SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Wednesday April 17 2019, @05:49AM
from the waiting-until-they-try-to-legislate-"abhorent"-text dept.
from the waiting-until-they-try-to-legislate-"abhorent"-text dept.
Australia has rammed through another law requiring “abhorrent” video, audio or still images to be removed within an hour. This will apply to content providers both in and out of Australia as long as the content is available to Australians. Individuals and companies face jail time and/or huge fines if the content is not removed "within a reasonable time". If the content is found to be hosted in Australia then the Australian government must be alerted. This is yet another knee jerk reaction to the NZ shootings which were streamed live online.
Who is paying for someone to be awake at 3am to curate and remove this stuff?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Australia Passes Law Requiring Social Media to Remove Content Within one Hour
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 114 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Either I'm dead or my watch has stopped.
-- Groucho Marx's last words
(Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:27AM (37 children)
I wish you did some basic math before making that absurd claim.
300 hours are uploaded to YouTube per minute. So that's 18000 hours per hour.
I have no idea what a video reviewer would be paid. They would have to be somewhat qualified so not just hiring from an Indian call center. Let's say minimum wage in CA, so 11 USD an hour, plus 200% worth of benefits (health care is expensive, also free food, 401k, and miscellany) so 33 USD an hour. Times two people would be 1,000,000 USD an hour.
360.25 days a year times 24 hours a day is 8766, so this would cost 10,414,008,000 USD a year. Google (not YouTube!) made 9.5 billion USD in net profits last year.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2, Disagree) by isostatic on Wednesday April 17 2019, @08:06AM (2 children)
300 hours a minute is 160 million hours a year.
At £20 an hour which isn't a bad fee for an unskiled freelancer in europe who may want to top up their wage on their commute that's £3.2b. Double it is £6b.
Alphabet's revenue last year was £100b.
6% of revenue, it's simply a cost of doing business.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @11:29AM (1 child)
But how will companies guarantee that they will always have somebody 'commuting' to look at the feeds and able to respond within any specific timescale? Who will do it on the weekends, public holidays etc? How will different individuals know the standards regarding acceptable and unacceptable material? How would they be held responsible if they claim that they have viewed and passed 'x' videos which subsequently turn out to be unacceptable? It will have to be more formalised than this, I suspect, to provide the level of service being demanded/expected.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:19AM
Same way uber does. Higher rates ifthetes high demand. Charge makers more to get priority moderation.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 17 2019, @08:09AM (33 children)
Psssttt... Let me tell you a secret.
I don't know exactly how the things happen in US, but in Australia the (big or small) corporations are required to obey the law ... wait for it... with no guaranteed right to profit.
Too tough an economic regime for some pussy hundred-blllions corporations to operate? Well, cry my a river.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Wednesday April 17 2019, @08:16AM (4 children)
I don't know exactly how the things happen in US, but in Australia the (big or small) corporations are required to obey the law ... wait for it... with no guaranteed right to profit.
Unless they are Too Big to Fail (tm)
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 17 2019, @08:22AM (3 children)
Haven't happened (yet) in Australia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Touché) by coolgopher on Wednesday April 17 2019, @10:55AM
Oh I dunno. The amount of life support going to coal at the moment...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:53AM (1 child)
Ardani?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:59AM
Adani, yes.
Not exactly a "too big to fail" (since it hasn't even started), but having the same bitter taste.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:53PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:19PM
Cool, take those away; under 1k jobs [mashable.com], mostly markedroids [facebook.com].
Given the tax avoidance on revenue realized in Australia [zdnet.com] it may be even a benefit
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:51PM (25 children)
Now that I feel like providing a lengthier reply, let us note that it is trivial to pass laws that make businesses too expensive to operate. The lawmakers should be acting in the public interest as well. Driving businesses out of business usually is not such.
Here, it's particularly abusive since the cost is imposed while actually harming the freedom of the society in question. Do we really want a world where every internet forum where you can speak publicly is forced to create and use a censorship mechanism for the country it operates in? Please let us recall that part of the reason big companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter can censor now is because they were required to install censorship mechanisms by the EU. That helped make the business case for more arbitrary, non-mandatory censorship.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:52PM
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 17 2019, @04:03PM (23 children)
I don't know about you, but I do.
Used to be this way before the 'Internet global village' phenomenon and the world not only didn't end but was less polarised and 'triggered'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:04PM (1 child)
Why you?
My view is that it is completely unjustified.
They didn't have the technology. And push technology of the day might be great for relatively unified viewpoints (what is the value of that supposed to be again?), but also unified lies and unified blindness.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:11AM
Rephrase your question, please. It so terse, it became ambiguous of what exactly are you asking.
In particular, my intention was to point various opinion may exists. The use of 'we' (in the 'do we want... etc') is loaded with the assumption all need to share the same opinion.
It's still push today, one can't pull a content into existence, someone needs to create the content and push it first.
Are you saying that the Germans, for which Nazi content is illegal even today, are automatically blind and believing a lie?
Or are you making a 'slippery slope' argument and you expect me to accept it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:28PM (10 children)
Reminds me of the propaganda for why Italy needed to have Mussolini in charge? He made the trains run on time. Even though he didn't [citylab.com]. It's common to find some little tidbit that tyranny does well, even if you have to lie a little.
