Elon is refusing to fully censor the church stabbing that happened in Sydney, and scrub it from his platform.
They've already geoblocked it, but the government wants it removed from the internet completely. Do you think the Australian government is overreacting?
Personally I found it very tame. There is much more violent and bloody content on X.
So should X completely remove all trace of that video?
I do care, the government should not have an Orwellian "Ministry of Truth".
If we wind the clock back 23 years, wouldn't imagery of the planes hitting the twin towers not meet all the same criteria while being a far better example of a terrorist attack?
Is anyone advocating for the removal of those videos from all on-line platforms?
Bingo. This, along with the misinformation legislation nonsense, must be resisted. It is the crest of another very steep slippery slope.
How about images of the Tiananmen square massacres - if the Chinese government could have censored them globally, we'd never know how evil modern communism is.
3 buildings, 2 planes.
This is a difficult one. In theory that's the idea, but government control / media censorship is a dangerous and slippery slope.
Once the powers are being exercised, who's opinion gets to say what can and can't be reported, and what's the potential for abuse of that depending on who comes to a position of power from time to time?
Stopping riots is one thing, but it can be in the public interest for all people to know that terrible things have happened and be outraged about it (in the hopes it leads to positive awareness, tolerance and change).
Otherwise, do these take-down orders have the potential to basically extend to cover-ups / suppressing the news in case someone overracts to it?
For example, what if someone decided all reporting on Gaza was now not able to be shown and is to be taken down in case protesters overreact. How far does that go? Are we prevented from knowing what is happening at all by those actions? How does that differ from what governments do that want to control a political agenda / narrative through censorship?
There is also a jurisdiction / sovereignty element - what right does the Aust Government have to ask a USA company to take down content on a USA server if already geoblocked here…. not a lot really.
Do Australian courts even have the right to dictate what other countries have to do? And if Twitter "pulls out" of Australia, how would that stop anyone from making an account anyway or keeping their account. I don't see how this is a fight the government can win.
Yes, not a lot of reach there really. Perhaps they could win the geoblocking part, but that's not in question, removal from an overseas platform is a big ask from a legal standpoint, especially where in a country famous for its constitutional bill of rights that protects freedom of the press / free speech.
@prodrome: A better question is should Australia be dictated to by a unelected foreign billionaire on drugs.
He is not Australian and we have no power in a foreign country.
A better question would be. Should the Australian parents be held responsible for not supervising their children on the internet?
@Loot N Plunder: The guy is irrelevant. Countries negotiate with countries, not Twitter's biggest troll.
the govt probably can't win but they have to pretend to fight it to keep 'select' people happy
And that's what makes it a difficult one.
There's similar arguments to not even identifying people like the Bondi attacker.
They are trying to make a difference, but to do so, are dabbling in an area of law that has historically and elsewhere been abused for political gain for the people who control that law (e.g. to cover up their political supporters' actions), so that scares people, plus trying to reach companies that operate outside our sovereign borders if it concerns an incident / content from here.
The intent is probably good… but its the unintended consequences that can become concerning.
…The challenges of 21st century governing in an interconnected world.
There has always been some level of media limits in Australia and this extends to social media.
The difference with the Bondi situation was that it appears the attacker was experiencing psychosis and likely not trying to garner favour for any particular cause, whereas the case in question appears to be religiously motivated and by design wanting to gain media attention to garner support for their cause by using violence. Notwithstanding there has been criticism for some of the coverage of what happened in Bondi.
Laws take into account a balance of freedoms vs harm to society. These are existing laws being applied.
Similar to how footage of the Christchurch massacre was taken down, ie not to give the attacker a platform, as that’s what they want. Same as how this kid chose a live streamed event to get an audience, not just to make a speech, but to use violence to promote their cause.
"whereas the case in question appears to be religiously motivated and by design wanting to gain media attention to garner support for their cause by using violence. "
So who in Australia would possible want to do that?
How did they get here?
Why are they allowed to stay?
Do you think this attempt at censorship is aimed at the general population?
I mean…c'mon. :)
@EightImmortals: I would say it’s a blanket rule to not to promote any kind of violent acts aimed at any particular cause. Let’s not forget where the person who committed the Christchurch attacks was from and their motivation. The law is in place to stop the promotion of any violent extremism for all of the population. And comments like yours are part of the inflammatory reason why.
