What a laugh. They have community guidelines, and these "innocent conservatives" have been abusing and violating those guidelines for so long and are now angry that they're being deplatformed like they were supposed to.

                Hilarious, leftists now trusting freedom with multinational corporations. The march through the institutions is complete.

                • +1

                  @rokufan: The raids were about the Afghan file leaks. What does that have to do with Assange? Also I don't trust multinationals, but for completely different reasons.

                  • @WinstonWithAY: I thought you were referring to: "Annika Smethurst, AFP officers execute search warrant over 2018 report about new powers for intelligence agencies to spy on Australians" https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/04/feder...

                    Then it sounded like you were making a defense of Assange.

                    The outcry about the raids seems like a beat up to me. Like I said there are available whistleblower protections in instances where it can be proven there is a public interest.

                    And there is plenty of evidence that tech are censoring conservatives - and it is for idealogical reasons not breaches of ToS, that is merely a smokescreen. All while people like yourself cheer it on. Just in the last few days a Pinterest insider exposed their bias. Not to mention the YouTube #voxadapocalypse.

                    • +1

                      @rokufan:

                      Then it sounded like you were making a defense of Assange.

                      That's just a comprehension fail on your part, unless you think that Assange could be considered a "service member" by some bizarre twisting of definitions.

                      • +1

                        @Nomadesque: Not a comprehension fail, a lack of information in the comment. But thanks for joining in.

                        • +1

                          @rokufan: What did you think was meant by "service member" then? How does that interpretation apply to Assange?

                          • +1

                            @Nomadesque: Winston is that you? This was clarified in the above comments.

                            • +1

                              @rokufan: Nope, I'm an independent person with my own thoughts, believe it or not.

                              You were the first person to bring up Assange. By my reading, nothing in Winston's comments in the thread you were replying to appeared to allude to Assange so I'm just wondering how you came to the conclusion that Winston was talking about Assange?

                              Just answering the two questions I posed would suffice, as you haven't addressed them previously as far as I can see.

                    • @rokufan: It s like journalists think they have extra rights over ordinary people. You know the sort of thing that happens in nonegaliatarian countries.

            • +1

              @rokufan:

              You mean investigating an illegal leak. Officials have made it clear that they are only interested in finding the leaker/s, the journalists are not the targets. The investigation is not exceptional.

              You do understand that the issue people have is not the raid itself, it's that the legislation now exists that allows this kind of thing to happen? These are powers that didn't exist up until very recently.

              This is precisely the kind of thing that Orwell was writing about in 1984, albeit taking things to an extreme end point. It's specifically about a government ("The Party") constantly rewriting history / the rules in order to exert and maintain control over the general population ("The Proles").

              Criminalising inconvenient behaviour by citizens is a good way to exert that control, which is exactly what parts of our current national security legislation set out to achieve.

              It's certainly not the same as a private company choosing to take a position on particular views expressed on a platform. I don't need to adhere to Facebook's or Instagram's terms of service if I don't sign up with them. They aren't going to raid my house or throw me in jail if I express a view that is contrary to what they believe.

              Unfortunately I don't have the luxury of opting out when it comes to the laws of the country I reside in and am a citizen of.

              • @Nomadesque:

                You do understand that the issue people have is not the raid itself, it's that the legislation now exists that allows this kind of thing to happen? These are powers that didn't exist up until very recently.

                • Do you accept that for the effective administration of government that some information needs to be confidential/classified?
                • Do you understand that leaks need to investigated and punished if you agree with above?
                • There are whistleblower protections in cases of public interest

                As I said previously, the media reaction seems hysterical. Tell me the exact issue you have with the legislation instead of broadly condemning it and I'll consider it.

                It's certainly not the same as a private company choosing to take a position on particular views expressed on a platform. I don't need to adhere to Facebook's or Instagram's terms of service if I don't sign up with them. They aren't going to raid my house or throw me in jail if I express a view that is contrary to what they believe.

                The threat to freedoms can come from many sources in many forms. The Google and Facebook communication/information monopolies are the most powerful in history. They are utilities at this point and will become even more vital to future digital life, like it or not. The mail, electricity and phone companies can't cut you off if they don't like your opinions. Saying there are merely enforcing their ToS is either disingenuous or ignorant. The companies are clearly political now.

