10 ms·

Australia Passes Law to Punish Social Media Companies for Violent Posts

131 points by jasonhansel 8y ago

endgame 8y ago
And the opposition, who claimed to have "serious concerns" about this law, have waved it through parliament anyway: https://www.smh.com.au/technology/labor-won-t-stand-in-way-of-morrison-government-s-social-media-laws-20190402-p51a0z.html https://www.smh.com.au/technology/labor-won-t-stand-in-way-o...
- threeseed 8y ago
  It's all politics. They can't be wedged on the national security issue weeks/months before an election.
  - thundergolfer 8y ago
    Yes, if the Labor party was in power we wouldn't have this law. Boy do I hope the Liberals get smashed at the coming election, but it's unfortunately not looking likely.
    - mrath 8y ago
      How can you be so sure? I think it probably would have been same with swapped roles.
    - hestefisk 8y ago
      Labor is just as fascist / totalitarian as Libs. Did you forget Senator Conroy’s great Aussie firewall? “Stop the bytes!”
Despegar 8y ago
Ad-tech monopoly margins going down
- ajdlinux 8y ago
  Ad-tech monopolies finally being threatened with some accountability for their impact on society. I mean, perhaps not in the right way, but I like the idea of ad-tech monopolies actually having to do something to uphold reasonable standards under threat of state involvement.
  - Ceph62 8y ago
    exact opposite. legislation like this will force tech and give legal basis be more invasive on individual user privacy in order prevent, predict or minimize risk of costly 'offensive' content being posted. spill-over effect from more invasive privacy measures only benefit ad-tech.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Does the combination of "private monopoly" and "reasonable standards" not bother you? With explicit laws, at least there are political checks and balances on those standards. But with an indirect arrangement where businesses self-censor under threat of further regulation, the standards to which they do so do not undergo the same review, nor can you challenge them in courts.
    - ajdlinux 8y ago
      This is a good point. Yeah, the combination of "private monopoly" and "reasonable standards" does bother me. Though in this specific case, the list of material to be censored is very explicit.
RileyJames 8y ago
The fact that both major parties have supported this legislation, and the previous ‘anti encryption’ legislation is very concerning. This isn’t just an issue for Australia, through the 5 eyes agreements, the encryption legislation is likely being used to assist other 5 eyes nations. And beyond that, other countries will be watching the results of this legislation. I feel the global tech community needs to condemn this. And I think they should do so by raising concerns with employing of Australian tech workers, at least until the laws co-opting Australians to implement backdoors for the government are repealed or clarified. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19505880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19505880) A federal election is about to be announced, which means there will be a vote in approximately 3 months. Technology will never be an election issue, but jobs & economy always are. If these laws can be shown to directly harm our economy, and the prospects for Australian tech works (jobs), it might actually get some traction. The time is now. Keen to hear the community’s thoughts.
- null0pointer 8y ago
  > And I think they should do so by raising concerns with employing of Australian tech workers As an Australian tech worker... that would hurt. But I don't really see any other way to get them to listen either.
  - kakarot 8y ago
    If you have to migrate as a result of your government's tyrannical attack on freedom, you will be punishing them even more by assisting in the country's brain drain. A tough sacrifice, but sometimes we must make sacrifices for our freedoms.
  - RileyJames 8y ago
    As am I. But the reality is, these laws have made that inevitable. The question is when, and how badly, will this affect the Australians tech opportunities.
  - xfitm3 8y ago
    My company has stopped doing business with Atlassian due to Australia's recent legislature. I can't say we won't hire Australian citizens but they will be at a serious disadvantage. I'm sorry.
microcolonel 8y ago
It's a good thing that a post on social media is inherently incapable of being violent, or this law could have some serious ramifications which are not on the minds of its broad supporters.
