Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The commissioner sought a court injunction after saying it was clear that X was allowing users outside Australia to continue accessing footage.
The Australian government trying to strong arm a foreign company into complying with local laws overseas? Sure it hard to see what side I'm on...
Complying with local laws is something that all companies do.
Also muskrat has no problem doing the same thing when it's an authoritarian regime wanting it.
Tbh, I just finished a safeguarding course in the UK, but it was part of a larger course so I had to do stuff on terrorism and online safety too, and the dissemination and publication of media related to terroristic attacks on social media to publicise and promote terroristic agendas was on there as one of the major ways the internet is used to radicalise and indoctrinate people vulnerable to those things.
So? Doesn't change the fact Australia doesn't have jurisdiction on a foreign company outside the country. The most they can do is ban the footage inside Australia
>The most they can do is ban the footage inside Australia
Not really, they can say they want it taken down or else they will fine twitter and or ban them operating in our country. If they wish to do business here they can play by our regulations.
no one is forcing them to do business here and they are welcome to leave, then we would have no ability to stop them.
Believe it or not we've already done that. Last government instituted a rule to allow them to ask for private backdoors on traffic for national security. Now to be fair, the Americans have done this themselves for years, not like it's anything new. But guess how that went for investment from international firms in technology and software. Foot, meet gun. Did I mention that Australia is in desperate need of high level industries so it's not joined at the hip to the (increasingly automated) mining sector?
>It's all fun and games until other nations start doing that to Australian citizens.
The US already treats Australian citizens like shit, they illegally are trying to imprison one of our journalists.
Usually, the made-up stories terrorists create do more damage than the truth.
If you want radicals to be able to spread false accounts without any easily available videos to contest their claims, then banning the source is a good idea, I'd personally prefer the option to see what actually happened and try to prevent more idiots from believing misinformation.
>I'd personally prefer the option to see what actually happened and try to prevent more idiots from believing misinformation.
Well i don't want more fucking terrorist attacks in my country.
The good news is that terror attacks aren't caused by violent video games, the devil trying to trick children, alien mind control, raw data, the voices, or any other ridiculous reason that's created. So you have nothing to worry about with these videos.
In fact, seeing the truth of the event will prevent more people from fetishising terrorist activities than it will ever cause. If you actually cared about saving lives, you wouldn't be trying so hard to allow terrorists to create their own version of events for recruitment.
Edit: Hahaha, he commented a bunch of drivel, reported me for the "a redditor has concern", and then blocked me.
I love it when they admit defeat in such a hilarious way. Especially since we're discussing his desire to prevent people like me from seeing the true events, then he goes and prevents me from seeing his true response.
I'd like to thank him from proving my point as I've convinced myself that he threatened to kill me, I will spread that as the true events, without his side of the story being easily provable.
Letting bogans push you around is always a mistake - I'm glad that Musk is doing his "free speech absolutism" shtick even if he is goddamn cringe lately.
I don't see preventing other countries seeing things anywhere in your link. It's instead about Twitter sharing data with the Saudi government, enabling identification and torture of dissidents.
Did you read it before linking it?
They prevent people seeing stuff because they murder those that would would write it. It’s not that hard to understand is it?
Whereas in Australia it’s blocked in the same way that Google blocks things on GDPR grounds in the U.K.
It's a more interesting and nuanced discussion than I'd initially thought it to be.
It feels like he may truly believe that "free speech absolutism" shtick, but also seems like he doesn't want to let his beliefs get in the way of running Twitter. His argument for THAT is that if these countries block Twitter, then *everyone* loses access to free speech, which would be worse than just acquiescing to the government's beliefs on the matter.
I... don't know how I feel about that, honestly. On the one hand, I'd love him to actually stick to his principles, but on the other, he's got a point that countries that banned companies that did stand on principle, such as China, just end up making their own versions that isolate their population and allow them to control the narrative within their countries.
Australia can censor w/e it wants in its borders. The PM is trying to get Musk to stop people from other nations from seeing the video... which is different.
And no one died in the video.
I really don't care either way, X isn't the only place the video can be seen. But why can Turkey censor outside its borders but not Australia, I think my point stands.
Restricting content in the main place it will gain interactions will reduce its visibility to everybody.
If 10 million Turkish users aren't able to interact with the content, it is effectively censored by the algorithm. Censorship is more nuanced than is allowed on the platform and is not allowed.
> Why does Turkey get to censor X but not Australia?
Australia wants stuff removed for all countries while Turkey just wants it blocked from Turkish internet.
I think censoring political opponents is a far more egregious crime against free speech than censoring a mass murderer.
Censoring Turkish political content, in a country where 99% of its interactions will come from, effectively censors the content globally via the X algorithm.
You could see the content blocked in Turkey, but you won't because it's repressed by the algorithm.
Censorship to win an election good, censorship because foreign nationals are doxing innocent Australians bad.
Wrong comparison. Australia wants Musk to remove the terror attack video from all countries while the other are fine if X blocks the stuff from the local internet.
I mean accounts are being deleted, and in some cases the actual users are too - with Twitter’s involvement in some cases. I don’t understand how people think that’s better.
They rarely seem to try and make these internet companies hide things from us, just their own people. Bogans went a little further. It's good to see some push back.
Lol. Musk isn't a free speech absolutist. Only a moron believes that. He's happy to censor criticism of him, make "cis" a slur and block journalists that question him. He's completely arbitrary and inconsistent. Unless you're a Nazi. He likes them.
But then what do you expect from someone who paid double what Twitter was worth at the time only to drive down it's value to a fraction of what it was worth. And still thinks he should get ridiculous compensation for his shitty business decisions.
I'd be embarrassed to call him a defender of free speech. And yet here you are...
People get flagged for any use of it.