@morse: How so?
I'm not inciting or encouraging violence towards ANYONE or any group. I'm more than happy for you to peacefully hold any beliefs you like even if they are the polar opposite of my own. The caveat is that you're not allow to stab priests or anyone else you might disagree with.
@EightImmortals: If you can’t see why
So who in Australia would possible want to do that? How did they get here? Why are they allowed to stay? Do you think this attempt at censorship is aimed at the general population?
Is divisive and inflammatory there’s probably not much point having the discussion.
Anyway, stand by my comments, broadcasting ideologically passed violent crimes of any kind is not in the public interest, hence the very sensible laws. Fine to discuss and report on them. Just not display them happening.
@morse: Maybe. As long as it's consistent across all categories and they don;t simply pick and choose in accord with some political or social engieering agenda. :)
@EightImmortals: I think that’s the point. I believe they would do the same if it was a white supremacist doing the same. And remembering it’s not saying it’s shouldn’t be reported on, just not giving people a platform to broadcast violent acts, as that is inherently part of the terrorism, to instil fear. It’s basically giving nut jobs an audience, hence some of these people either live stream it themselves or go somewhere that they know it is being live-streamed. It was effective to looking at the community response. No one is saying don’t talk about it. There’s nothing to be gained from people viewing the violent act itself.
Thanks for your explanation. I've only paid attention to bits and pieces in the media, which seems to boil the situation down to "provoking violence" as a reason for the video removed. But that argument on its own seems… not enough to get something taken down. But the way you explained the differences between the church stabbing and the Bondi stabbing and also the link to the Christchurch massacre has really given me a better understanding as to why removing the video would be a good move.
So interesting seeing all the negs. You all know this is just about replaying the violence itself not a ban on discussing the issues, right?!
Do people really think mainstream social media should be a platform to broadcasts acts of ideological driven violence? Surely that would make this type of act more popular.
Post something negative but true about Elon or Tesla and it’s quickly removed.
Freedom of speech on twitter is Elon’s version of free speech. Never forget that
!
Yes, he's very happy to ban journalists or people that disagree with him.
But happy to pretend being an advocate of free speech.
I probably lean towards keeping the video up, but don't mind Elon being taken down a peg because he thinks he's the arbiter of free speech even though he clearly fails.
Post something negative but true about Elon or Tesla and it’s quickly removed.
LOL it certainly is not…. X is full of anti Elon and Tesla posts.
Maybe but the ones that are censored are the ones he’s scared of the truth getting out
Got an example of what was censored then?
As the last few weeks, X has been in full on FUD mode driving the share price down. Certainly zero censorship of 'negative' Elon or Telsa posts as claimed.
@JimmyF: https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2024/01/09/elon-mus…
https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/15/23512004/elon-musk-start…
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/04/elon-musk-twitter-st…
Oops…
Sometimes it pays to do some basic research before making completely incorrect posts. You can't censor the whole thing but he can very much target high-profile critics he doesn't agree with and he does.
Sometimes it pays to do some basic research before making completely incorrect posts
So old news articles or ones that are just flicking mud around, 'accusing' him of something.
As I said, go hand out on the platform, there is certainly endless anti Elon and Tesla posts.
Elon has banned a whole list of people with Anti Elon posts or posts about his family. He most definitely is quite happy to censor when it is something he perceives in his interests. Freedom of speech is for him not for others.
Elon has banned a whole list of people with Anti Elon posts or posts about his family
Did you read that in The Hearld Sun?
He most definitely is quite happy to censor when it is something he perceives in his interests. Freedom of speech is for him not for others.
Been on the platform lately and looked at the anit Elon or Tesla posts? All still there, zero censorship.
100%
Elon is not the bastion for free speech that his drones think he is. he didn't buy twitter because he wanted to have it as a platform of free speech, he bought it because he had to and since then has banned accounts that don't agree with him.
Just look at what happened with the dude who was posting where his jet was at.
Elon is not the Iron Man saviour he and his followers think he is.
Follow the $$$
My unpopular take, he bought it so that he can turn it into another weibo/wechat (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3Ow8DM3RUp0) platform for the Western world ( he said that. For $$$.