- everdev 8y ago
  > Australia passed sweeping legislation Thursday that threatens huge fines for social media companies and jail for their executives if they fail to rapidly remove “abhorrent violent material” from their platforms. > The legislation criminalizes “abhorrent violent material,” which it defines as videos that show terrorist attacks, murders, rape or kidnapping. The title isn't semantically accurate. They mean material that depicts violence.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kakarot 8y ago
Cool, guess I won't be starting my independently-owned Australian social network SMB anytime soon thanks to this anti-SMB, pro-monopoly legislation. Glad we continue to support the competitive free market with forward-thinking legislation such as this. If Facebook wants to shut down my independent Australian social network by secretly paying people to spread violent propaganda on my platform until the government shuts me down in a war of attrition, that's their God-given right.
ajdlinux 8y ago
While this legislation is not well-drafted, it's got some giant flaws, it was passed without consultation, and (at least from my non-extremism-expert point of view) it won't do a huge amount to stop the rise of extremists (whether of the far-right, Islamist or other varieties) because they don't really need this kind of content to build their movements... In principle, I'm quite okay with the scope of the censorship that's imposed by this legislation (which is quite narrow), and in general, I'm quite okay with the idea of holding social media platforms to account with the threat of massive penalties, when it comes to content that is obviously objectionable. I think the fact that a pro-business Western government is willing to impose penalties of up to 10% of global revenue says something about the way we're beginning to view the place and the responsibilities of the big social media platforms. I don't think I support this particular piece of legislation as a whole, but I am okay with much of the core idea behind it, and I wish they had done it properly and thoughtfully rather than rushing it. It's also clear that they're not going to do anything about improving regulation of problematic elements of the mainstream media. (edit: I should add - I have given the text of the bill a skim read, and read some media commentary but not any serious expert or industry commentary on this. This is only a mildly-informed set of opinions.)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tathougies 8y ago
  > threat of massive penalties, when it comes to content that is obviously objectionable. Totally agree. Hacker news should be punished for providing a platform for your obviously objectionable statements.
  - silvester23 8y ago
    That sounds a lot like a slippery slope fallacy.
    - jakeogh 8y ago
      Incrementalism is the most common route to totalitarianism.
theobeers 8y ago
Has it been argued that Facebook didn't act quickly enough to shut down the Christchurch stream and remove copies of the video posted that weekend? I thought the consensus was that they responded as well as could reasonably be expected.
- watson_ian 8y ago
  On Australian radio - yes. 'It took Facebook 29 minutes to realise the content was there' and then another 30 minutes to take it down after being reported. It was first reported ~14 minutes in. This hour lapse is why the video was so widely shared. In the Australian publics mind, as the perp was our citizen, we have a lot to answer for. The livestream was purely to broadcast to his own people (see how he had the names of similar assaulters on the weapon), so the concept here is removing the platform that provides an incentive - in this situation - to do the deed. Since the guy thrives on being noticed, NZ has actually barered photographs of him unpixalted from the 1st appearance in court. Today they announced total bans on photos and videos until further notice of him at the trial. Bit of a long winded answer, but this is the link that a lot of the foreign commentary is missing. While the reach is wide of the legislation, there is no 'what about before the internet existed?' claims on how this tech makes things better. It was also considered when people used facebook live for suicide broadcasting.
  - easymodex 8y ago
    >see how he had the names of similar assaulters on the weapon Those names were actually the names of terrorist victims in recent attacks. I thought that was the case but I'm not 100% sure though, can't really check or find any source.
    - theobeers 8y ago
      It was a mixture of things, including other killers like Alexandre Bissonnette, victims like Ebba Åkerlund, historical events like the 1683 Battle of Vienna, memes like "Crab Rave," etc.
  - int_19h 8y ago
webXL 8y ago
I'm completely dumbfounded. It's as if the expressions don't shoot the messenger and one abhorrent act does not a trend make are completely unknown to Australians and Kiwis. When will the nanny state realize that violence as a whole is still on a downward trend [1] and that these bandaid solutions are just that? Something doesn't always need to be done. This law only reduces culpability for would be terrorists. [1] https://slides.ourworldindata.org/war-and-violence/#/6 https://slides.ourworldindata.org/war-and-violence/#/6
- xfitm3 8y ago
  It just goes to show how flawed the political process is. It has nothing to do with outcome and everything to do with perception. This is nothing new. The internet was safe for a few decades because lawmakers hadn't caught up to it. Now it'll be just as fucked as everything else - or worse.