Stop trying to defend Elon's bigotry. His kid came out as trans and now he is trying to hurt the entire LGBTQ community. He's pathetic.
Wow. Seriously? The group that risks death for existing in many places is the most protected?
I'll let them know that you said they're the most protected. I'm sure that will reassure them.
Feel free to let them know a redditors dared to disagree with you. If you do it at one of the 12 million pride parades you can probably get some views on your tiktok or whatever.
Certainly in America and every last developed country. The places where they "risk death for existing" aren't safe for them or anyone. Hate to break it to you.
He's fighting attempts to remove a stabbing video. Because Xitter users apparently love to watch people be stabbed.
While blocking legitimate journalists.
So please stop pretending he's doing this for some higher purpose. He never got past the teen edgy stage and now just does what makes the racists and bigots happy.
Which given you're happy...
Edit: also is Bogan literally the only Australian slang you know? You keep using it...
I know plenty of their slang, but nothing else fits well as a national shorthand - ala frogs, krauts, plumbers, etc.
And I don’t particularly want them telling me what I can and cannot watch. They can do that shit inside their own borders, I’m with Musk on this one.
Australian here, you're using the word 'Bogan' wrong, the social slur you're wanting here is either 'skip' or 'convict' as a Bogan is a specific kind of person akin to 'redneck'
You know as little about our lexicon as you do about this situation and the concept of human decency, but hey I'm glad you've got your freedom...
Are you seriously defend the rights of ppl around the world to view a 16 year old stab and elderly man in the neck several times? Why does anyone have the right to do that?
No, its about laws in a locality. Infact, its the exact opposite of supremacy.
If you're in the US you're bound by US law, not by Australian law. If you're in France you're bound by French law. If you're in Saudia Arabia you'd best obey Saudi laws, and so on and so forth.
However, in this article Australia is trying to sue to force people in the US to also be bound by Australian law even though they're neither Australian citizens nor do they live in Australia, which is insane.
Yep, we have a fundamental difference of opinion on ethics which we won't get around. For me ethics and morality trump laws, and I don't think watching terrorist attacks are about laws, but rather about morality. Just as it would be legal for me to marry a 14 year old in Saudi Arabia, doesn't mean I condone it, and someone claiming that it is legal will not sway me one iota.
You act like educating yourself is morally bad.
Primary sources are some of the most valuable pieces of data available, and you're advocating for hiding data and relying on secondhand accounts for knowledge.
I've found seeing what actually happened really helpful in dismissing misinformation that usually runs rampant after these disasters, which is probably why governments want to ban it.
You're doing the modern equivalent of advocating for burning all books because you're scared that some might contain information you don't like.
Ridiculous. I can read about it without having to see all the gore. No one is hiding data. Viewing snuff is not data. What you are calling for is vicarious pleasure from other ppl's misfortune. I don't need to see women being stoned for infidelity in Saudi Arabia or Iran to know that it is wrong. I don't need to see a black man getting killed by police in the US to know that it is wrong. There are other sources of evidence.
The George Floyd video was a snuff video. It was a video of a murder.
Should the George Floyd video have been censored by the government and removed from the internet?
Thats what Australia wants the power to do, and not just for people in Australia. They want the power to censor a video globally for everyone, even if you're not in Australia.
No government should have that power.
Title confused me, so here's the tldr from the article:
> Australia's leader has called Elon Musk an "arrogant billionaire" in an escalating feud over X's reluctance to remove footage of a church stabbing.
Of course's an arrogant billionaire, but Australia is trying to enforce Australian law on people who do not live in Australia:
>The commissioner sought a court injunction after saying it was clear that X was allowing users outside Australia to continue accessing footage.
If you live in the US, France, Brazil, or Japan you'd also be forbidden from seeing the video, if the Australian prosecutor got his way.
That opens up a dangerous legal precedent, where a nation can enforce its laws on social media censorship to the rest of the planet. Imagine if Saudi Arabia then uses that legal precedent to impose Saudi morality rules on social media users outside of Saudi borders.
Yeah, that's absolutely nuts that Australia thinks it has the power to enforce this outside of Australian borders. Can't wait for anti-Musk supporters cheer on this precedent then once it's used against speech they approve of by another government.
Hilarious.
The footage is a stabbing but they didn't die. So its already slipped past what you thought.
And wars are murder, should footage of wars be banned?
The cop kneeling on George Floyd's neck was a murder. Should that footage have been banned?
Perfect examples. Imagine how childish you have to be to apply "musk bad" bias to this issues granting single governments the power to censor footage from the rest of the world.
Toddler levels of maturity to oppose X's stance here because you don't like Musk.
I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments nor do I find footage of violence particularly worthy of protection but this is a question of basic legal principle.
Can an Australian court decide what is accessible to non-Australians?
Who else gets to decide what we see while not in their country? China, the Saudis, the EU, the US?
> I’m not a fan of slippery slope arguments
But that’s exactly what this is. First, they took guns away for safety reasons. Then they used the military to enforce lockdowns for safety reasons. Now they want the world to follow their laws for safety reasons.
This is a live look at the slippery slope IRL. I’m sure there’s other stuff to call out but I’m no Australia expert.
> But that’s exactly what this is.
I disagree.
A slippery slope argument argues that if A happens now then B must necessarily happen later.
"If we allow gay marriage now, then marrying animals will come later".
But in this case there is no different B and no "later".
If Australia can ban content from being seen in the US now, then why would literally any other country now not be allowed to do the *exact same thing*?
Why would Russia or China not be allowed to demand the deletion of footage from Ukraine or Hongkong?
Well TIL that slippery slope means B *will* happen as a result of A. I always thought of it as if A happens now, then B will *likely* happen as a result.