Tesla NEVERS a profitable business, period. They're about get a big injection (https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/mone…) of million dollars soon. For $$$.
Soon twatter will ask people for real-life ID to use their platform. I hope Im wrong.
In saying that do I want the govern be the arbiter of truth/free speech. NO !!!
Example?
Australia should be sanctioned by America for even daring, but we are just an arm of Biden/Obama, once again.
No the video should be allowed to stay on american servers and exist online for people in other countries, including of course anyone who wants to legally use another country's internet network.
The totalitarianism doesn't end if VPNs have to be blocked because eventually it's like oh Australian's are banned completely unless we have the digital ID, etc, and just seeing how much they can reach for.
Albo needs to get back to doing his job and keeping Australians off the streets and safe.
And Elon is doing a wonderful job with his app.
No one in Australia gives any (profanity) about eSafety at the moment, just IRL safety.
I don't know the answer to this question as I try to avoid too much 'news' but is the government pushing to have the Bondi stabbing clips censored in the same way? I'm curious about that.
Which countries would be permitted to have domestic videos hidden from the world?
If Albo can have this then could Xi have Tiananmen videos purged?
I would have thought that the Americans going on about Isreal having successfully hit Iran, when that country is trying to downplay it, could end up being more dangerous
"Which countries would be permitted to have domestic videos hidden from the world?"
NZ went OTT with the Mosque shooting a few years back and threatened people with massive fines and jail time so that's one example I can think of.
Maybe these guvnuts should be doing more to avert the actual acts of violence than trying to have all evidence of them erased?
Maybe these guvnuts should be doing more to avert the actual acts of violence than trying to have all evidence of them erased?
It wasn't erased, it was blocked from public viewing to stop copycat acts. The evidence was kept for legal proceeding.
Maybe these guvnuts should be doing more to avert the actual acts of violence
Oh, you mean like the restrictions on the sale of guns, type of guns able to be sold and the gun buy back implemented by the LNP under John Howard.
"It wasn't erased, it was blocked from public viewing to stop copycat acts. "
Pedantic semantics? If it's hidden from public view then it's effectively erased. Though these authoritarian types aren't to smart and haven't figured out that the internet is kinda global now so while they can ban it here people will simply find it elsewhere. In terms of violence this particular video is mostly harmless.
"Oh, you mean like the restrictions on the sale of guns, type of guns able to be sold and the gun buy back implemented by the LNP under John Howard."
Nope, that's not what I mean at all. And if we are still having problems with violence 30 years later then obviously confiscating our guns didn't really help the overall situation much. What are they doing NOW to stop the spread of violence and hatred from continuing it's infiltration into Australia? Apart from banning selective videos that is.
Nope, that's not what I mean at all. And if we are still having problems with violence 30 years later then obviously confiscating our guns didn't really help the overall situation much.
It had a massive impact. The number of deaths due to firearms dropped dramatically. That's why we don't have the mass shootings seen in the USA. Suicide and DV deaths by firearms are both substantial lower.
Problem - > legislation enacted - > ceased to be a problem.
@DashCam AKA Rolts: I don't have time to research the actual numbers so I'll take your word for it. Would also like to know if the actual murder and violent assault rates have dropped since the time the gun confiscation occurred? Have gun deaths gone down but stabbing deaths increased for e.g.?
But as I said, I wasn't referring to previous gun deaths rates but current rates of violence from all sources.
In comparison to other offence types, the victimisation rate for homicide and related offences remained relatively low across the time series and ranged from about 4 victims per 100,000 persons to about 2 victims per 100,000 persons. This means that after accounting for population change, the victimisation rate for homicide has halved.
The largest recorded number of victims for this offence was 809 in 2001. From 2002 the number of victims declined across most years.
Source:https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/27-years-recorded-crime-victims-data
"I'm just here for the bargains"' should be a default poll option
I would imagine that anyone who is just here for bargains wouldn't be reading the forums, which don't generally contain bargains.
Personally I found it very tame. There is much more violent and bloody content on X.
Yes , remove them all. So you want them easily accessible by yourself and kids?
And why am I keep getting logged out from Ozb?