- Gatsky 8y ago
  Social media companies aren't messengers mate, nor are they a basic human right, or a free speech platform. They are machines that optimise controlling your attention to show you ads so they can make money. Also it is clearly fallacious to assume that the downward trend in violence is some kind of force of nature that won't be derailed by, for example, connecting a whole bunch of crazy people together across the world and helping them swallow their own perverse version of reality.
  - webXL 8y ago
    > Social media companies aren't messengers mate They're closer to a messenger than an accomplice. > They are machines that optimise controlling your attention to show you ads so they can make money. Who came up with that line? They definitely don't control my attention. Could it be that they just optimize capturing the attention of those who would otherwise consume other forms of digital media? > Also it is clearly fallacious to assume that the downward trend in violence is some kind of force of nature that... I never said it was, but a knee-jerk reaction to an anomalous event like this is obviously ignorant of trends. "Crazy people" (deemed by whatever "sane" minority) will always be connected/have the ability to connect provided they haven't already committed acts of violence and are locked away. Sure you can make it harder for them by enlisting private entities, but that undermines the market and places undue liability on the participants. This is all blame shifting anyway. Why isn't the government held accountable here for allowing "crazy people" to be on the streets? Just think of all the things that can be used as a weapon!
logicchains 8y ago
As an Australian I'm glad I no longer live there. Even Chinese internet censorship laws look sane compared to this: at least they don't threaten to jail employees for failing to do what's technologically impossible. This law is basically the Australian government saying we don't want any social media companies or video sharing platforms in Australia, ever (or at least until some AGI is invented that's capable of identifying violent videos as effectively as humans).
- throwawaygx 8y ago
  To play devil’s advocate here: if social media companies were to desert a particular country, (unlikely as it is)...would it harm society in any significant way? Facebook, in particular seems to be a cesspit...in fact I spoke to a colleague who is mentally fragile, and gets worked up by looking at extremist Facebook pages... Add the other issues caused by social media, and it might be a blessing in disguise if they shut down.
  - logicchains 8y ago
    >To play devil’s advocate here: if social media companies were to desert a particular country, (unlikely as it is)...would it harm society in any significant way? Society is made up of people, and a significant number of these people use Facebook. I imagine they wouldn't be particularly happy if it was taken away from them. How do you feel when somebody suddenly decides to take away something you like because they believe they know better than you about what's good for you? >Facebook, in particular seems to be a cesspit... Your experiences of Facebook are not representative of everybody's. The people in my circle of friends use Facebook to post jokes and memes, and keep in touch with extended family. I can't see how you'd accidentally come across extremist content unless either you're looking for it or your friends post it, in which case shouldn't your friends be the one you take issue with for sharing it? >in fact I spoke to a colleague who is mentally fragile, and gets worked up by looking at extremist Facebook pages... Mental illness is a tragic thing, but taking away Facebook won't solve it. Mentally ill people are distressed by many kinds of social interaction; would you suggest banning them all? >Add the other issues caused by social media, and it might be a blessing in disguise if they shut down. What other issues exactly? Trump being elected? Not everybody considers than an issue, e.g. the people who voted for him, and it's certainly not settled science that he wouldn't have been elected without it. Obama also made heavy use of social media in his election campaign; maybe he wouldn't have been elected without it. Personally social media has improved my life immensely, making it possible to keep in touch with people I'd otherwise have lost contact with completely. I can't be the only one. But I imagine on a social network like Hackernews you won't get a representative sample of the broader population, as engineers are more introverted on average, and introverts may get less value out of large social networks, digital or otherwise.
Ceph62 8y ago
This legislation is forcing tech company's to become "virtual deputies" of all content and information. It will eventually force tech company consider more invasive systems to analyze, scrutinize and evaluate every piece of content you post online for appropriateness. This is about political control over the internet.
happppy 8y ago
Are they being serious? Social Media companies should simply stop serving Australia.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
sadris 8y ago
Well that's one way to not have any Facebook servers or employees in your country.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
iscrewyou 8y ago
The tech industry brought this on themselves. They acted like the Wild West, and now the pendulum swings the other way. Because the legislators are uneducated about technology and only read bad things in the press. Software engineers are professionals and they should have ethics exams, a board, and licenses like other professions. Since companies don’t have any incentive to do it by themselves, a board for software engineers will help. The board will be able to represent all software engineers at the legislature level and not act as lobbyist for one particular company. But for now, we reap what we sow.