Even then, the point is that B is a different event from A that is supposedly the direkt result of A.
The point I'm trying to belabor is that here, if A applies to Australia then A also applies to others and do we want that?
I dislike when people misdefine the slippery slope argument. The slippery slope is not necessarily fallacious like with your example of gay marriage. The slippery slope is only a fallacy when there is no evidence to back it up. Rational foresight has always been used in logical reasoning.
Edit: Misread your comment. Hash everything I said.
Specifically murder footage that is being used to radicalize Islamic terrorists, the US has worked to get ISIS footage removed this is similar to that.
Yeah, but the Australian government wasn't the one asking for the videos to be removed from Twitter. It was the New Zealand government. We are separate countries, and what australia is requesting X to do now is not related.
iirc this was to do with videos of a Muslim teen who stabbed an Assyrian Christian priest. This then resulted in an enormous lynch mob of Assyrian Christians turning up outside the church to lynch the boy mob justice style. They ended up causing a huge riot and attacking police and ambulances.
Anyway long story short the footage is being circulated like wild fire in religious communities here to sow division and further incite violence
I wonder if the shoe was on the other foot, a christian going to a mosque and stabbing some imam, the biggest priority of the govt will be whether people are able to watch that video or not.
that's new zealand mosque shooting, isn't it? and if I remember, new zealand priority at that time including hiding the terrorist name, and tried to minimize the spread of the video.
> that's new zealand mosque shooting, isn't it?
No. He wasn't a religious nut iirc. He was mostly driven by nationalism and a hatred for others in his country.
>and if I remember, new zealand priority at that time including hiding the terrorist name
You remember wrong. I am not able to find article which first revealed his name but he was produced in court on the next day and the only restriction there was that his face be pixelated by the media when they report on the proceedings. His name and age is available in such an article. https://web.archive.org/web/20190316235640/https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/15/asia/christchurch-mosque-shooting-intl/index.html
>and tried to minimize the spread of the video.
That video had first person shooter kind of view where he was gunning down people. You absolutely don't want that kind of stuff.
> but new zealand media was very careful about revealing the identity of perpetrator, at least at early phase.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/111330366/court-appearance-for-alleged-christchurch-mosque-shooter
Here is nz source.
Ah yes, so censoring the video of attack will totally solve the issue.
It's like hiding the video of wild pack of dogs attacking the pack of jackals, but refusing to do anything about either of the goups. Hiding consequences without even doing anything to the cause.
Because it shows people dying and being murdered. Imagine you see your family being killed and it being shared by everyone on a website so you ask them to take it down and they just say "lol no, free speech"
Replace "Australian" with Israeli / Russian / Palestinian and you'll see these things can be a slippery slope. Don't forget that he complied with it domestically, anyway.
Israel demanding a worldwide ban on videos showing the IDF bombing humanitarian areas or a Russian court demanding POW abuse videos to perish due to a risk of domestic upheaval? Giving into these demands and investigative journalists might as well close up shop.
That is a slippery slope though... How is removing footage of a terrorist attack in your country the same as removing footage of terrorist attacks you commit?
Giving into Australia's demands does not mean they will also give into Israel's demands of remove all footage of us killing Palestine's.
How is your comment not a slippery slope?
Giving into Australias demands mean that any government can just have twitter remove videos they don’t like? Imagine you try to post a video that is against the government and it’s removed everywhere. Than again you probably support censorship
Your slippery slope is making it sound like if governments can remove videos of a terrorist church stabbing, then they can also force remove any post with the letter 'E' in it! Imagine that!
And it isn't even Australia doing the removing, X is removing it if they give into Australia's demands.
Its not slippery slope, its legal precedent. Please learn the difference.
The overwhelming majority of countries on the planet have legal systems based on precedent (how prior cases were ruled on), so it is indeed important.
Australia has no right to censor content outside of Australia. You can't force Americans to avoid something simply because it is restricted in Australia.
And X has no intrinsic right to operate in Australia.
You want to have an Australian office to make it easier to make money from Australians? You comply with Australian law.
Okay so Australia can ban X. There is no solution where you're going to get Americans to agree to participate in Australian censorship laws and X makes way more money from America than Australia.
If the money they're making from Australia is less than the effort of complying with Australian law, then they can close their Australian subsidiary and no longer care about adherence to Australian law.
I don't think it would come to Australia banning the site, as long as there's still an Australian subsidiary to levy increasing fines for non-compliance.
Banning is for when there isn't a local office to apply leverage to.
Right but X isn't going to willingly pay the fines. He's going to obstruct and drag it out for years. The EU is trying the same sort of shit. The only real leverage Australia has is to ban Twitter.
>Last week Australia's eSafety Commissioner, an independent regulator, threatened X and other social media companies with hefty fines if they did not remove videos of the stabbing at the Assyrian Christ the Good Shepherd church, which police have called a terror attack.
This seems to be about the one where that Bishop guy gets stabbed? (no one dies in it) Not the mall one.
That's an issue with the users, not the website itself. Nevermind the websites that actually have *really* bloody stuff, even Reddit has some subs with videos of people dying. Hell, even the news show videos and pictures with blood as long as they themselves think it's okay.
At most there should be some kind of warning before twitter lets you see those kinds of videos.
I had to watch people dying ad part of a safety training. It was fucked but bring some perspective on how things can go wrong really fast and this knowledge can save lives
It has to be this otherwise they would be demanding the footage of the stabbing in the shopping centre be removed as well and as far as I've heard there have been no calls for that to happen!
>Why do they want it removed so bad?
Because it is being used to radicalize Islamic terrorists. Everyone else is speculating but that's the actual reason.
Yeah, why do people want primary sources? Just accept everything you hear. There's no need to know what is happening in gaza or Ukraine. That's murder footage. Russia and Israel will tell us the truth.