So you want them easily accessible by yourself and kids?
Where are the parents? Why are they no supervising their children on the internet in this day and age?
Where are the parents?
Cooking dinner
Why are they no supervising their children on the internet in this day and age?
So you going to sit next to your kid till they doing their home work?
So you going to sit next to your kid till they doing theri home work?
So you are going to give children free reign on the internet in their bedroom? Rather than a communal space where they can be monotored/supervised?
What ever happened to parenting where you know parents were parents and not making excuses or looking for others to blame for their lack of parenting?
So you are going to give children free reign on the internet in their bedroom? Rather than a communal space where they can be monotored/supervised?
No one intends to give access, but do you know what kids are capable of these days? doesn't matter how much helicopter parenting you do, they find their way, Why make it easy for them?
Twitter/X is one of the main sources of media these days.
@boomramada: Your children are YOUR responsibility stop making excuses for bad parenting.
The buck stops at you in your house with your rules
@Loot N Plunder: Okie, I'm a bad parent now, let's keep all the violent material on social media and put a lock on your phone. So Mumy and Dadday can keep watching them on how to stab someone. There should be a balance of restriction, education and accessibility, not just for kids.
Seriously, I don't want to see videos of stabbing on my Twitter feed either or to the other for copycat craziness,
@boomramada: Seriously, I don't want to see videos of stabbing on my Twitter feed
And there you go again blaming someone else for your actions
Don't want to see it don't watch it it is that simple
Stop being the sheep its not the fox you have to worry about its the farmer taking you to the market
@boomramada: Sounds like it, you want to outsource parenting to the govt. You're not the only one, plenty of people these days in lots of western countries have the same lazy attitude.
This, we banned all social media and phones from our kids when they were growing up. As adults they still don't have SM and also have the ability to see what a cesspool it is so they aren't interested. Strangely enough they seem to be doing well, holding down full time jobs, not on meds and don't have any psychological or emotional issues. And hey, why wouldn't you? What type of parents would allow total strangers into their homes and give them free access to their kids?
What type of parents would allow total strangers into their homes and give them free access to their kids?
Off the topic fact, most abuse done to the kids is by people you know not strangers. Technically you should keep eye on any scenarios.
I think they're having issues with the system right now so a lot of us are getting logged out.
Yeah it's a bit of an odd argument. There are some weird people online who enjoy and seek out violent videos and I wonder if OP is one of them.
I find it all pretty terrible and would love to have it all removed, although there is some balance there (you don't want to hide/censor real atrocities either like what's happening in Israel/Palestine). Hard call.
I kind of agree with you but unless they did it consistently across all media then what's the point? There are a LOT of hyper-violent TV shows and movies that make this particular clip look almost harmless by comparison.
Once it’s online, it’s forever online.
Reminds me of when Victorians were forbidden to see the underbelly series but available for everyone else
We should take China's lead and ban all Tesla vehicles from driving near sensitive government places.
With all the content on the internet there are more horrific images/videos than this so why not go for the more heinous content to be censored?
How does Australia own the internet in another country? and tell them what is up to our standards and what can be available?
How about the parents taking responsibility for the content their children watch?
This is an over step by the government
How many people here wanted a government agency to have the power in the first place to "keep australians safe when online"?
That's the real issue. All other chatter is distraction.
Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children
By that logic all phones, computers and tablets should be banned from minors until they reach 18.
For one parents nowadays have no PG (parental guidance) mentality.
Kids are becoming more cunning and are wiz at bypassing security and age restriction on the internet.
Parents have basically zero discipline on themselves in the phone let alone teach their kids. I'm not saying all but if had to guess 90% of parents are negligent because it's easier to shove a screen in front of the kids faces instead of teaching them to stop screaming and throwing tantrums.
It’s a popular The Simpsons quote.
People prefer Bluey these days though
I'd prefer to turf the lunatics who will do this sort of thing, rather than have government censorship in the media in order not to stir up said lunatics.
The government already censors the media in print, and digital forms; including games, films, music and digital news service.
A substantial portion of these are owned by a foreign citizen, Murdoch. The penalties for breaches for breaches under the act are imposed on the companies' local branches.