- Ceph62 8y ago
  The only path this leads is tech company's will be controlled and forced to become more than they already now virtual "depuities" for the state to enforce censorship and content controls. This is not the right direction. It will require even greater instruments of surveillance and reduction is privacy as systems need be built to study each user and all content they post. Freedom on the internet needs to be defended at all costs. These politicians exacerbate divisions between classes, religions, political idealogies and ethnicities for political purpose and when things inevitably go wrong and someone walks into a church with an AR and starts killing people the solution they propose is more control of speech, increased natsec laws etc etc?? Really?? Dark DARK days are ahead if people do not wake the f*#$ up!
- ajdlinux 8y ago
  I'm unconvinced that software development should have the same level of licensing as e.g. engineering. Software isn't the same as traditional mechanical/structural/electrical etc engineering - it's a faster-moving area, and most of the time software is not safety-critical and has only limited societal impact in case of failure. It's also a lot easier for newcomers to get started in, and I don't want that to change. But I definitely think there's some role for professional bodies, with ethical codes, certifications, PD and all that, which programmers have traditionally resisted. Unfortunately, the existing professional bodies are not that. The Australian Computer Society, to give one example, is more representative of corporate IT executives than of programmers, and I don't know anyone who is a member apart from those whose employers pay for it.
BLKNSLVR 8y ago
The right- or wrong-ness of passing new laws based on a single incident notwithstanding, there is an Australian Senator, an elected representative of the Australian people, that said this in response to being censured by the Senate: "What blame did I attribute to the victims? I said nothing of the sort," he told the Senate. "I issued a media statement condemning the shooting and the shooter in the strongest possible terms. "However, after putting the immediate blame where it belonged, I looked for contributing causes. I identified that immigration program that allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand was a key enabler of community violence. "The claim that this somehow blames the victims is absurd, Mr President. The hypocrisy and blind discrimination on display by an elected politician at the highest levels of Australian Government is a far more scary and far-reaching issue as far as I'm concerned. If a politician says those kinds of things it makes it OK for the communities that they represent to normalise that attitude. In this instance the terrorist was an Australian. Allowing an Australian fanatic into New Zealand was the cause. If New Zealand was to have a knee-jerk reaction to this incident it should be to put greater restrictions and tighter background checks on Australians coming into the country, not muslims. Good on the Senate for censuring his comments, but if laws need to be changed for social media responsibility then laws are well overdue for the responsibility of what politicians say in public and the anti-social attitudes they encourage.
- Tarq0n 8y ago
  This is a very good point. The few acts of terrorism in my country's recent history were inspired by mainstream political discourse, I which certain groups were demonized and vilified. It doesn't take violent content to radicalize someone, our polarized political discourse is sufficient to do that in vulnerable people already.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Gatsky 8y ago
Well there a lot of posts here decrying the legislation, as expected. This is pretty ironic given Zuckerberg's recent request for more government involvement in regulating content on social media. Anyway, I think this is a positive move. The government should start with an extreme policy, anything less and nothing will change. Social media businesses basically do whatever they like, and have monetised human attention and outrage without any regards to the consequences. Brexit, kids getting measles, what happened in Christchurch... it is pointless to run counterfactuals, but the probability that social media contributed to these events significantly is certainly not zero. Society needs to defend itself against these entities which don't have our best interests at heart. Is it a well thought out legislation? Sure doesn't look like it. But then we aren't regulating schools or fresh air or hospitals, are we?
- Ceph62 8y ago
  your rightfully angry about certain aspects of tech industry worse thing you can do is have your anger misdirected in thinking this legislation will serve to improve the situation. this is about control. this is not about addressing root cause of problems like brexit, trump, brazil, etc.
veryworried 8y ago
I think it’s clear we will inevitably need those floating ocean cities that Peter Thiel talked about, where tech companies can be free to operate outside of irrational and ill-drafted geopolitical laws, and any country that doesn’t want citizens to access their content must simply block them off with a country wide firewall, and make criminals out of those who go around it. It is unlikely they will differentiate between child pornographers and unauthorized social media perusers in that case.