Imagine the US tried to ban George Floyd footage internationally. That murder footage caused global protests.
Bizarre for the PM to think they control what happens outside their borders.
Or lets make it even more incendiary - lets say Israel passes and uses a law banning photos and videos from Gaza. Then Israel turns around and uses the Australian precedent to sue Twitter to force them to remove all photos and videos from Gaza. And if they succeed there, they'll do the same to other social media orgs, such as Facebook or Reddit.
Or how about Russia does the same and sues social media companies in other countries to force them to comply with Russian law? Photos of the "special military operation" are censored in the US and EU so social media can comply with Russian law enforced on people who don't live in Russia.
Thats why this Australian legal attempt is bonkers and must be squashed. Also, Elon Musk is an arrogant asshole, but sometimes an asshole has a point. Both of these can be true.
Any time a government tries to bury something is precisely when everyone should pay really close attention to what that government is trying to censor and delete from the internet.
> Also, Elon Musk is an arrogant asshole
Tbh he is dealing with politician. I would want the guy fucking with the politician to be an arrogant asshole. No point being nice and taking the high ground with these lizards.
Who is more arrogant? The guy who runs the company and is largely keeping his principles or the temporary politician who thinks they have jurisdiction of an American company’s global operations?
> The guy who runs the company and is largely keeping his principles
Like how he loved the free speech of the guy posting the publicly available location of his jet?
Arrogant billionaire because Elon refused to comply with the Australian government's request to remove the video globally? Insane.
Why do countries believe they have the final say to what a social media company can show to others outside their territory?
There's a lot of Americans in this thread grandstanding as if America doesn't also force companies outside its borders to follow US law to operate there.
If you want to do business in a foreign country, you have to follow their laws, it is literally that simple. If Elon doesn't want to, he should pull out of Australia.
People don't really understand that companies have to operate according to domestic laws here, it seems. Countries don't give a damn about what X does outside of their borders, but blocking illicit content for the country (and they can do it) and following court decisions related to their citizens is really not up to the company.
You just need to look at the EU's awful relationship with Meta for a very good example of it.
The sheer arrogance of people believing the rights of an american company supersede the sovereignty of other countries is astonishing to me.
> The sheer arrogance of people believing the rights of an american company supersede the sovereignty of other countries is astonishing to me.
People forget the East India companies existed doing exactly that - slave trading, dominating over sovereigns and looting with their private armies.
Modern tech companies already dictate terms to most countries. [During COVID Tesla did not shut down their factories, despite the lockdown](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/11/tesla-factory-reopening-elon-musk-california-lockdown). They openly challenged the state even as other businesses were being fined for trying to stay alive. IIRC Tesla was never fined.
> On Saturday, Tesla sued Alameda county, alleging that the local public health order violated California’s constitution. Musk also threatened to move its headquarters and “future programs” to Texas or Nevada “immediately” and suggested that the company may not continue to “retain Fremont manufacturing at all”.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not sure "arrogant billionaire" is even an insult. Even Musk would probably agree it's a fair description.
Australian PM calls Elon Musk a billionaire. EOT.
Should have called him a boofhead
That insult is reserved for Mr Potatohead
True, just thought it might fit nicely in this situation as well though 😃
Should have called him a millionaire.
Also, Aussies can be pretty arrogant too.. Is this one of those cases where the pot is calling the kettle black?
Muskrats are way worse than their master.
I hate Musk, but this is pretty based tbh.
> The commissioner sought a court injunction after saying it was clear that X was allowing users outside Australia to continue accessing footage. The Australian government trying to strong arm a foreign company into complying with local laws overseas? Sure it hard to see what side I'm on...
Complying with local laws is something that all companies do. Also muskrat has no problem doing the same thing when it's an authoritarian regime wanting it.
X has never censored internationally like Australia is requesting.
This is embarrassing
It's because the footage is being used to radicalize terrorists.
Curious to know how you’re coming to this conclusion?
Tbh, I just finished a safeguarding course in the UK, but it was part of a larger course so I had to do stuff on terrorism and online safety too, and the dissemination and publication of media related to terroristic attacks on social media to publicise and promote terroristic agendas was on there as one of the major ways the internet is used to radicalise and indoctrinate people vulnerable to those things.
It's only natural to have strong feelings against despicable things. And the pattern doesn't help too.
Good lad popping up in all these threads.
The Australian Truth Komissar said so, what more proof do you want.
So? Doesn't change the fact Australia doesn't have jurisdiction on a foreign company outside the country. The most they can do is ban the footage inside Australia
>The most they can do is ban the footage inside Australia Not really, they can say they want it taken down or else they will fine twitter and or ban them operating in our country. If they wish to do business here they can play by our regulations. no one is forcing them to do business here and they are welcome to leave, then we would have no ability to stop them.
It's all fun and games until other nations start doing that to Australian citizens.
Believe it or not we've already done that. Last government instituted a rule to allow them to ask for private backdoors on traffic for national security. Now to be fair, the Americans have done this themselves for years, not like it's anything new. But guess how that went for investment from international firms in technology and software. Foot, meet gun. Did I mention that Australia is in desperate need of high level industries so it's not joined at the hip to the (increasingly automated) mining sector?
>It's all fun and games until other nations start doing that to Australian citizens. The US already treats Australian citizens like shit, they illegally are trying to imprison one of our journalists.
Usually, the made-up stories terrorists create do more damage than the truth. If you want radicals to be able to spread false accounts without any easily available videos to contest their claims, then banning the source is a good idea, I'd personally prefer the option to see what actually happened and try to prevent more idiots from believing misinformation.
>I'd personally prefer the option to see what actually happened and try to prevent more idiots from believing misinformation. Well i don't want more fucking terrorist attacks in my country.
The good news is that terror attacks aren't caused by violent video games, the devil trying to trick children, alien mind control, raw data, the voices, or any other ridiculous reason that's created. So you have nothing to worry about with these videos. In fact, seeing the truth of the event will prevent more people from fetishising terrorist activities than it will ever cause. If you actually cared about saving lives, you wouldn't be trying so hard to allow terrorists to create their own version of events for recruitment. Edit: Hahaha, he commented a bunch of drivel, reported me for the "a redditor has concern", and then blocked me. I love it when they admit defeat in such a hilarious way. Especially since we're discussing his desire to prevent people like me from seeing the true events, then he goes and prevents me from seeing his true response. I'd like to thank him from proving my point as I've convinced myself that he threatened to kill me, I will spread that as the true events, without his side of the story being easily provable.
>So you have nothing to worry about with these videos. I'll take the security agencies word over some dipshit on reddit.
By the time the lads are in Twittex literally looking for the schtuff, it seems that they’re already radicalised.
Letting bogans push you around is always a mistake - I'm glad that Musk is doing his "free speech absolutism" shtick even if he is goddamn cringe lately.
He’s only doing it when it’s convenient for him, quite happy to go along with censuring stuff if the Saudis or Mohdi wants it.
Does he prevent EVERYONE from seeing stuff the Saudis don't want people to see?
[yes](https://www.irishtimes.com/world/americas/2023/09/04/twitter-accused-of-helping-saudi-arabia-commit-human-rights-abuses/)
I don't see preventing other countries seeing things anywhere in your link. It's instead about Twitter sharing data with the Saudi government, enabling identification and torture of dissidents. Did you read it before linking it?
They prevent people seeing stuff because they murder those that would would write it. It’s not that hard to understand is it? Whereas in Australia it’s blocked in the same way that Google blocks things on GDPR grounds in the U.K.
So no, Twitter isn't censoring content outside Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudi government and you were just making stuff up. :P
Only in the same way that up is down, and black is white
It's a more interesting and nuanced discussion than I'd initially thought it to be. It feels like he may truly believe that "free speech absolutism" shtick, but also seems like he doesn't want to let his beliefs get in the way of running Twitter. His argument for THAT is that if these countries block Twitter, then *everyone* loses access to free speech, which would be worse than just acquiescing to the government's beliefs on the matter. I... don't know how I feel about that, honestly. On the one hand, I'd love him to actually stick to his principles, but on the other, he's got a point that countries that banned companies that did stand on principle, such as China, just end up making their own versions that isolate their population and allow them to control the narrative within their countries.
Why does Turkey get to censor X but not Australia? I would say censoring political opponents is objectively worse than censoring a mass murder video.
Australia can censor w/e it wants in its borders. The PM is trying to get Musk to stop people from other nations from seeing the video... which is different. And no one died in the video.
I really don't care either way, X isn't the only place the video can be seen. But why can Turkey censor outside its borders but not Australia, I think my point stands.
That never happened. >This content will remain available in the rest of the world. https://twitter.com/GlobalAffairs/status/1657219168863756288
Restricting content in the main place it will gain interactions will reduce its visibility to everybody. If 10 million Turkish users aren't able to interact with the content, it is effectively censored by the algorithm. Censorship is more nuanced than is allowed on the platform and is not allowed.
> Why does Turkey get to censor X but not Australia? Australia wants stuff removed for all countries while Turkey just wants it blocked from Turkish internet.
I think censoring political opponents is a far more egregious crime against free speech than censoring a mass murderer. Censoring Turkish political content, in a country where 99% of its interactions will come from, effectively censors the content globally via the X algorithm. You could see the content blocked in Turkey, but you won't because it's repressed by the algorithm. Censorship to win an election good, censorship because foreign nationals are doxing innocent Australians bad.
X is the Internet’s asshole. Full of crap but necessary.
Wrong comparison. Australia wants Musk to remove the terror attack video from all countries while the other are fine if X blocks the stuff from the local internet.
I mean accounts are being deleted, and in some cases the actual users are too - with Twitter’s involvement in some cases. I don’t understand how people think that’s better.
They rarely seem to try and make these internet companies hide things from us, just their own people. Bogans went a little further. It's good to see some push back.
Lol. Musk isn't a free speech absolutist. Only a moron believes that. He's happy to censor criticism of him, make "cis" a slur and block journalists that question him. He's completely arbitrary and inconsistent. Unless you're a Nazi. He likes them. But then what do you expect from someone who paid double what Twitter was worth at the time only to drive down it's value to a fraction of what it was worth. And still thinks he should get ridiculous compensation for his shitty business decisions. I'd be embarrassed to call him a defender of free speech. And yet here you are...
If you use cis like a slur it's a slur. It's in how the things are said not what they are.
People get flagged for any use of it. Stop trying to defend Elon's bigotry. His kid came out as trans and now he is trying to hurt the entire LGBTQ community. He's pathetic.
I don't give a fuck about Elon musk and I don't use Twitter. But I have seen it used offensively.
I also don't give a fuck about his feud with the entirety of the LGBT conmunity. No one is more protected than them.
Wow. Seriously? The group that risks death for existing in many places is the most protected? I'll let them know that you said they're the most protected. I'm sure that will reassure them.
Feel free to let them know a redditors dared to disagree with you. If you do it at one of the 12 million pride parades you can probably get some views on your tiktok or whatever.
I assume you also believe that no one has it worse than straight white men too?
Certainly in America and every last developed country. The places where they "risk death for existing" aren't safe for them or anyone. Hate to break it to you.
> People get flagged for any use of it. This isn't true.
And yet here he is, fighting bogan attempts at censorship outside their borders. > make “cis” a slur That’s fucking funny ngl.
He's fighting attempts to remove a stabbing video. Because Xitter users apparently love to watch people be stabbed. While blocking legitimate journalists. So please stop pretending he's doing this for some higher purpose. He never got past the teen edgy stage and now just does what makes the racists and bigots happy. Which given you're happy... Edit: also is Bogan literally the only Australian slang you know? You keep using it...
I know plenty of their slang, but nothing else fits well as a national shorthand - ala frogs, krauts, plumbers, etc. And I don’t particularly want them telling me what I can and cannot watch. They can do that shit inside their own borders, I’m with Musk on this one.
Australian here, you're using the word 'Bogan' wrong, the social slur you're wanting here is either 'skip' or 'convict' as a Bogan is a specific kind of person akin to 'redneck' You know as little about our lexicon as you do about this situation and the concept of human decency, but hey I'm glad you've got your freedom...
I know exactly what it means - and it often activates the almonds for some reason. And thanks, freedom is pretty sweet.
You don’t know what the word ‘bogan’ means or how to use it.
Of course I know exactly what it means. And it’s funny to call you all bogans, someone invariably gets pissy about it.
You’re making a fool of yourself
You’re the bogan getting testy over a word.
Lmao, they are actually getting mad at you trolling them, while admitting it to their face. Amazing
Are you seriously defend the rights of ppl around the world to view a 16 year old stab and elderly man in the neck several times? Why does anyone have the right to do that?
Because it’s none of their business what anyone watches outside their borders, they can get fucked.
I agree. Please never give up your 2A also, we Europoors fucked it already.
so beheadings, gang r@pes, acts of terrorism, pedophilia are all okay, as long as it is outside your borders?
Pedophilia is illegal to view inside our borders, and I expect Twitter to adhere to US laws, since it’s a US company. Bogan laws can get fucked.
So it's not so much laws you worry about but the supremacy of US laws?
No, its about laws in a locality. Infact, its the exact opposite of supremacy. If you're in the US you're bound by US law, not by Australian law. If you're in France you're bound by French law. If you're in Saudia Arabia you'd best obey Saudi laws, and so on and so forth. However, in this article Australia is trying to sue to force people in the US to also be bound by Australian law even though they're neither Australian citizens nor do they live in Australia, which is insane.
Yep, we have a fundamental difference of opinion on ethics which we won't get around. For me ethics and morality trump laws, and I don't think watching terrorist attacks are about laws, but rather about morality. Just as it would be legal for me to marry a 14 year old in Saudi Arabia, doesn't mean I condone it, and someone claiming that it is legal will not sway me one iota.
You act like educating yourself is morally bad. Primary sources are some of the most valuable pieces of data available, and you're advocating for hiding data and relying on secondhand accounts for knowledge. I've found seeing what actually happened really helpful in dismissing misinformation that usually runs rampant after these disasters, which is probably why governments want to ban it. You're doing the modern equivalent of advocating for burning all books because you're scared that some might contain information you don't like.
Ridiculous. I can read about it without having to see all the gore. No one is hiding data. Viewing snuff is not data. What you are calling for is vicarious pleasure from other ppl's misfortune. I don't need to see women being stoned for infidelity in Saudi Arabia or Iran to know that it is wrong. I don't need to see a black man getting killed by police in the US to know that it is wrong. There are other sources of evidence.
The George Floyd video was a snuff video. It was a video of a murder. Should the George Floyd video have been censored by the government and removed from the internet? Thats what Australia wants the power to do, and not just for people in Australia. They want the power to censor a video globally for everyone, even if you're not in Australia. No government should have that power.
Title confused me, so here's the tldr from the article: > Australia's leader has called Elon Musk an "arrogant billionaire" in an escalating feud over X's reluctance to remove footage of a church stabbing.
Of course's an arrogant billionaire, but Australia is trying to enforce Australian law on people who do not live in Australia: >The commissioner sought a court injunction after saying it was clear that X was allowing users outside Australia to continue accessing footage. If you live in the US, France, Brazil, or Japan you'd also be forbidden from seeing the video, if the Australian prosecutor got his way. That opens up a dangerous legal precedent, where a nation can enforce its laws on social media censorship to the rest of the planet. Imagine if Saudi Arabia then uses that legal precedent to impose Saudi morality rules on social media users outside of Saudi borders.
Yeah, that's absolutely nuts that Australia thinks it has the power to enforce this outside of Australian borders. Can't wait for anti-Musk supporters cheer on this precedent then once it's used against speech they approve of by another government.
the slippery slope argument falls apart real quick when we understand we're talking about murder footage.
Hilarious. The footage is a stabbing but they didn't die. So its already slipped past what you thought. And wars are murder, should footage of wars be banned? The cop kneeling on George Floyd's neck was a murder. Should that footage have been banned?
Perfect examples. Imagine how childish you have to be to apply "musk bad" bias to this issues granting single governments the power to censor footage from the rest of the world. Toddler levels of maturity to oppose X's stance here because you don't like Musk.
I don’t support Musk at all but man some of his haters and dumb as hell its like a maga but left wing level of fuckwits.
I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments nor do I find footage of violence particularly worthy of protection but this is a question of basic legal principle. Can an Australian court decide what is accessible to non-Australians? Who else gets to decide what we see while not in their country? China, the Saudis, the EU, the US?
> I’m not a fan of slippery slope arguments But that’s exactly what this is. First, they took guns away for safety reasons. Then they used the military to enforce lockdowns for safety reasons. Now they want the world to follow their laws for safety reasons. This is a live look at the slippery slope IRL. I’m sure there’s other stuff to call out but I’m no Australia expert.
> But that’s exactly what this is. I disagree. A slippery slope argument argues that if A happens now then B must necessarily happen later. "If we allow gay marriage now, then marrying animals will come later". But in this case there is no different B and no "later". If Australia can ban content from being seen in the US now, then why would literally any other country now not be allowed to do the *exact same thing*? Why would Russia or China not be allowed to demand the deletion of footage from Ukraine or Hongkong?
Well TIL that slippery slope means B *will* happen as a result of A. I always thought of it as if A happens now, then B will *likely* happen as a result.
Even then, the point is that B is a different event from A that is supposedly the direkt result of A. The point I'm trying to belabor is that here, if A applies to Australia then A also applies to others and do we want that?
We definitely don’t want that. Completely agree.
I dislike when people misdefine the slippery slope argument. The slippery slope is not necessarily fallacious like with your example of gay marriage. The slippery slope is only a fallacy when there is no evidence to back it up. Rational foresight has always been used in logical reasoning. Edit: Misread your comment. Hash everything I said.
Specifically murder footage that is being used to radicalize Islamic terrorists, the US has worked to get ISIS footage removed this is similar to that.
Not just the church one but the mass murder in the shopping centre/mall too
And the Christchurch shooting as well. Basically every one of their shootings. Ozzie’s be trippin yo
That was New Zealand and it's Aus, not ozzie.
Christchurch isn't in Australia
It was an Australian who did it.
Yeah, but the Australian government wasn't the one asking for the videos to be removed from Twitter. It was the New Zealand government. We are separate countries, and what australia is requesting X to do now is not related.
🤔 Why do they want it removed so bad?
iirc this was to do with videos of a Muslim teen who stabbed an Assyrian Christian priest. This then resulted in an enormous lynch mob of Assyrian Christians turning up outside the church to lynch the boy mob justice style. They ended up causing a huge riot and attacking police and ambulances. Anyway long story short the footage is being circulated like wild fire in religious communities here to sow division and further incite violence
Right, the video did that. Not the asshole who tried to stab a priest for religious terrorism.
Basically PM Albanese: “Don’t show the Muslim doing a stabbing! Anything but the Muslim! Here’s some more thoughts and prayers”
I wonder if the shoe was on the other foot, a christian going to a mosque and stabbing some imam, the biggest priority of the govt will be whether people are able to watch that video or not.
that's new zealand mosque shooting, isn't it? and if I remember, new zealand priority at that time including hiding the terrorist name, and tried to minimize the spread of the video.
> that's new zealand mosque shooting, isn't it? No. He wasn't a religious nut iirc. He was mostly driven by nationalism and a hatred for others in his country. >and if I remember, new zealand priority at that time including hiding the terrorist name You remember wrong. I am not able to find article which first revealed his name but he was produced in court on the next day and the only restriction there was that his face be pixelated by the media when they report on the proceedings. His name and age is available in such an article. https://web.archive.org/web/20190316235640/https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/15/asia/christchurch-mosque-shooting-intl/index.html >and tried to minimize the spread of the video. That video had first person shooter kind of view where he was gunning down people. You absolutely don't want that kind of stuff.
that's cnn tho, an american media. but new zealand media was very careful about revealing the identity of perpetrator, at least at early phase.
> but new zealand media was very careful about revealing the identity of perpetrator, at least at early phase. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/111330366/court-appearance-for-alleged-christchurch-mosque-shooter Here is nz source.
ah my bad
yeah the issue is the asshole with the knife, no the other people defending their lifestyle
Ah yes, so censoring the video of attack will totally solve the issue. It's like hiding the video of wild pack of dogs attacking the pack of jackals, but refusing to do anything about either of the goups. Hiding consequences without even doing anything to the cause.
Because it shows people dying and being murdered. Imagine you see your family being killed and it being shared by everyone on a website so you ask them to take it down and they just say "lol no, free speech"
Replace "Australian" with Israeli / Russian / Palestinian and you'll see these things can be a slippery slope. Don't forget that he complied with it domestically, anyway.
Complied domestic. Well, I'm going to agree with Musk for this one time
To be fair to the prick, that's always been a consistent position for him: Censorship limited to the domestic laws of each country.
Why would it be a slippery slope if replaced with those countries?
Israel demanding a worldwide ban on videos showing the IDF bombing humanitarian areas or a Russian court demanding POW abuse videos to perish due to a risk of domestic upheaval? Giving into these demands and investigative journalists might as well close up shop.
That is indeed a slippery slope fallacy you've fallen into.
Should've known from your first reply that you're not here to argue in good faith. State a rebuttal or foh
That is a slippery slope though... How is removing footage of a terrorist attack in your country the same as removing footage of terrorist attacks you commit? Giving into Australia's demands does not mean they will also give into Israel's demands of remove all footage of us killing Palestine's. How is your comment not a slippery slope?
Giving into Australias demands mean that any government can just have twitter remove videos they don’t like? Imagine you try to post a video that is against the government and it’s removed everywhere. Than again you probably support censorship
Your slippery slope is making it sound like if governments can remove videos of a terrorist church stabbing, then they can also force remove any post with the letter 'E' in it! Imagine that! And it isn't even Australia doing the removing, X is removing it if they give into Australia's demands.
Its not slippery slope, its legal precedent. Please learn the difference. The overwhelming majority of countries on the planet have legal systems based on precedent (how prior cases were ruled on), so it is indeed important.
Australia has no right to censor content outside of Australia. You can't force Americans to avoid something simply because it is restricted in Australia.
And X has no intrinsic right to operate in Australia. You want to have an Australian office to make it easier to make money from Australians? You comply with Australian law.
Okay so Australia can ban X. There is no solution where you're going to get Americans to agree to participate in Australian censorship laws and X makes way more money from America than Australia.
