• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

[Continuation] Australian Politics II

From that article:

"Paul Smith, Director of Public Data, said, “Labor’s primary vote is down to 30%, eight points behind the Coalition at 38% which after preferences would produce a dead heat. Neither Labor nor the Coalition would be likely to receive a majority in the House of Representatives if an election was held today.”

"The satisfaction for both party leaders once again remains negative. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese holds a satisfaction rate of -20%, with 36% satisfied and 56% dissatisfied. Comparatively, the Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton’s score is less negative coming in at -8 (40% satisfied, 48 % dissatisfied).

"Despite these ratings, Anthony Albanese remains the preferred Prime Minister, with 42% of Australians supporting him compared to 39% for Dutton. However, 19% of Australians do not express a preference for either leader."
 
psionl0 said:
Calling an activity illegal won't curtail it. In fact, it is likely to make the activity more attractive - especially to young people. The first thing that will happen is that teens will learn all about setting up VPNs etc so I guess that a positive effect of the law would be to make teens even more tech savvy.

Of course, this highlights the old adage about not underestimating the stupidity of the voting public. I understand that Bill Clinton managed to retain his presidency by introducing similar internet laws after conducting seminars to find out what concerned voters. He must have known that the laws wouldn't make much of a difference but votes are votes.
Click to expand...
To be fair, they are acknowledging that people are going to be able to avoid the ban. Kids can still get access to alcohol and cigarettes too. But the idea is that, like alcohol and cigarettes, it should be much less likely that they do.

I'm not buying that line of reasoning.
 
The Greens were on board. Then this happened:

www.abc.net.au

Payman adds to intrigue over crashed environmental overhaul

Fatima Payman's vote was needed to pass a critical reform. It was late on Wednesday the prime minister's office realised it was about to collapse.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

The failure to lock away Senator Payman's vote followed a meeting between her and Minerals Council of Australia CEO Tania Constable, who was described as "camping out" in the senator's office.

The industry lobbyist ran through the "ramifications for WA" of the bill.

"She was on board," said the source.
Click to expand...
 
arthwollipot said:
It gets worse...

www.abc.net.au

The two words that could unravel the social media ban for Australian teenagers

While the teen social media ban has passed parliament, questions are being asked about how the age of all users will be verified — and even the viability of the new law.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
It makes me wonder if this law will have any repurcussions on ISF. Will they have to take "reasonable steps" to keep under 16s away? Will they require Australian members to provide multi-factor authentication and if the Australian members don't, will they be kicked off?
 
psionl0 said:
It makes me wonder if this law will have any repurcussions on ISF. Will they have to take "reasonable steps" to keep under 16s away? Will they require Australian members to provide multi-factor authentication and if the Australian members don't, will they be kicked off?
Click to expand...
I seem to recall reading that the law names the social media companies this applies to. I'd be tremendously surprised if ISF was one of them.
 
arthwollipot said:
Yes, the law targets specific social media companies, but the wording is open-ended and could refer to sites unnamed.
Click to expand...
The wording would have to be open ended otherwise alternative social media sites (which might only be clones of the named sites) would get a free pass.
 
psionl0 said:
The wording would have to be open ended otherwise alternative social media sites (which might only be clones of the named sites) would get a free pass.
Click to expand...
That is a great idea. Make a clone of Facebook and sell it to teenage Australians. Get Facebook's permission to copy their data as well (like pay them something). 100% legal.
 
Orphia Nay said:
From that article:

"Paul Smith, Director of Public Data, said, “Labor’s primary vote is down to 30%, eight points behind the Coalition at 38% which after preferences would produce a dead heat. Neither Labor nor the Coalition would be likely to receive a majority in the House of Representatives if an election was held today.”

"The satisfaction for both party leaders once again remains negative. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese holds a satisfaction rate of -20%, with 36% satisfied and 56% dissatisfied. Comparatively, the Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton’s score is less negative coming in at -8 (40% satisfied, 48 % dissatisfied).

