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This discussion has been archived.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.
BEWARE! People acting under the influence of human nature.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @10:46AM (7 children)
Without any mean to give feedback on a submitted story before publishing, one won't be able to do anything even if one reads TFA and would be willing to signal the skew in advance.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @11:19AM (4 children)
It is the editor's role to check the accuracy of summaries against the quoted material. We are currently very stretched and the 2 separate checks per story are not always being done before a story is released. This is the reason that some stories are slipping through the net and having to be changed after release. If you feel strongly about this issue, please consider joining the editorial team and helping out.
It is not (currently) the community's responsibility to check material before it is released. The provision of a "Firehose" facility has been discussed and considered, and it was felt that such a feature could lead to stories being suppressed by malicious actors. By all means raise the issue again if you feel it is now necessary or even desirable, but with our limited staff the software updates will not be possible for several months or more.
If community members read TFA and not just the summary this would also be a non-issue. The discrepancy between the source and the summary would be identified by the first couple of readers and could be flagged in the comments immediately.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:30PM (3 children)
So why refusing help from others that can't stand as editors but occasionally can signal fishy things?
Yeah, right. It's the firehose or nothing, no other solutions can be imagined or tried.
There is an issue: the cacophony of trolling has support just from the very beginning, TFS is trolling.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:19PM (2 children)
By all means raise the issue again if you feel it is now necessary or even desirable, but with our limited staff the software updates will not be possible for several months or more.
It is your choice that you cannot stand as an editor - sign up and you can. We do not allow ACs to control what people can read and what they cannot, just as they cannot moderate. It is your decision.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:20AM (1 child)
It is the availability of spare time to dedicate to it, even more the lack of predictability that stops me offering support as an editor.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:29AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:55AM (1 child)
Yeah, just vote it up or down and add comments before it is published
Oops. Forgot this isn't Pipedot
Carry on.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:50AM
This is exactly how shills, trolls (and some ACs) could prevent topics that they do not like from ever reaching the front page. We should be prepared to discuss all topics that are appropriate to this site in an honest way whether we support the statements in the TFS/TFA or not. Commenting before a story is released is hardly wise and partly pointless because the story might still be edited significantly before it actually hits the front page. Furthermore, the editors still have to weed out those submissions that are not related to STEM or other topics that we occasionally cover, remove duplicates of stories already released (and sometimes have been covered repeatedly or many months before) and other story management tasks that we are responsible for.
The ideal solution is, I believe, more editors but that is a perennial problem with a site such as ours.
The most recent story I can find on Pipedot is dated 2017. Unfortunately, it didn't work out too well for them, did it? Good looking site though....