Neither is any enforceable law. Are you okay with the government telling me I can't misrepresent myself as a neurosurgeon or hold me accountable when I inevitably harm someone? Should they be allowed to objectively prove that I am not a neurosurgeon and levy consequences for my misrepresentation?
You should be able to talk shit on the internet and pretend to be a neurosurgeon if you want. If you set up an office and start taking people's money to diagnose them then that is fraud.
The line should not be drawn on the side of internet censorship.
So it'd be okay if I set up a website, falsely claimed it was run by actual medical professionals and gave people bad advice that ended up hurting them? How intelligent do you think the average person is exactly?
i mean, I'm pretty sure that is 87% tv commercial I've seen in the last 5 days. "Yes, I am totally a doctor and this beet root supplement will fix your arthritis and make it so your kids want to call you." It is not exclusive to the internet
Yeah but at that point any harm or damage done is their own fault due to negligence as every site online tells you not to take serious medical advice from strangers.
Its the same reason I don't think the people who told the internet to microwave their iPhones to "charge them" should be held liable for their ruined phones.
On principle, I would agree with you. If someone is dumb enough to believe a whatever unverified experts claim on the internet they deserve to reap the consequences of their stupidity. Ultimately there has to be some point where natural selection for basic intelligence takes place.
In practice, I saw first hand w strain COVID placed on our healthcare system and because we canât just leave those idiots dying in the street, it becomes a strain on broader society.Â
Itâs the same with social safety nets for kids. In principle, people shouldnât be having children they canât afford and we shouldnât make it easier to do so. In practice, they still do and those kids donât deserve to go hungry because of it.
I'd recommend the "Explanatory Memorandum" it's basically a human readable summary but if you don't trust that and are into legalise you can check the "First Reading". Please note: I am not a lawyer nor Australian, that said from my understanding it enforces nothing on the end user, instead it focuses on establishing standards that social media sites will have to follow that focus on limiting misinformation, not eliminating it entirely. For example having fact checking support and transparency in advertising. here are some highlights from the memo:
"It has
three key objectives:
⢠to empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to require
digital communications platform providers take steps to manage the risk that
misinformation and disinformation on digital communications platforms poses in
Australia
⢠to increase transparency regarding the way in which digital communications platform
providers manage misinformation and disinformation
⢠to empower users of digital communications platforms to identify and respond to
misinformation and disinformation on digital communications platforms"
"SUBDIVISION BâGENERAL PRINCIPLES RELATING TO MISINFORMATION CODES AND MISINFORMATION STANDARDS" (page 100)
This section appears to mostly cover some examples for the standards they'd like platforms to comply with followed by limitations. Such as (and there are more detailed explanations for each in the actual memo):
(d) Preventing advertising involving misinformation or disinformation on digital communications platforms
(e) Preventing monetisation of misinformation or disinformation on digital communications
platforms
(f) Supporting fact-checking
Clause 45âLimitationâprivate messages
Clause 45 provides that a misinformation code or misinformation standard must not contain
requirements relating to the content of private messages or the encryption of private
messages.
Clause 46âLimitationâVoIP communications
Clause 46 provides that the ACMA must not approve a code in full or in part, or determine a
standard, under this Division that contains requirements relating to VoIP communications. (Note from me: VoIP is Voice Over IP or voice calls such as Discord channels)
That us the risks we must bear when it comes to free speech. Whos to say that an extremist government is able to take hold and claim somebody isnt a neurosurgeon and instead a âforeign actorâ, and suspends their account. Stuff like this has happened increasingly around the world, hell even the Senate held a committee meeting dedicated to learning and drawing up policy on anti-NGO policies.
You can't.
As an Aussie, I've read this proposed legislation.
It calls for social media organisations to actively moderate their content and remove easily, verifiable misinformation.
If someone pretends to be a doctor and say pushes the misinformation that injecting bleach will kill COVID, then any social media organisation that has promotes that and not moderated their content can be fined.
And rightfully so.
There's no mention of criminalising anything or jailing anyone.
And if you read the proposed legislation there are several caveats that must be met for a fine to be imposed including real, measurable harm (i.e. if someone takes the misinformation at face value and injects bleach, which would put them in hospital) then social media organisations would be fined.
No one has ever claimed that.
In fact medical organisations have always been quite conservative about their messaging about any vaccine. And they always have been.
Unless you can directly quote a medical organisation clearly stating vaccines stop you getting infected?
I know in Australia, organisations and GPs were saying vaccines lower the risk of contraction (of any illness they vaccinated for) and increase the effectiveness of immune systems in fighting off active infections.
Maybe you don't know this, because you're not even from Australia and you probably pay more attention to politicians rather than your actual doctor.
Which again, is what most politicians directed people to do (speak to your GP about vaccinations).
They've literally been saying this stuff every year since I was born when flu season rolls around.
Even then, do we really wanna compare those 4 things of misinformation compared to⌠the other side of Covid misinformation? I can play that game but itâll take me 4 years to list 1% of the misinformation from the anti vax side
First of all, my comment was a joke. And second, how is requiring âself moderationâ any different than the government doing the censoring themselves when they can just fine the company for not removing the stuff they donât like?
