Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday April 17 2019, @05:49AM   Printer-friendly
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?


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:14AM (93 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:14AM (#830867)

    Who is paying for someone to be awake at 3am to curate and remove this stuff?

    Trillion dollar market cap companies can't make this happen?

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by isostatic on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:36AM (58 children)

      by isostatic (365) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:36AM (#830878) Journal

      Youtube could easily afford to pay for two people to watch every item uploaded. They should be held accountable for the content, just like tv stations are.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:40AM (19 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:40AM (#830880)

        This is exactly the point of this law.
        Youtube and FB can, you can't.

        The other point is, define abhorrent.
        "we the white Australian are being boycotted and replaced by Muslim immigrants" can easily pass for abhorrent on two counts, white supremacism and religious hate. Therefore censored. But, what if it's the truth?

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:50AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:50AM (#830889)

          "we the white Australian are being ..." what???.... boycotted? What the hell does that even mean?

          But, what if it's the truth?

          But, what if it doesn't?

          • (Score: 1) by sorokin on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:11AM

            by sorokin (187) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:11AM (#830896)

            For most information we don't know if it is correct or not. That's the point.

            > But, what if it doesn't?
            Should be ban publication of all information that can potentially be incorrect? Or should we perhaps introduce a special agency (may I suggest to call it Ministry of Truth?) that decides what is true and what is not?

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:55AM (13 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:55AM (#830894) Journal

          And that is the reason for the courts, and why the actual law does not specify a timescale. What might be deemed a 'reasonable' timescale for Youtube or FB could be very different from that expected of a small or individual's website.

          If companies are making huge amounts of money running their site then they should be able to afford better protection measures than a private individual who is running a site for the fun of it. The latter is not excused compliance, but I also don't believe that a court would expect him to provide a 24/7 response time for such requests.

          As I have pointed out elsewhere - the 1 hour time being quoted is entirely speculative on the part of the news source and based on a comment by the Attorney General who was referring to FB specifically. The is no specific timescale in the new law and it will be for the courts to decide what is 'reasonable' and 'expeditious' in each case.

          • (Score: 4, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday April 17 2019, @10:45AM (1 child)

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @10:45AM (#830951) Journal

            And that is the reason for the courts, and why the actual law does not specify a timescale.

            Hmm, yes, except Australia only has kangaroo courts.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:20PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:20PM (#830996)

              Nah, mate, only paddocks, courts are high maintenance.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:52PM (7 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:52PM (#831012) Journal

            And that is the reason for the courts, and why the actual law does not specify a timescale. What might be deemed a 'reasonable' timescale for Youtube or FB could be very different from that expected of a small or individual's website.

            So why isn't "never" considered an appropriate timescale? I think this is particularly vile in light of freedom of speech. Even if the law somehow never gets abused directly, it still mandates that every content provider of this sort have censorship apparatus in place that can be invoked by another party very quickly.

            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:10PM (6 children)

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:10PM (#831023) Journal

              The courts might decide that 'Never' is appropriate sometimes. You are making assumptions.

              And I suspect that you are an American? Your views on freedom of speech are not shared by other countries, and your laws regarding freedom of speech are not applicable in other countries. And while we are discussing your freedom of speech, what about Assange? An Australian who is accussed of committing a crime outside of the USA. but the US does not support his right to speak of things that have embarrassed the US Govt, They seem determined to enforce US 'justice' to everyone no matter who or where, even those to whom US laws do not apply. The information was provided by Manning, who has been punished. That is a strange view of freedom of speech, in my view. If Assange had been a Russian living in Russia, would the US still be trying to extradite him with any expectation of success?

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:54PM (1 child)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:54PM (#831058) Journal

                The courts might decide that 'Never' is appropriate sometimes. You are making assumptions.

                "May". That's not in the law now (I doubt the enforcers will agree that "never" is a reasonable period of time).

                • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:58PM

                  by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:58PM (#831229) Journal
                  There is no time limit specified in the law at present - so never is not excluded either, although I accept that it is most unlikely.
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 17 2019, @05:54PM (3 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @05:54PM (#831182) Journal

                Your views on freedom of speech are not shared by other countries, and your laws regarding freedom of speech are not applicable in other countries.

                Flat Earthers have views on the shape of the Earth which is not shared by others too.