What happens if we pass this law, have this widespread censorship, and still can't touch the problem you mentioned above? Such genies can't be stuffed back into their bottles easily.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:15AM (9 children)
Unless, of course, we don't get to have widespread censorship, it's not like this is necessarily the only outcome possible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 18 2019, @02:13AM (8 children)
We do have the widespread capability to censor mandated by law in Australia (and other places too). It's not a big jump from that to widespread censorship.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 18 2019, @02:29AM (7 children)
On the same line, we do have hammers that can be used to killing. It's not a big jump from that to widespread head-bashing-with-a-hammer.
Substitute for hammer: licensed firearms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:06AM (6 children)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:45AM (5 children)
Point is that the use of hammers and firearms have beneficial or deleterious effects in a society in depending so many factors that your "there's a small jump to that" is a gross simplification in the "slippery slope" argumentation.
E.g. after roughly 70 years, making Nazi-related content illegal in Germany haven't caused rampant censorship, abuses of power by the German government or failure of democracy there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:17AM (4 children)
Mandating censorship on all media and community forums doesn't have beneficial effects unless one is trying to control the population.
I strongly disagree. It's limited nature merely has resulted in limited failure of democracy, but that did happen. And there is both rampant censorship of that Nazi-related content as well as abuses of power against those who spoke such (which would be the limited failure).
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:27AM (3 children)
Mandating censorship on all media and community forums doesn't have beneficial effects unless one is trying to control the population.
Your burden to prove it.
A single counterexample is suffice to prove a statement false.
Your right.
Oh. On top of slippery slope, you are adding the Nirvana fallacy and, perhaps, moving goal posts one.
Suit yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:35AM (2 children)
First, I leave it as an exercise to the reader that mandating censorship on all such platforms allows for better control of the population through improving the ability to delete and hinder propagation of information that would undermine that control.
So then the question is what other beneficial effects are there to mandating censorship tools on all such platforms? I present as evidence that no one has managed to describe a benefit of any sort from this.
Then where is this counterexample?
I merely checked the boxes you presented. I guess one readily forgets that the censorship is both a failure of democracy and a readily abused power for authorities.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:51AM (1 child)
Ability is not absolute, checks and balances exists.
Furthermore, "ability" != "actual exercise of ability", so your homework is offering no base for "the democracy sky is falling if you are able to block my speech".
The law doesn't impose any tool, how those who fall under the incidence of this law are going to implement it is at their own choice. I.e. geo-blocking Australia is such a mean and 100% sure the Australian government isn't going to force them to provide services in Australia.
I tabled Germany - still a democracy by the definition of the term, even if not a "full democracy" based on your Nirvana-perfection taste.
I'd suggest you to satisfy your sense of entitlement to absolute freedom of speech by going to shout fire in a crowded theater just to demonstrate that your freedom must trump everything, see how it goes in the "fully democratic" USA (point: limits to free speech are already ubiquitous. The difference is how these limits are defined from one country/culture to another, and I posit there's no "one side fits all" in this regard).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:31PM
In other words, we're going to ignore the abuses of these policies because the courts might block it.
Second part of the first sentence contradicts the first part. "How to implement" doesn't negate "must implement".
Sorry, I don't buy it. It would be trivial for Germany to just not implement that censorship in the first place. So we have a failure in a democracy because someone expends effort to keep it there.
This is a great example of the Nirvana fallacy. Arguing that one shouldn't oppose frivolous and harmful constraints on free speech because free speech cannot be a perfect right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @09:39PM (9 children)
So you're an authoritarian, then? Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. I'm not sure why you feel it's acceptable for speech to be banned based on vague, subjective standards.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 17 2019, @10:43PM
False.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:57AM (7 children)
It's not absolute, though, is it? Not even with in the dear USofA.
In sorta chronological order, starting with 'shouting fire in a crowded theater when there's no fire' and ending with the scrubbing ISIS propaganda videos out of the internet.
The fact that the Australian judiciary is meant to be involved in what constitutes "abhorent speech" in Australia is a check/balance good enough for me.
I consider as good the fact that different people in different countries can define for themselves the way they want to live, without being forced to adopt, for example, "the American way" in all aspects of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:09AM (6 children)
An even better check/balance is to not have the government involved at all. Then it doesn't matter if the judiciary does its job or not.
Until those tools developed for oppression in other countries start getting used in your country against you. There are some things that are reprehensible even when they happen in other countries.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:38AM (5 children)
Qualify your statement with a "for me" too and I won't object to your choice.
Let it as an absolute (like in "always better without government") and I'll tell you in polite terms I disagree and we can let it there and spare us of wasting time.
Let's get it there and we'll see - there is no demonstrable necessity it will happen as such.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:18AM (4 children)
I don't care about your objection. I just care about being right and free.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:21AM (3 children)
I don't care about your dreams or delusions too. Let's keep it this way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:29AM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:37AM (1 child)
And I'm still going to oppose your crap because it already tries for a long time to adjust the rules of life in other countries with total disregard of self-determination and local traditional cultures.
Even more so that it does it with no qualms in using force against citizens [wikipedia.org] or countries [wikipedia.org].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:25PM
I think you have my culture confused with the culture that is imposing these censorship rules on Australia. We already can see who made the first move.