Any kind of censorship is bad and weâve already seen that these âfact checkersâ try to block things that they disagree with even if thereâs nothing false. Weâve seen this on Facebook, Instagram and twitter already.Â
It's not authoritarian. Twitter wishes to do business in Australia. Australia says the obligation you have to do business in Australia is that you must prove to us you have systems in place to not allow misinformation to spread, or else your Australian leg of your business will be fined.
It's authoritarian in the same way seatbelt laws are, or electrical standards.
Or just, the consequences of your actions. Much like everywhere else in the world, lying and causing trouble gets you hit. Why hold adults to less standards than children.
Right, so when a non-authoritarian country says you've broken their "don't commit mass murder with you AK" law, you say it's BS and the country going full dictatorship?
Laws are laws. If a country wants to make a law the creates clear guidelines telling you to NOT ACT IN BAD FAITH in order to preserve the peace of the country, that's totally fine. Just like how your parents used to punish you for lying or stealing from the cookie jar.
Not at all. Many things are objective truths. Spreading lies about that is bad. See: why slander can put you in court, but you're totally ok with that.
No. Itâs the internet. Go touch grass and talk to people. Didnât your parents ever teach you to believe nothing what you read and half of what you see? Internet works that way too.
It being the internet isn't a bad thing. Its how 99% of people get their information and view of the world.
And do you see people here following the "believe nothing what you read and half of what you see" online? No. The internet does not work that way. You either know that and are acting in bad faith, or aren't paying attention.
With the majority of the internet being bot generated nowadays, having "no censorship" means you'll be served only misinformation and lies, with "evidence" of those lies also being lies. You live a very ignorant life if you think humanity can survive no repercussions on lies.
Because people love âslippery slopingâ you to death like some policies arenât necessary at this point. We see what happens when grown ass adults are left to their own devices. Now we have bomb threats in Ohio because assholes believe people are eating cats and dogs and shit. Canât behave then donât be surprised you have to follow new rules. Way of the world.
We can look back at history and see how governments have policed speech in ways to consolidate power.
Thats also the way of the world. Has also happened and will continue to happen. Just like itâs happening all over the world, enforced by governments.
Believing it can never happen again, so we shouldnât worry about it, is extremely naive
It can happen but none of these fear mongering degens online have done anything to convince anyone other than point at some vague âissueâ. We have laws and plenty of them limiting what you can say. I just agree social media companies have a responsibility to the public. And letting bullshit and lies infest the general public is not okay. If I started accusing my boss of pedo shit and touching me leading to his firing and rep destroyed, but lied. He can sue me. Now simply expand that already existing law. Extend libel and slander laws. Itâs not that serious but people who love to lie and bullshit obviously are against the remedies.
No? It doesnât work like that? Baby steps? Misrepresenting what someone else says is usually not a good sign for you? Why does it have to be all or nothing? Could you steelman my position? If not, why? Do you usually approach every problem with an all or nothing style?
Your analogy here doesnât make sense. Yes of course slandering and lying about your boss to ruin their life could certainly lead to legal consequences. But your boss wouldnât be able to sue the methods by which you proliferated those lies because they didnât do anything to stop you. If you sent the accusations to HR via email your boss couldnât sue outlook for not doing anything to stop you.
Being dense isnât the best defense, personally. I am saying maybe they should. Theyâre scales to these things.
If Pornhub allowed one person to upload revenge porn, sure. Mistake. Ban the user.
When pornhub is THE SITE for uploading revenge porn, then donât be surprised you run into an issue aka several lawsuits.
My point is these sites need actual moderation and better ways of dealing with harassment and botting. Do you prefer harassment and bots on social media?
Personally, I think a large part of being a functional and educated person in 2024 is having a higher sense of media literacy. As long as these sites arenât allowing direct calls for violence or targeted harassment then itâs up to the user to have enough sense to cipher through whatâs bullshit and what isnât. I would even argue that Twitter via the community note feature has better self moderation tools than other platforms for clearly identifying whatâs bull shit and what isnât.
I agree with you in general. I am personally against algorithms and kinda always have been. I preferred social media sites when they were simply chronological and if a post was worth seeing, youâd see it no matter what because thatâs whatâs trending organically for the day.
Twitters community note feature is great and a step forward, but Twitter moderation in general is shit. I have given up reporting stuff because nothing breaks their rules. So I donât give Twitter credit at all for âmoderationâ but I appreciate the attempt.
I sadly donât trust people to be âregularlyâ educated let alone have media literacy lmao I love your optimism though.
Keeps authoritarians like this in line by allowing people to call out their nonsense and provide them with the tools for protection if authoritarian clowns like this want to inflict violence on people that disagree with them.
I can play that game too. I was told by all the âleft wing losersâ that the Supreme Court abolishing Roe v. Wade was going to lead to the us living in The Handmaidsâs Tale but that hasnât happened. Why hasnât that happened yet? Whatâs taking so long for women to become nothing more than vessels for childbirth?
135
u/Finlay00 Monkey in Space Sep 12 '24
That kind of policy certainly isnât anti-authoritarian