                Many on the right and left (I'll be generous), are debating solutions like: removing internet platform protections and treating them like publishers because the companies are taking political positions (ie. editorial decisions) making them directly responsible for the content and opening them up to legal actions; breaking up; internet civil rights bill; internet appeals court; new laws; etc.

                Unfortunately I don't have the luxury of opting out when it comes to the laws of the country I reside in and am a citizen of.

                The digital future won't be a case of opting opt, bans will be digital death.

                • @rokufan:

                  Do you accept that for the effective administration of government that some information needs to be confidential/classified?

                  Only at the time when operations are occurring and the leaking of that information is likely to cause a significant threat to life.

                  After the fact, the public should be entitled to know everything that went on, how money was spent, what actions took place etc. The government is accountable to the people who elect them.

                  In this recent case involving the AFP raids on News Corp and the ABC, we had a leak that occurred back in 2017 relating to incidents that happened years before that. The fact it happened years ago and the person involved has since left active military service means that the risk of him being outed is negligible.

                  If we have military personnel doing bad stuff in Australia's name I certainly want to know about it, because they are supposed to be representing Australia's values and principles overseas and not engaging in the same sort of crap behaviour which purportedly justifies Australia's presence in Afghanistan in the first place.

                  There are whistleblower protections in cases of public interest

                  Dude, you haven't been keeping up. You can't blow the whistle about anything that's deemed a national security or immigration issue. Those rights have been stripped away in recent years, hence why we are in the current state of affairs.

                  The threat to freedoms can come from many sources in many forms.

                  You seem not to understand that social media and search engine giants are private companies making decisions in their own interest.

                  I'm actually amazed that some conservative / right wing / freedom of speech advocating billionaire hasn't tried to launch a competing platform where any views are permitted.

                  I'm not signed up to any social media sites because I don't really like their business models. I don't feel like I'm being de-platformed as a result of not having an account. I actually have very little interest in the minutiae of internet legal wrangling. My view is that the internet should be minimally regulated and views should be openly posted and challenged accordingly by all sides. Provided that can still occur then I'm happy.

                  • @Nomadesque:

                    You seem not to understand that social media and search engine giants are private companies making decisions in their own interest.

                    Conservatives (unlike libertarians) are not entirely against regulation, just considerable less than leftists, and only when there is a strong case to be made. And in this case, as per my analogy, many utilities and monopolies are private companies yet are heavily regulated.

                    I'm actually amazed that some conservative / right wing / freedom of speech advocating billionaire hasn't tried to launch a competing platform where any views are permitted.

                    The nature of networks (can't remember the theory name) makes these networks more valuable the larger they are, ie. a dozen smaller Facebooks added together would equal less than a single Facebook, because the networking value of everyone in the one silo is more valuable. Hence, it is near impossible for upstarts in internet businesses that rely on networking to get critical mass, it is like fighting the law of gravity.

                  • @Nomadesque:

                    I actually have very little interest in the minutiae of internet legal wrangling.

                    Likewise for me on AFP raids, thus far. I'll keep a closer eye on the story, and see if the left-wing and media narrative is correct or exaggerated.

                    • @rokufan:

                      I'll keep a closer eye on the story, and see if the left-wing and media narrative is correct or exaggerated.

                      There's not going to be any further developments in this story.

                      If you believe that the government and its employees should be allowed to operate without scrutiny from the Fourth Estate when it comes to issues of national security and immigration then you're unlikely to change your view.

                      I'm personally uncomfortable with that and will make that known to anyone who thinks selective government secrecy is a good policy moving forward.

                      It should also be noted that the typically partisan media outlets (e.g. The Guardian, News Corp etc.) were united in their condemnation of these raids because of the implications it has for government transparency and press freedom. If people are scared that they'll get prosecuted for leaking information that the government deems a federal crime, we are likely to see fewer tip offs and less government scrutiny over time.

                      I really don't want to live in a country where the only information I'm entitled to receive about the government's operation is that sanctioned by the government itself.

                      • @Nomadesque:

                        There's not going to be any further developments in this story.

                        The politics is only getting started, though.

                        I believe there are senate committee/s, with cross party members, charged with oversight of national security agencies. I don't agree with the assertion there is no accountability unless it is in the public domain, that is not always possible.

                        • @rokufan:

                          I believe there are senate committee/s, with cross party members, charged with oversight of national security agencies.