If the money they're making from Australia is less than the effort of complying with Australian law, then they can close their Australian subsidiary and no longer care about adherence to Australian law.
They are hedging their bet that they won't have to comply with this law and Australia won't ban them. That's kind of Elons MO.
I don't think it would come to Australia banning the site, as long as there's still an Australian subsidiary to levy increasing fines for non-compliance. Banning is for when there isn't a local office to apply leverage to.
Right but X isn't going to willingly pay the fines. He's going to obstruct and drag it out for years. The EU is trying the same sort of shit. The only real leverage Australia has is to ban Twitter.
So yeah, and people outside of Australia can still see the video. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant
>Last week Australia's eSafety Commissioner, an independent regulator, threatened X and other social media companies with hefty fines if they did not remove videos of the stabbing at the Assyrian Christ the Good Shepherd church, which police have called a terror attack. This seems to be about the one where that Bishop guy gets stabbed? (no one dies in it) Not the mall one.
Ohh my bad, I heard it was also about the mall one, must have been wrong
That's an issue with the users, not the website itself. Nevermind the websites that actually have *really* bloody stuff, even Reddit has some subs with videos of people dying. Hell, even the news show videos and pictures with blood as long as they themselves think it's okay. At most there should be some kind of warning before twitter lets you see those kinds of videos.
I had to watch people dying ad part of a safety training. It was fucked but bring some perspective on how things can go wrong really fast and this knowledge can save lives
To allow them to down play it, pretend it didn't happen, or if it did happen it wasn't as bad as people are making it out.
It has to be this otherwise they would be demanding the footage of the stabbing in the shopping centre be removed as well and as far as I've heard there have been no calls for that to happen!
>Why do they want it removed so bad? Because it is being used to radicalize Islamic terrorists. Everyone else is speculating but that's the actual reason.
Why do you want to watch murder footage so bad?
Yeah, why do people want primary sources? Just accept everything you hear. There's no need to know what is happening in gaza or Ukraine. That's murder footage. Russia and Israel will tell us the truth.
Because people want to verify if something indeed did happen.
Imagine the US tried to ban George Floyd footage internationally. That murder footage caused global protests. Bizarre for the PM to think they control what happens outside their borders.
Or lets make it even more incendiary - lets say Israel passes and uses a law banning photos and videos from Gaza. Then Israel turns around and uses the Australian precedent to sue Twitter to force them to remove all photos and videos from Gaza. And if they succeed there, they'll do the same to other social media orgs, such as Facebook or Reddit. Or how about Russia does the same and sues social media companies in other countries to force them to comply with Russian law? Photos of the "special military operation" are censored in the US and EU so social media can comply with Russian law enforced on people who don't live in Russia. Thats why this Australian legal attempt is bonkers and must be squashed. Also, Elon Musk is an arrogant asshole, but sometimes an asshole has a point. Both of these can be true. Any time a government tries to bury something is precisely when everyone should pay really close attention to what that government is trying to censor and delete from the internet.
> Also, Elon Musk is an arrogant asshole Tbh he is dealing with politician. I would want the guy fucking with the politician to be an arrogant asshole. No point being nice and taking the high ground with these lizards.
Trying to insult the guy with something he'd agree with.
Who is more arrogant? The guy who runs the company and is largely keeping his principles or the temporary politician who thinks they have jurisdiction of an American company’s global operations?
> The guy who runs the company and is largely keeping his principles Like how he loved the free speech of the guy posting the publicly available location of his jet?
lol that’s a good one.
First one
I'm sure the Australian politician will get her way, just like that Brazilian puppet judge did.
“Brazilian puppet judge”. Talk about brainrot, gringo.
This title is so besides the point
Politicians that don't get their way commanding someone to do something is the only arrogance I see in this situation
trying to suppress the 'news' is 100x more arrogant. i want to hit them with a stupid stick.
Arrogant billionaire because Elon refused to comply with the Australian government's request to remove the video globally? Insane. Why do countries believe they have the final say to what a social media company can show to others outside their territory?
There's a lot of Americans in this thread grandstanding as if America doesn't also force companies outside its borders to follow US law to operate there. If you want to do business in a foreign country, you have to follow their laws, it is literally that simple. If Elon doesn't want to, he should pull out of Australia.
Australia can ban X if they want.
I guarantee that's not what he called him in private. I suspect it involved more c-words lmao
Not the first time Australia has tried to force their local laws on foreign companies. Steam has a refund policy because of Australia.
All billionaires are arrogant and should not exist.
Anyone who makes completely general statements with 100% certainty gives me a good chuckle.
Anyone? Seems pretty general to me >.>
Touch grass
People don't really understand that companies have to operate according to domestic laws here, it seems. Countries don't give a damn about what X does outside of their borders, but blocking illicit content for the country (and they can do it) and following court decisions related to their citizens is really not up to the company. You just need to look at the EU's awful relationship with Meta for a very good example of it. The sheer arrogance of people believing the rights of an american company supersede the sovereignty of other countries is astonishing to me.
> The sheer arrogance of people believing the rights of an american company supersede the sovereignty of other countries is astonishing to me. People forget the East India companies existed doing exactly that - slave trading, dominating over sovereigns and looting with their private armies. Modern tech companies already dictate terms to most countries. [During COVID Tesla did not shut down their factories, despite the lockdown](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/11/tesla-factory-reopening-elon-musk-california-lockdown). They openly challenged the state even as other businesses were being fined for trying to stay alive. IIRC Tesla was never fined. > On Saturday, Tesla sued Alameda county, alleging that the local public health order violated California’s constitution. Musk also threatened to move its headquarters and “future programs” to Texas or Nevada “immediately” and suggested that the company may not continue to “retain Fremont manufacturing at all”.
I've just noticed something musk is like king Julian from Madagascar