"Despite these ratings, Anthony Albanese remains the preferred Prime Minister, with 42% of Australians supporting him compared to 39% for Dutton. However, 19% of Australians do not express a preference for either leader."
Click to expand...
Australian electorate says: "Surely there's someone better than thse two drongos?!! As long as it isn't Scomo or Katter, though."
 
lionking said:
It’s a stupid law. There are very good reasons why other countries haven’t adopted it.
Click to expand...
Then there is the whole freedom of speech thing.....
Don't kid yourself, people on the left are just as willling to take away free speech as the right if they think it will help them create their utopia......
And never forget, whenever they come to take your freedom away, they always have wonderful sounding excuses for doing so.
 
ANyway, enforcing a ban on teenagers using social media would make enforcing Prohibition in the US in the 1920's look easy.
 
dudalb said:
Then there is the whole freedom of speech thing.....
Don't kid yourself, people on the left are just as willling to take away free speech as the right if they think it will help them create their utopia......
And never forget, whenever they come to take your freedom away, they always have wonderful sounding excuses for doing so.
Click to expand...
◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ both-sides-ism.
dudalb said:
ANyway, enforcing a ban on teenagers using social media would make enforcing Prohibition in the US in the 1920's look easy.
Click to expand...
Very much so.
 
arthwollipot said:
For ◊◊◊◊'s sake. We're literally selling you weapons. There are daily protests calling for an end to the Australian government's support for the ongoing genocide.

www.theguardian.com

Netanyahu claims Melbourne synagogue attack linked to Albanese government’s ‘anti-Israel position’

Labor’s support for UN resolution calling for end to Israel’s occupation of Gaza to blame for Melbourne synagogue fire, Jewish state’s leader says
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Take it to the other thread. There is no genocide. You should know better.
 
Support for the ongoing military action in Palestine then*. And the Australian government's support and material contributions to it are very much on topic for this thread.

*it's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ genocide
 
arthwollipot said:
Support for the ongoing military action in Palestine then*. And the Australian government's support and material contributions to it are very much on topic for this thread.

*it's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ genocide
Click to expand...
Even if it is (and I do not believe so) your use of the word genocide is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Look up the definition some time.
 
Read a couple of Syndey times articles. One about tax dodges in the US and one about Isreal and holy damn it was honest. I think that the US is moving slowly toward that kind of coverage but nowhere near it yet. I was wondering if there are more news sources that are as honest as the times seemed to be from that article
 
dudalb said:
Then there is the whole freedom of speech thing.....
Don't kid yourself, people on the left are just as willling to take away free speech as the right if they think it will help them create their utopia......
And never forget, whenever they come to take your freedom away, they always have wonderful sounding excuses for doing so.
Click to expand...
It's nothing to do with social media or political agendas or freedom of speech. It's about popularity. Step back and use a bit of scepticism, mate.

Also, in practical terms, we have more freedom of speech in Australia than the USA. Imagine if President Trump was spoken to the way we regularly speak to our PM. There would be thousands of law suits or people in jail as a result. And MAGA would be constantly screeching too.
 
MinnesotaBrant said:
Read a couple of Syndey times articles. One about tax dodges in the US and one about Isreal and holy damn it was honest. I think that the US is moving slowly toward that kind of coverage but nowhere near it yet. I was wondering if there are more news sources that are as honest as the times seemed to be from that article
Click to expand...
a_unique_person said:
Never heard of the Sydney Times.
Click to expand...
Same, never heard of the Sydney Times.

You probably mean The Sydney Morning Herald.
 
arthwollipot said:
www.abc.net.au

Anthony Albanese heckled visiting site of synagogue terror attack — as it happened

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was heckled while visiting the Adass Israel Synagogue in Ripponlea, which was targeted in an arson attack last week that is now being treated as an act of terror. Look back on our coverage.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

Unfortunately this time I think it's inevitable that he wins.
Click to expand...
Not so sure. He's still a bit less popular than Albo as PM, and Albo is less popular than a bull-ant bite currently. So Potato-Head is about as popular as...two bull-ant bites.
 
a_unique_person said:
I think they already have a good idea who they are. It's been classed as a terrorist act so there will be a lot of resources put into it. It appears it was not meant to kill but it is not acceptable.
Click to expand...
There were at least two worshippers in the synagogue, so deaths were a strong possibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom