Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Wed Apr 24 06:46:50 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / It's time to nuke Australia
Rugian
Member
Thu Apr 04 10:14:28
They have lost the right to be considered a civilized nation and pose a direct threat to American constitutional liberties. This shithole needs to be removed from the planet.

----

Australia could jail social media execs for showing violence
By Rod McGuirk | Associated Press

Australia's Parliament passed legislation on Thursday that could imprison social media executives if their platforms stream real violence such as the New Zealand mosque shootings.

Critics warn that some of the most restrictive laws about online communication in the democratic world could have unforeseen consequences, including media censorship and reduced investment in Australia.

The conservative government introduced the bills in response to the March 15 attacks in Christchurch in which an Australian white supremacist apparently used a helmet-mounted camera to broadcast live on Facebook as he shot worshippers in the two mosques.

Australia's government rushed the legislation through the last two days that Parliament sits before elections are expected in May, dispensing with the usual procedure of a committee scrutinizing its content first.

"Together we must act to ensure that perpetrators and their accomplices cannot leverage online platforms for the purpose of spreading their violent and extreme propaganda — these platforms should not be weaponized for evil," Attorney General Christian Porter told Parliament while introducing the bill.

The opposition's spokesman on the attorney general portfolio, Mark Dreyfus, committed his center-left Labor Party to support the bill despite misgivings. If the Labor wins the election, the law would be reviewed by a parliamentary committee.

The law has made it a crime for social media platforms not to remove "abhorrent violent material" quickly. The crime would be punishable by three years in prison and a fine of 10.5 million Australian dollars ($7.5 million), or 10% of the platform's annual turnover, whichever is larger.

Abhorrent violent material is defined as acts of terrorism, murder, attempted murder, torture, rape and kidnapping. The material must be recorded by the perpetrator or an accomplice for the law to apply. Platforms anywhere in the world would face fines of up to AU$840,000 ($597,500) if they fail to notify Australian Federal Police if they are aware their service was streaming "abhorrent violent conduct" occurring in Australia.

Dreyfus described the bill as "clumsy and flawed," and the timetable to pass it as "ridiculous." Labor first saw the legislation late Monday.

The bill could potentially undermine Australia's security cooperation with the United States by requiring U.S. internet providers to share content data with Australian Federal Police in breach of U.S. law, Dreyfus said.

The Digital Industry Group Inc. — an association representing the digital industry in Australia including Facebook, Google and Twitter — said taking down abhorrent content was a "highly complex problem" that required consultation with a range of experts which the government had not done.

"This law, which was conceived and passed in five days without any meaningful consultation, does nothing to address hate speech, which was the fundamental motivation for the tragic Christchurch terrorist attacks," the group's managing director Sunita Bose said in a statement.

"This creates a strict internet intermediary liability regime that is out of step with the notice-and-takedown regimes in Europe and the United States, and is therefore bad for internet users as it encourages companies to proactively surveil the vast volumes of user-generated content being uploaded at any given minute," Bose added.

Arthur Moses, president of the Australian Law Council, the nation's top lawyers group, said the law could lead to media censorship and prevent whistleblowers from using social media to shine a light on atrocities because of social media companies' fear of prosecution.

"Media freedom and whistleblowing of atrocities here and overseas have been put at risk by the ill-informed livestream laws passed by the Federal Parliament," Moses said.

The penalties would be "bad for certainty and bad for business," which could scare off online business investment in Australia, Moses said.

Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox, a leading business advocate, said more time was required to ensure the law did not unnecessarily impinge on existing fundamental media rights and freedoms.

Scott Farquhar, co-founder of the Sydney-based software company Atlassian, predicted job losses in the technology industry.

"As of today, any person working at any company (globally) that allows users to upload videos or images could go to jail," Farquhar tweeted. "Guilty until proven innocent."

Fergus Hanson, head of the International Cyber Policy Center at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, saw problems in the legislation's definitions, including how long a company had to "expeditiously" remove offense material.

Facebook livestreamed the Christchurch massacre for 17 minutes without interruption before reacting. Facebook said it removed 1.5 million videos of the shootings during the first 24 hours afterward.

It was filmed by Brenton Harrison Tarrant, 28, whose video and writings included anti-Muslim views and detailed how he planned the attack. Tarrant is scheduled to appear in court Friday and will face 50 murder and 38 attempted murder charges, according to New Zealand police.

Executives of Facebook, Google, Twitter, internet service providers and Australian phone companies met Prime Minister Scott Morrison and three ministers last week to discuss social media regulation. Communications Minister Mitch Fifield said Facebook "did not present any immediate solutions to the issues arising out of the horror that occurred in Christchurch."

Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday. CEO Mark Zuckerberg used an op-ed in The Washington Post last week to invite a more active role by governments and regulators to deal the harmful online content.

"The rules governing the internet allowed a generation of entrepreneurs to build services that changed the world and created a lot of value in people's lives," Zuckerberg wrote. "It's time to update these rules to define clear responsibilities for people, companies and governments going forward."

Morrison wants to take the Australian law to a Group of 20 countries forum as a model for holding social media companies to account.

New Zealand's Justice Minister Andrew Little said his government had also made a commitment to review the role of social media and the obligations of the companies that provide the platforms. He said he had asked officials to look at the effectiveness of current hate speech laws and whether there were gaps that need to be filled.

Little said he didn't see any irony in that people were watching hearings into a bill that would place new restrictions on guns in real time on Facebook, the same platform the shooter used to broadcast the massacre.

"There's a world of difference, I think, between the exercise of a democratic function and a democratic institution like a national parliament, and some of the more toxic stuff that you see put out by individuals," he said.
Paramount
Member
Thu Apr 04 11:56:06
It's time to nuke Australia

They have lost the right to be considered a civilized nation and pose a direct threat to American constitutional liberties. This shithole needs to be removed from the planet.

- -


You know that it is illegal to call for genocide, Rugian?


18 U.S. Code § 1091. Genocide

(a)Basic Offense.—Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such—
(1) kills members of that group;
(2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;
(3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;
(4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;
(5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or
(6) transfers by force children of the group to another group;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b)Punishment for Basic Offense.—The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is—
(1) in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), where death results, by death or imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both; and
(2) a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case.
(c)Incitement Offense.—
Whoever directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(d)Attempt and Conspiracy.—
Any person who attempts or conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be punished in the same manner as a person who completes the offense.
(e)Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the offenses described in subsections (a), (c), and (d) if—
(1) the offense is committed in whole or in part within the United States; or
(2) regardless of where the offense is committed, the alleged offender is—
(A) a national of the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101));
(B) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101));
(C) a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States; or
(D) present in the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1091


Maybe Turtle Crawler could also be breaking this law if he doesn’t remove this thread fast enough.
Paramount
Member
Thu Apr 04 12:05:40
”Australia's Parliament passed legislation on Thursday that could imprison social media executives if their platforms stream real violence such as the New Zealand mosque shootings. ”


They should also jail those who are spreading these terrorist propaganda videos.
Rugian
Member
Thu Apr 04 12:16:11
Parafag,

Maybe someone as anti-Semitic as yourself shouldn't be so quick to call for mass censorship of the internet.
Paramount
Member
Thu Apr 04 12:42:27
Why do you want the terrorist’s videos, where they are murdering people, to be accessible on the internet where their propagana will reach millions of people?

Also, if a terrorist recorded a video while he murdered you, or your daughter, would you want that video to be spread on social media and other obscure forums? You and your daughter would be violated over and over again, everytime someone is looking that video.

Norway and Sweden, and maybe Denmark too, has a similar law like this Australian law. If you post a video where someone is being murdered, raped, or similar, then you can go to jail.
Rugian
Member
Thu Apr 04 12:59:35
Why do you want a regulatory regime in which every content host and ISP is charged with fully vetting every single last post made by users within an hour of submission? You may as well make it so that all content on the internet are reviewed by site owners prior to being posted.
The Children
Member
Thu Apr 04 13:13:16
kangarooland is a shitstain.

even science supports this.
this shitstain is home 2 some of da most venomous snakes lizards and annoyin insects.

think about it. what is this place doing with all its mosquitos and ticks and spiders and other creepy crawlies.

insects thrive on shit. on poops, thats where u find flies. they swarm over it. kangarooland is literal a land made of poop.

Paramount
Member
Thu Apr 04 13:26:12
If something illegal is posted on a platform, the owners of that platform should remove it within an hour of being noticed of it. I think that is reasonable.

Just because there are many users on their platforms doesn’t mean that they can let child porn, terrorist propaganda, murder and rape videos remain.



”You may as well make it so that all content on the internet are reviewed by site owners prior to being posted.”

Yes, why not. You can not publish whatever you want in the paper edition of The New York Times or in any other media. Content is being reviewed first before it is published. Why should Facebook, Instagram and Twitter be different?
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Apr 04 13:27:11
Liberals dont know how the internet works.
Paramount
Member
Thu Apr 04 13:30:42
As a site owner, you should also be responsible for what is published on your site.
Paramount
Member
Thu Apr 04 13:33:13
We (I) know how it works, but we (I) thinks internet has some problems that needs to be fixed. The interntet can not be a lawless zone.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Apr 04 13:49:11
How did a land of exiled criminals become so cucked?
kargen
Member
Thu Apr 04 14:40:12
"The law has made it a crime for social media platforms not to remove "abhorrent violent material" quickly."

Do they define quickly?

Sounds like they are headed towards no live streaming in Australia and maybe uploaded videos have to be cleared before posted.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Apr 04 15:16:51
sounds like just a deterrent to me with no real expectation of charging anyone
Forwyn
Member
Thu Apr 04 15:21:10
Deterrent to what? Free speech?

Stop making excuses for objectively bad government action just because it isn't attached to the name Trump.
Rugian
Member
Thu Apr 04 15:21:18
I really do hope Paramount is just trolling with his "what's good enough for news sites is good enough for the entire internet" bs. You want that shit, move to China and leave the rest of us be.


Turtle Crawler, is it too late to move this site to the dark web?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Apr 04 15:44:43
here's the actual bill:

http://par...a323-4512-bf31-bc55aab31a81%22

points 4 & 5 seem most relevant:

"
4. To achieve this, the Bill would place obligations on:

· internet service providers, hosting service providers and content service providers to refer the details of abhorrent violent material that records or streams abhorrent violent conduct that has occurred, or is occurring, in Australia to the Australian Federal Police within a reasonable time of becoming aware of the existence of the material, and

· hosting service providers and content services providers to expeditiously remove from, or cease hosting on, their services abhorrent violent material that is reasonably capable of being accessed within Australia.

5. Abhorrent violent material is audio, visual, or audio-visual material that is recorded or streamed by the perpetrator(s) or their accomplices. Furthermore, it must be material that reasonable persons would regard as being offensive, and is recorded or streamed in the course of:

· engaging in a terrorist act (involving serious physical harm or death, and otherwise within the meaning of section 100.1 of the Criminal Code),

· the murder of another person,

· the attempted murder of another person,

· the torture of another person,

· the rape of another person, or

· the kidnapping involving violence of another person.
"
-------

you have vague terms for timeliness so not too scary to platforms, plus the targeted content is not very broad (a criminal filming themselves murdering/torturing/raping)

so, meh
Paramount
Member
Thu Apr 04 15:59:16
”Free speech”

Neither Facebook or any other stupid social media is obliged to offer you a platform to express yourself on. If Facebook and the internet disappeared tomorrow, you would still have free speech. Just like you did in the 70’s, 80’s and the 90’s when none of this existed.
jergul
large member
Thu Apr 04 16:12:30
I see nothing wrong with the bill as provided by TW beyond Australia invoking universal jurisdiction (obligating any provider anywhere to abide by Australian law).
Forwyn
Member
Thu Apr 04 16:15:56
"Neither Facebook or any other stupid social media is obliged to offer you a platform to express yourself on."

Your idiotic trolling aside, it pierces the veil not for some horrendous action, but for not proactively removing the speech of others fast enough.
Average Ameriacn
Member
Thu Apr 04 16:37:58
They could simply add a delay to live streams, we do it, too, with a profanity delay.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_delay
kargen
Member
Thu Apr 04 17:47:32
"· hosting service providers and content services providers to expeditiously remove from, or cease hosting on, their services abhorrent violent material that is reasonably capable of being accessed within Australia."

yeah that is the part that bothers me most (of what was posted by TW) about the law. If Australia wants to keep content out of Australia that is on them.
jergul
large member
Thu Apr 04 22:39:17
"If Australia wants to keep content out of Australia that is on them."

That would actually be the stick for non-compliance to this law.
murder
Member
Fri Apr 05 07:58:43

"Why do you want a regulatory regime in which every content host and ISP is charged with fully vetting every single last post made by users within an hour of submission?"

If you're broadcasting it, you're responsible for it.

Forwyn
Member
Fri Apr 05 12:54:51
Lulz. murder wants to pay $400/mo for internet and social media subscriptions in order to support a bureaucratic filtering regime to adhere to legislative creep.

Just fuck off and die
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Apr 05 14:18:00
"If you're broadcasting it, you're responsible for it."

That pathetic attitude is going to make the web suck.
Forwyn
Member
Fri Apr 05 14:56:06
When cops take thirty minutes to respond, they probably shouldn't criticize websites to take an hour to start taking down a million instances of video.
Paramount
Member
Sat Apr 06 09:42:19
It would be easier if terrorists and pedos just stopped uploading videos to the internet. That would solve the problem.
EuropeanPussy
Member
Mon Apr 08 08:38:20
Next one:
"make the U.K. the safest place in the world to be online"



http://www...rect=on&utm_term=.cff3c7014650

U.K. unveils sweeping plan to penalize Facebook and Google for harmful online content


By Tony Romm
April 7 at 7:01 PM

British regulators on Sunday unveiled a landmark proposal to penalize Facebook, Google and other tech giants that fail to stop the spread of harmful content online, marking a major new regulatory threat for an industry that’s long dodged responsibility for what its users say or share.

The aggressive, new plan — drafted by the United Kingdom’s leading consumer-protection authorities and blessed by Prime Minister Theresa May — targets a wide array of web content, including child exploitation, false news, terrorist activity and extreme violence. If approved by Parliament, U.K. watchdogs would gain unprecedented powers to issue fines and other punishments if social-media sites don’t swiftly remove the most egregious posts, photos and videos from public view.

Top British officials said their blueprint would amount to “world leading laws to make the U.K. the safest place in the world to be online." The document raises the possibility that the top executives of major tech companies could be held directly liable for failing to police their platforms. It even asks lawmakers to consider if regulators should have the ability to order internet service providers and others to limit access to some of the most


harmful content on the web.

Experts said the idea potentially could limit the reach of sites including 8chan, an anonymous message board where graphic, violent content often thrives and that played an important role in spreading images of last month’s mosque attack in New Zealand.

[8chan looks like a terrorist recruiting site after the New Zealand shootings. Should the government treat it like one?]

“The Internet can be brilliant at connecting people across the world — but for too long these companies have not done enough to protect users, especially children and young people, from harmful content," May said in a statement.

For Silicon Valley, the U.K.'s rules could amount to the most severe regulatory repercussion the tech industry has faced globally for failing to clean up a host of troubling content online. The sector’s continued struggles came into sharp relief last month, after videos of the deadly shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, proliferated online, despite heightened investments by Facebook, Google and Twitter on more human reviewers — and more powerful tech tools — to stop such posts from going viral.

The March shooting prompted Australia to adopt a content-takedown law of its own, and it has emboldened others throughout Europe to consider similar new rules targeting the tech industry. The wave of global activity stands in stark contrast to the United States, where a decades-old federal law shields social-media companies from being held liable for the content posted by their users. U.S. lawmakers also have been reticent to regulate online speech out of concern that doing so would violate the First Amendment.

“The era of self-regulation for online companies is over," U.K. Digital Secretary Jeremy Wright said in a statement Sunday.

In response, Facebook highlighted its recent investments to better spot and remove harmful content, adding the U.K.'s proposal “should protect society from harm while also supporting innovation, the digital economy and freedom of speech.” Twitter said it would work with government to "strike an appropriate balance between keeping users safe and preserving the internet’s open, free nature.” Google declined to comment.

[Facebook says it will start removing posts that may lead to violence]

The U.K.'s fresh call for regulation reflects a deepening skepticism of Silicon Valley in response to a range of recent controversies, including Facebook’s role in the country’s 2016 referendum to leave the European Union. British lawmakers learned after the vote that an organization created by Brexit supporters appeared to have links to Cambridge Analytica, a political consultancy that improperly accessed Facebook data on 87 million users in order to help clients better hone their political messages.

The revelation sparked a broad inquiry in Parliament, where lawmakers unsuccessfully demanded testimony from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. In the aftermath, many there have called for strict new regulation of the social-networking giant and its peers.

“There is an urgent need for this new regulatory body to be established as soon as possible,” said Damian Collins, the chairman of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee in the House of Commons. He said the panel would hold hearings on the government’s proposal in the coming weeks.

For now, the U.K.'s plan comes in the form of a white paper that eventually will yield new legislation. Early details shared Sunday proposed that lawmakers set up a new, independent regulator tasked to ensure companies “take responsibility for the safety of their users.” That oversight — either through a new agency or part of an existing one — would be funded by tech companies, potentially through a new tax.

The agency’s mandate would be vast, from policing large social-media platforms such as Facebook to smaller web sites’ forums or comment sections. Much of its work would focus on content that could be harmful to children or pose a risk to national security. But regulators ultimately could play a role in scrutinizing a broader array of online harms, the U.K. said, including content “that may not be illegal but are nonetheless highly damaging to individuals or threaten our way of life in the U.K.” The document offers a litany of potential areas of concern, including hate speech, coercive behavior and underage exposure to illegal content such as dating apps that are meant for people over age 18.

Many details, such as how it defines harmful content, and how long companies have to take it down, have yet to be hammered out. U.K. regulators also said they would prod tech companies to be more transparent with users about the content they take down, and why.

“Despite our repeated calls to action, harmful and illegal content — including child abuse and terrorism — is still too readily available online," said Sajid Javid, the U.K.'s home secretary. “That is why we are forcing these firms to clean up their act once and for all."

Paramount
Member
Mon Apr 08 09:04:15
"a wide array of web content, including child exploitation, false news, terrorist activity and extreme violence"


How do they define extreme violence?

Will videos of the 9/11 attack be banned? It is after all terror propaganda and extremely violent.


"false news"

Will they ban Trump's and the IDF's twitter account?


I hope they do.
kargen
Member
Mon Apr 08 12:33:08
So long as we can watch skate boarders crack their nuts on stair rails we should be okay.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share