                At some point, you have to decide what's important to you, laws or speaking your mind without concern that some bureaucrat or personal enemy will find a way to punish you for that and/or hide your speech. Here, freedom of speech is an issue no matter what the rules of the land are. The law supposedly targets "abhorrent" content. But what happens down the road when your criticism of a government policy becomes the abhorrent content? What happens when the forum you wrote your criticism decides to excise your inconvenient words using the excuse that it violates their terms of service (even though you aren't)?

                If you live in a society that you would like to become and stay a democracy, then you need really broad freedom of speech even if the "viewpoint" is otherwise.

                • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:07PM (2 children)

                  by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:07PM (#831239) Journal
                  IMHO, most of Europe and elsewhere has laws regarding freedom of speech which are less permissive in specific instances than the US law. There are already laws covering hate speech, incitement to commit various offences, supporting terrorism and others. It doesn't mean that those nations want to change their laws, or that democracy in those countries will collapse in the future. Freedom of speech is a spectrum but no nation on earth that I am aware of permits free speech entirely, not even the USA. Knowing and speaking about specific information can be restricted to a subset of the community. e,g. classified information etc
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:22PM (1 child)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:22PM (#831254) Journal

                    It doesn't mean that those nations want to change their laws, or that democracy in those countries will collapse in the future.

                    Those nations aren't Australia. Australia has passed this law, indicating intent to change laws on free speech. Further, it's worse than most such laws because it mandates the creation of censorship apparatus which can then be reused - we already have problems with that. This sort of thing does have the power in conjunction with other underminings to collapse democracy.

                    Freedom of speech is a spectrum but no nation on earth that I am aware of permits free speech entirely, not even the USA.

                    Even North Korea is on that spectrum. It permits some forms of speech after all. It's not a valuable observation to make.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:50AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:50AM (#831444)

                      You are Australian?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:50PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:50PM (#831219)

            " protection measures"

            protection from what, you authoritarian fuck? freedom of speech?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:16AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:16AM (#831539)

              Protection against reckless speech, you dimwit.
              Even the mighty US has such protection, see "shouting fire in a crowded theater just for lulz".
              Other countries may consider reckless as they see fit to their conditions.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:47AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:47AM (#831441)

            How long will a small site last after being taken to court repeatedly?

        • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @08:58AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @08:58AM (#830932)

          Emphasis mine:

          "we the white Australian are being boycotted and replaced by Muslim immigrants" can easily pass for abhorrent on two counts, white supremacism and religious hate. Therefore censored. But, what if it's the truth?

          It is true that that statement is supremacism and religious hate. What's your point?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:53PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:53PM (#831224)

            because believing you have the right to exist is supremacy. also, not wanting muzrats around is just good common sense.

        • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:36PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:36PM (#831042)

          It isn't, aaaand you're a racist.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:27AM (37 children)

        by darkfeline (1030) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:27AM (#830901) Homepage

        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)

          by isostatic (365) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @08:06AM (#830919) Journal

          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)

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @11:29AM (#830962) Journal

            want to top up their wage on their commute

            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

              by isostatic (365) on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:19AM (#831540) Journal

              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)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @08:09AM (#830920) Journal

          Who is paying for someone to be awake at 3am to curate and remove this stuff?

          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)

            by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @08:16AM (#830923) Journal

            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)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @08:22AM (#830926) Journal

              Unless they are Too Big to Fail (tm)

              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

                by coolgopher (1157) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @10:55AM (#830956)

                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)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:53AM (#831445)

                Ardani?

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:59AM

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:59AM (#831448) Journal

                  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)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:53PM (#831014) Journal
            We didn't want those jerbs anyway!
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:51PM (25 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:51PM (#831055) Journal

            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.

            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

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:52PM (#831056) Journal
              I forgot the *IAA censorship requirements for YouTube videos. US is in on that game too.
            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 17 2019, @04:03PM (23 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @04:03PM (#831105) Journal

              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?

              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)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:04PM (#831185) Journal

                I don't know about you, but I do.

                Why you?

                My view is that it is completely unjustified.

                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'.

                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

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:11AM (#831417) Journal

                  I don't know about you, but I do.

                  Why you?

                  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.

                  And push technology of the day

                  It's still push today, one can't pull a content into existence, someone needs to create the content and push it first.

                  ... might be great for relatively unified viewpoints (what is the value of that supposed to be again?), but also unified lies and unified blindness.

                  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)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:28PM (#831203) Journal

                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'.