                          The legislation that is current in place was waved through with the tacit support of both major parties. If we're relying on them for oversight, that's like letting the fox guard the chicken coop.

                          Any Greens senators on those committees won't be able to do much as the government doesn't rely on them for supply. There are a few good eggs amongst the rest of the cross bench but given the current balance of power I wouldn't rely on them to provide the necessary oversight and stop worse laws passing.

                          • +1

                            @Nomadesque:

                            If we're relying on them for oversight, that's like letting the fox guard the chicken coop.

                            That sounds like something that you subjectively feel rather than being an objective and an independently / repeatedly demonstrable truth, unless you have evidence to the contrary (noting, of course, that society is still reasonably intact and operational in Australia).

                            Sorry, couldn't help myself!

                            Any Greens senators on those committees won't be able to do much

                            Well that's a relief. I don't trust the Greens with freedom, national security or immigration.

                            • @rokufan:

                              Sorry, couldn't help myself!

                              That would be true were it not for the reality of raids on the press actually being carried out, which is what many media commentators predicted would be the end point of the national security legislation changes when they first passed. The fox in charge of the chicken coop analogy relates directly to that event occuring because it happened as a result of the people who have oversight of legislation allowing the changes through.

                              This is different from the assertion that society is going to fall apart, because that hasn't actually happened, nor has any evidence been presented to support that claim.

                              See the difference?

                              • @Nomadesque:

                                That would be true were it not for the reality of raids on the press being actually carried out, which is what many media commentators predicted would be the end point of the national security legislation changes when they first passed. The fox in charge of the chicken coop analogy relates directly to that event occuring because it happened as a result of the people who have oversight of legislation allowing the changes through.

                                If you're going full PoMo, you must concede that is merely your interpretation of the what you perceive to be the facts. There are other opinions.

                                This is different from the assertion that society is going to fall apart, because that hasn't actually happened, nor has any evidence been presented to support that claim.

                                Evidence. Here's one most would agree, the west has become hyper-partisan because of the culture war. Though, you're overthinking the clown world joke/meme.

                                • @rokufan:

                                  If you're going full PoMo, you must concede that is merely your interpretation of the what you perceive to be the facts. There are other opinions.

                                  I'm just being myself. You're the one arguing against postmodernity and needing to label everything. I'm happy to engage on whatever level you're comfortable with.

                                  Either we are all just brains in our respective vats and the entire world is our subjective experience that can't be independently verified (possibly true) or things actually happen and we can debate their merits because we both saw the same thing happen and agree that it occurred (also true). I thought we were doing the latter.

                                  Let me know which you'd be happy with, but please try to stick to one view lest it become completely obvious that you're just trolling and have no intention of engaging your frontal lobe.

                                  Alternatively you could show a bit of civility by actually responding to the questions I've asked (as I've done for you) instead of repeating the same things ad nauseum and constantly shifting the debating goalposts.

                                  • @Nomadesque: Yes, it's irritating isn't it. When you believe you have a firm grasp of the facts about an issue that interests you, and a logical evidence-based argument - your interlocutor wants to use postmodernist argumentation, it feels like going in circles. This topic you want to argue facts, the other, not so much.

                                    • @rokufan: So that's a no to my request for you to answer at least one question and a refusal to pick the terms under which we're debating, all capped off with your same old tired point about facts relating to birth sex that I haven't actually sought to refute but merely pointed out that different facts are important to different people and whether people choose to record different facts on a birth certificate actually doesn't affect you or change your rights in any way.

                                      Is that a reasonable summary?

                                      • @Nomadesque:

                                        different facts are important to different people and whether people choose to record different facts on a birth certificate

                                        I don't know how you think this is an intelligent point.

                                        Anyway, these debates and interactions are better left to IRL. I'm not exactly a fan of typing. If you enjoy debate, I hope you find someone real. See ya.

                                        • @rokufan:

                                          I don't know how you think this is an intelligent point.

                                          I don't, it's just a self-evident truth that you seem not to grasp because you think everyone should be forced to have the same facts recorded on their birth certificate and there's something wrong with not recording the fact of physical gender on a birth certificate for some reason.

                                          • @Nomadesque: It is not a freedom argument, it is a factual document. Period. Love/hate/feelings are not a rebuttal.

Login or Join to leave a comment