Merged Australian Politics / Australian election

[lionking]

That's a very far cry from wanting to control everything we see/hear/say.

It's a typical righty talking point, in fact, the idea that introducing regulations is somehow equivalent to coercive control. It is, and always has been, bull ◊◊◊◊.

Exactly. You have not said it, but I will. It’s a right wing conspiracy theory.

 

[arthwollipot]

How would you know? You posted enthusiastically in favour of the bill without reading a single word of the article you linked to.

The bill does nothing to "control everything we see/hear/say". It does exactly the opposite of that - allows people to take control over what we see/hear/say back from the algorithms that currently control it.

And for the record I read everything I post.

 

[Orphia Nay]

There has been extensive discussion on Labor's "digital duty of care" bill on rhis thread.

Saying Labor is "wanting to control everything we see/hear/say" is taking an IMAGINARY worst case scenario, hallucinating that it applies to everyone AND happens all the time AND thinking it's done on purpose.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Slippery-slope fallacy.

The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect. This is quantified in terms of what is known as the warrant (in this case, a demonstration of the process that leads to the significant effect).

This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience.

Slippery slope - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[psionl0]

The bill does nothing to "control everything we see/hear/say". It does exactly the opposite of that - allows people to take control over what we see/hear/say back from the algorithms that currently control it.

Yes, that was the headline but there was more in the article that you didn't read.

 

[psionl0]

Slippery-slope fallacy.

This has also been discussed before.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, that was the headline but there was more in the article that you didn't read.

You don't know I didn't read it. I did, in fact, read it. I didn't comment on the section that starts "Some content will also be stripped out of feeds..." because that discussion had already been had. So my response to you now is "yeah nah get ◊◊◊◊◊◊, ◊◊◊◊".

 

[a_unique_person]

The internet these days is capable of destroying a child's future.

 

[psionl0]

The internet these days is capable of destroying a child's future.

 

[psionl0]

I did, in fact, read it. I didn't comment on the section that starts "Some content will also be stripped out of feeds..." because that discussion had already been had.

That part of the bill had never been discussed before you introduced the article. In fact the bill itself had never been discussed before. So pardon my scepticism.

 

[arthwollipot]

That part of the bill had never been discussed before you introduced the article. In fact the bill itself had never been discussed before. So pardon my scepticism.

That subject had been discussed before. Discussing it in the context of the bill would have been rehashing old ground.

 

[psionl0]

The social media ban for U16s is a different subject.

 

[arthwollipot]

The social media ban for U16s is a different subject.

Not really. It's all about the platforms being required to restrict content. The Duty of Care bill just extends that.

 

[psionl0]

Not really.

Yes really. Of course, since you approve of restricting content to adults, you refuse to see a distinction.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes really. Of course, since you approve of restricting content to adults, you refuse to see a distinction.

Oh, please tell me again what I do and do not approve of. It's always so enlightening.

 

[psionl0]

The river in Egypt is flowing again.

 

[a_unique_person]

View attachment 76356

Do you have any children?

 

[psionl0]

Do you have any children?

My children are grown but I have never needed the government to take over my responsibility for what my children were allowed to see or hear. And I certainly didn't need an ineffective law to achieve this.

 

[Orphia Nay]

My children are grown but I have never needed the government to take over my responsibility for what my children were allowed to see or hear. And I certainly didn't need an ineffective law to achieve this.

If the bill's ineffective, it can't "control everything we see/hear/say".

 

[psionl0]

If the bill's ineffective, it can't "control everything we see/hear/say".

So it's ok for the government to try as long as it fails?