                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)

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:15AM (#831422) Journal

                  What happens if we pass this law, have this widespread censorship,

                  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)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @02:13AM (#831464) Journal

                    Unless, of course, we don't get to have widespread censorship

                    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)

                      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @02:29AM (#831469) Journal

                      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)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:06AM (#831510) Journal
                        Point is that we have a mandate for creating and using anti-democratic tools unlike hammers and firearms.
                        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:45AM (5 children)

                          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:45AM (#831518) Journal

                          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)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:17AM (#831522) Journal

                            Point is that the use of hammers and firearms have beneficial or deleterious effects

                            Mandating censorship on all media and community forums doesn't have beneficial effects unless one is trying to control the population.

                            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.

                            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)

                              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:27AM (#831529) Journal

                              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.

                              I strongly disagree.

                              Your right.

                              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).

                              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)

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:35AM (#831532) Journal

                                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.

                                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.

                                A single counterexample is suffice to prove a statement false.

                                Then where is this counterexample?

                                Oh. On top of slippery slope, you are adding the Nirvana fallacy and, perhaps, moving goal posts one. Suit yourself.

                                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)

                                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:51AM (#831546) Journal

                                  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.

                                  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".

                                  So then the question is what other beneficial effects are there to mandating censorship tools on all such platforms?

                                  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.

                                  Then where is this counterexample?

                                  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

                                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:31PM (#831617) Journal

                                    Ability is not absolute, checks and balances exists.

                                    In other words, we're going to ignore the abuses of these policies because the courts might block it.

                                    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.

                                    Second part of the first sentence contradicts the first part. "How to implement" doesn't negate "must implement".

                                    I tabled Germany - still a democracy by the definition of the term, even if not a "full democracy" based on your Nirvana-perfection taste.

                                    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.

                                    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).

                                    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)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @09:39PM (#831327)

                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

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @10:43PM (#831366) Journal

                  So you're an authoritarian,

                  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)

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:57AM (#831447) Journal

                  Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right.

                  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.

                  I'm not sure why you feel it's acceptable for speech to be banned based on vague, subjective standards.

                  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)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:09AM (#831512) Journal

                    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.

                    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.

                    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.

                    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)

                      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @05:38AM (#831517) Journal

                      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.

                      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.

                      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.

                      Until those tools developed for oppression in other countries start getting used in your country against you

                      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)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:18AM (#831523) Journal

                        Qualify your statement with a "for me" too and I won't object to your choice.

                        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)

                          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:21AM (#831526) Journal

                          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)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:29AM (#831531) Journal
                            I'm still going to oppose this sort of crap because it does have ways of crossing borders.
                            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:37AM (1 child)

                              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @06:37AM (#831533) Journal

                              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

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:25PM (#831615) Journal

                                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.

                                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.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:42AM (28 children)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:42AM (#830881) Journal

      SoylentNews is not a multi-million dollar company. But we are accessible to Australians, and could conceivably be covered by this law.

      But the summary is inaccurate and misleading. The actual article says:

      Social media and content platforms could have less than an hour to identify and start removing “abhorrent” video, audio or still images from their sites under “world-first” laws passed in Australia. [Emphasis mine. The time limit is speculation on the part of the news source.]

      and

      Both individuals and companies now face huge fines and/or jail time if they do not identify offensive content “within a reasonable time” and start removing it “expeditiously”.

      Neither of those time frames is specifically defined, and it would likely be left to the courts to set some sort of precedent.

      We are receiving more and more submissions which have been distorted by the submitter to reflect their own feelings and views, often posted as AC. I know it is not the done thing - but we all need to read TFA before making any comments. And we editors will need to up our game.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Coward, Anonymous on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:51AM (16 children)

        by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:51AM (#830890) Journal

        Could we maybe mod stories up and down? Or maybe this has already been discussed...

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:53AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:53AM (#830893) Journal

          Could we maybe mod stories up and down? Or maybe this has already been discussed...

          Attempted as a topic (yes, I would like for it to happen), never a subject of S/N-wide consultation, not even an effing poll.
          Personally, I feel sorta disappointed, but I'll survive.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:56AM (14 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:56AM (#830917) Journal

          If the summary is inaccurate or just plain wrong, then the associated comments are likely to be also skewed unless the person making the comment made the effort to actually read TFA. Thus it follows that the moderation will be based on inaccurate information. There is no requirement in the Australian law to remove unacceptable data from the internet within 1 hour. The title is wrong, the summary is wrong, and the 1 hour is based on a speculative comment made by the Attorney General whilst referring to FB in particular.