How about we remove Government and let Elon run Straya lol.
fuq no
The laws of a country apply within that country, and where they state they do, to the citizens of that country wherever they are in the world.
It is arrogance on the part of a country to think that its laws apply to everyone everywhere in the world. This is the situation with Julian Assange. He is an Australian citizen who leaked some American secrets when he was somewhere else in the world. And arrogant America thinks it can drag him to America by force and prosecute and punish him there under its laws.
Instead of the Australian government defending him against that arrogance, it is displaying the same arrogance by its government and courts demanding that an American company pull down content for the whole world just because Australian law says so.
It is fair enough that X be required by Australian law to block that content within Australia. And in fact he agreed to do that. To comply with Australian law when operating in Australia. He is under no obligation to comply with Australian law outside Australia. Would he then have to comply with Russian law and Chinese Law and Iranian law and Israeli censorship for all X's operations around the world, and pull down anything they don't want shown?
It's not a matter of law, Twitter can keep the video up legally. But in retaliation the government would be well within their rights to ban twitter outright if that is the path they want to take.
Could they technically do that?
Haven't they heard of VPN's or are VPN's redundant these days?
Of course they can. You could still use a VPN but it'll pretty much kill use for most people. Examples include many US states banning pornhub, Australia banning Pirate Bay as well as Australia banning many child abuse websites.
@ginormousgiraffe: I see what you mean, so they could only 'ban' it for people who don't have a VPN?
@EightImmortals: Effectively yes. They will ban ISPs from forwarding any packets with the IP address of a banned website. The VPN will effectively hide the source IP so you'd easily get around it. Though you'd need to connect via a different country.
@ginormousgiraffe: Lol Australia hasn't banned pirate bay, not effectively anyway, still works with no changes at my place.
@brendanm: It has been banned for a good five years. The Pirate bay you can now access is filled with viruses and you generally access proxy sites.
@ginormousgiraffe: I'm using the same pirate bay I've been using for a very long time, still works like a charm. Or perhaps I changed my DNS and forgot about it. At any rate, the government sucks at blocking anything, and they should go away with their censorship.
It is fair enough that X be required by Australian law to block that content within Australia.
It shouldn't be censored even inside Australia though, our law is crap.
I don't agree with the video and haven't seen or wish to see it, but allowing the Australian gov to force removal based on censorship, sets a precedent for future videos/posts they don't like removed.
It has been pointed out that the video is in breach of the x guidelines so should be removed. The Australian gov needs to use this point for removal, not the global censorship angle it is using.
This way x can save face by removing it and so can the gov.
Why would anyone want to see the video?
Ask the media, they were broadcasting it for a few days without restriction. It's pretty tame compared to a lot of stuff but I agree, why would anyone seek this kind of thing out?
Sorta like when the taliban was cuttin off heads of live prisoners… Still cant understand why anyone would wanna watch that shit…
Exactly.
I don't believe it was the Taliban that cut off peoples' heads. They stone people to death, or flog them. It is our friends the Saudi that execute criminals by decapitation.
Isn't the answer self evident?
What's going on in Australia? Why are we trying to surpress information and news? This isn't good for anyone in the long term.
What's going on? The same thing going on in all western countries. The takeover is almost complete.
They've been doing this for ages now.
If you don't like free speech shut up
It really is amazing how many advocates of free speech there are on a forum like this where so many postings are hidden because they've been negged by people who neg them knowing and intending that's what'll happen.
You don't understand what you're saying which is the hilarious part. You're attacking the "advocates of free speech" for voicing their opinion using the downvote button saying that they use them to hide posts they don't agree with with that's the function of the website itself. Why are you not directing that criticism at the website for implementing that "feature"?
I really don't think you thought through what your problem is, it wasn't hard.
Why are you not directing that criticism at the website for implementing that "feature"?
That is something I have previously done.
The web site simply provides the feature., But its the posters who neg other peoples postings knowing that will result in the poster they disagree with being denied being able to express their view who use that feature.
It's less about this particular video and more about setting a precedent for future ones too. This is why one side is pushing hard for it (and hence will be able to use it as a benchmark for removing other content) and the other side is refusing hard (so it doesn't become an example for people to point out and request further deletions).
I, personally, do not really care whichever outcome prevails.