          The courts will have to decide in each case what is 'reasonable' and what is 'expeditious'.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @10:46AM (7 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @10:46AM (#830952)

            If the summary is inaccurate or just plain wrong, then the associated comments are likely to be also skewed unless the person making the comment made the effort to actually read TFA.

            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)

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @11:19AM (#830960) Journal

              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)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:30PM (#831001)

                We are currently very stretched and the 2 separate checks per story are not always being done before a story is released.

                So why refusing help from others that can't stand as editors but occasionally can signal fishy things?

                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.

                Yeah, right. It's the firehose or nothing, no other solutions can be imagined or tried.

                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.

                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 janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:19PM (#831028) Journal

                  So why refusing help from others that can't stand as editors but occasionally can signal fishy things?

                  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)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:20AM (#831541)

                    It is your choice that you cannot stand as an editor - sign up and you can.

                    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

                      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:29AM (#831542) Journal
                      That is undoubtedly our loss - but keep on commenting because every comment is a contribution to the site too!
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:55AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:55AM (#831446)

              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

                by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:50AM (#831545) Journal

                Yeah, just vote it up or down and add comments before it is published

                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....

          • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:09PM (5 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:09PM (#831187) Journal

            The courts will have to decide in each case what is 'reasonable' and what is 'expeditious'.

            No, the people making the regulatory procedures will do that - the Attorney General's people in other words. The courts will have to decide - for the cases which actually make their way to the courts - whether those regulations meet the criteria of the law. If the AG is saying such things, it's a good sign that the regulation will be that way.

            • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:52AM (4 children)

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:52AM (#831547) Journal
              Disagree - it is the courts that apply the law.
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:35PM (3 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:35PM (#831623) Journal

                Disagree - it is the courts that apply the law.

                You can disagree all you want. It's simply not true. Courts rule only on matters that reach the courts. Regulators are the ones applying the law circularly because they're the regulators. Even when courts make rulings, it'll be the regulators applying those rulings to the regulations.

                • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:49PM (2 children)

                  by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:49PM (#831632) Journal
                  Must be a US thing then, it is courts that apply the law here.
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 18 2019, @02:08PM (1 child)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @02:08PM (#831642) Journal

                    it is courts that apply the law here.

                    Sorry, again, but that's not true. There are two tests of the matter to show this. First, while courts decide what is proper, that is interpretation not application in the States. I doubt Australian lingo deviates so much that they have such different meanings for those terms. The thing is the Attorney-General's department also can decide what is proper - their opinion can be overruled by the courts, but they still engage in the practice. It's no difference to the end user whether the regulatory point in question came from the courts or AG, unless they plan to contest it in the courts. Otherwise the costs of compliance and not are the same no matter who shaped the regulation.

                    And when these things make it to the courts, the AG's office will be there to defend their interpretation of the law.

                    Second, enforcement of the regulation is strictly left to the AG. Courts won't be sending you pulldown orders or verifying that your censorship procedures are reasonably timely.

                    So my view remains unchanged. The AG engages in the same activities as the court, they just have lower precedent. So by that metric they are applying the law just as well. But then we come to the real point, namely, that applying law is actually the generation and enforcement of regulation, the domain of the AG department.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 18 2019, @02:11PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @02:11PM (#831645) Journal
                      Typo:

                      that applying law is actually the generation and enforcement of regulation, the latter which is the domain of the AG department.

      • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:23PM

        by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:23PM (#830997) Journal

        But the Attorney General of Australia, the person who gets to decide which companies will be prosecuted for what abhorent videos are and how long they can last (by his standards until the courts give some guidance) felt as reported in TFA that the Christchurch shooting video having lasted for one hour before being pulled was too long. This despite TFA noting that none of the 200 people who watched the livestream reported it to FB at all. That's not a could, but rather a strong indicator that If Only This Had Occurred In Australia that this law would have been applied to it.

        I think there's a strong case that the submitter was very much following the gist of the article and what the officials who will be attempting to enforce this law feel.

        In other news, Australia's Attorney General is a tool who doesn't understand much but is riding the fear and hysteria train to grab as much power as possible. Film at 11.

        --
        This sig for rent.
      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:43PM (9 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:43PM (#831009) Journal

        If SN received a removal demand, could it guarantee to remove content within 24 months?

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:37PM (5 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:37PM (#831044) Journal

          We would probably have to press a panic button to get someone who could remove comments - it is a power only available to a few individuals who might, or might not, be quickly available. We might be able to remove content within a few hours.

          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 17 2019, @04:40PM (4 children)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @04:40PM (#831136) Journal

            Within 24 months it would probably be possible to develop or improve a web based interface for removing comments.

            --
            People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:30PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:30PM (#831262)

              Easier to just make a regex command I'd think

              /[Runaway1956\ Jmorris\ VLM\ Ethanol\-Fueled\ BOT\ Linkdude64\ crafoo]/

              there is a good start!

              • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:54AM

                by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:54AM (#831548) Journal

                Aristarchus will be pleased to have been left out of that regex!

              • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:35PM

                by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:35PM (#831622) Journal

                I must object. I have a feeling of being left out somehow.

                --
                People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:12PM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:12PM (#831605) Homepage Journal

              No, it wouldn't. I'd neither write nor merge a any code doing so.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Wednesday April 17 2019, @05:50PM (2 children)

          by Oakenshield (4900) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @05:50PM (#831180)

          If SN received a removal demand, could it guarantee to remove content within 24 months?

          Unless SN has a business presence in Australia or is hosted there, I fail to see what effect a demand would have. If it was refused, would they stamp their foot a little harder?

          • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:13PM (1 child)

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:13PM (#831246) Journal
            We can happily ignore Australian demands, but we have to consider our response to a demand from US authorities too. However, just ignoring demands is likely to get the site blocked by those countries. Hey, we have had staff in Australia, probably still do!
            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 18 2019, @03:57AM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday April 18 2019, @03:57AM (#831497) Homepage Journal

              Thankfully, we also have a community that know what VPN stands for. Which is a good thing because if OZ sends us a nastygram, I'm going to flatly refuse, as an individual, to do a damned thing about it unless the community just wants to see how many ways I can think of to tell them to fuck off, eat a bag of dicks, etc...

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by Demena on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:05AM (3 children)

      by Demena (5637) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:05AM (#830895)

      There is no "3am" on the Internet, no downtime. It is always 3am somewhere.

      • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:43AM (1 child)

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:43AM (#830909) Journal

        It's only 3am once a day wherever the site is hosted. I do not stay up each night simply to read what is posted on my personal site. Youtube, FB et al have hosted their servers all around the world, they can afford the pay for more staff in the appropriate tz than, say, our own SN. We have no paid staff and host our servers in the USA. It is only 3am once a day for our servers, but I haven't got a clue where they are physically located.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:36PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:36PM (#831625) Journal

        There must be a 3am. A safe time when a system can be physically powered down briefly in order to replace the SSD drives with newer NVMe drives to reduce vibration and noise.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 18 2019, @03:53AM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday April 18 2019, @03:53AM (#831494) Homepage Journal

      You think all social media sites are trillion dollar corporations? What do you think you're posting on?

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:43AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:43AM (#830882)

    Good luck on collecting those fines overseas, Australia. You might just want to pull your plug from the internet.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:29AM (5 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:29AM (#830902) Journal

      No need to collect them overseas. In the good tradition promoted by US:
      1. trigger an Interpol warrant and extradition for the CEO-s
      2. launch a suit in Australian courts and freeze the assets of the companies operating in Australia
      3. on infringement, block facebook/tweeter/etc access the same way TPB is blocked. This way, maybe more Australians will become internet-savvy and able to avoid the block.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 18 2019, @04:02AM (4 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday April 18 2019, @04:02AM (#831499) Homepage Journal

        Poor Deucalion. We'll miss him. He won't be the first Brit to get transported to OZ to serve a sentence though.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 18 2019, @04:11AM (3 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 18 2019, @04:11AM (#831503) Journal

          Poor Deucalion. We'll miss him. He won't be the first Brit to get transported to OZ to serve a sentence though.

          You managed to find a sacrificial lamb, I see.
          No worries, mate, she'll be apples.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:14PM (2 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:14PM (#831607) Homepage Journal

            He's the CEO. You said go after the CEOs.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @11:26PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @11:26PM (#831953)

              Yes, got it the first time.
              The only questions still opened: does S/N pay him fair? One would expect double salary for a double role, so... 2x$0, right?

(1) 2