- pojzon 8y ago
  Then nations would unite to create "international waters" laws to fuck over those cities too. You really cant run from human ignorance.
tqi 8y ago
I remember watching the North Tower collapse on September 11th, first Live on the Today Show, then in numerous news segments over the years. Would that have been considered "abhorrent violent material" under this law?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- zmmmmm 8y ago
  It might not matter. One of the worst aspects of this kind of thing is the chilling effect. It doesn't matter whether it actually breaks the law, just the fact of such laws existing will stop people from doing anything like it.
- hiisukun 8y ago
  Under the law as I read it, this would not count, as it was not filmed by the person committing the abhorrent violent conduct (or who arranged/aided/counselled etc the act). An example that might illustrate what you are considering could be a police officer murdering a civilian. The footage captured by their body-cam would be unable to be shown or shared. In this example, whether it was murder or not would be (likely) up for debate, but perhaps during a protest you agreed with, some people were killed. This would be a challenging situation for the law.
  - tqi 8y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. I'm having a hard time understanding why the person filming it makes a difference, if the goal is to gain attention and spread a message of hate / fear. This legislation, and the recent media focus on the video rather than the actual act itself, makes me uneasy.
ImaCake 8y ago
The comments here are striking in how unanimous they are. This site often presents counterpoints to existing dogma which is why I keep coming back. But it is interesting to see where the tech community (and associated) stand on issues such as this kind of censorship (evidently against any censorship). The broader conversation in Aust and NZ is far less unipolar on these laws.
kmlx 8y ago
so what about sites that only feature violent content?
gravelc 8y ago
I don't have a problem with the vibe of law, though it might be terrible in implementation and its drafting may have unforeseen consequences (haven't read it, so don't know). Don't really understand why people are conflating it with the encryption law though, which is an absolute shocker for so many obvious reasons. It has clear foreseen consequences for the Australian tech industry. Australia isn't obsessed with free speech like the US. You would find very very few people here comfortable with not removing ISIS videos 'expeditiously'. Also don't see an issue with going after higher management in companies in addition to the companies themselves. Should happen more often for corporate malfeasance. I guess the counter argument is the 'slippery slope' - first they go after ISIS/white supremacist videos, next it's someone who posted a video of police brutality or something like that. I say - we managed to ban assault weapons and bring in a gun licensing system over 20 years ago. It hasn't gone any further since. There was no slippery slope in this case. Suspect this will be much the same.
- int_19h 8y ago
  The most basic objection is that this seems to criminalize the act without mens rea, and with some very harsh punishments at that. It's one thing to criminalize the deliberate posting of such material - then we could talk about hate speech etc - but to criminalize not being fast enough at removing material someone else posted? On this: > I say - we managed to ban assault weapons and bring in a gun licensing system over 20 years ago. It hasn't gone any further since. This is not true, actually. Your government is currently obsessed with "rapid-fire lever action guns" that are "almost as fast as semi-auto", and actively trying to ban them. Which is exactly the kind of slippery slope that was predicted with your original ban. For another example, your police has recently banned a straight-pull bolt action rifle from importation. Which also happens to be a good example of the fact that your current system permits arbitrary reclassification of firearms by the executive with no legislative oversight - i.e. it's optimized for slippery slope.
harshreality 8y ago
The gist of the legislation is that it bans audio or video of abhorrent violent acts, which are defined roughly as: terrorist acts, murder, attempted murder, torture, rape, or kidnapping.[1] It appears that there's an "esafety commissioner" who would send notices identifying abhorrent violent material, and then the hosting company must expeditiously remove it. Tech companies that are against this want to have their cake and eat it too. They're already doing the same thing voluntarily, and it would create a moat: small competitors don't have the resources to have their own censorship department. Big internet platforms should welcome this, for giving them legal cover for some of their censorship. Instead, they complain because heaven forbid anyone interfere with their internal operations and their profiting from attention-capturing content. The target is clearly things like the NZ shooter video, but it would also apply to things like ISIS videos, which are academically important and newsworthy. I would fully expect puritans to try to use this law against BDSM porn; there's always the claim that pornstars in that either aren't participating voluntarily, or the nature of the activity forecloses the possibility of valid consent. At least if a government mandates this social media censorship, there is (theoretically) public accountability for the censorship criteria, and legal recourse if it gets expanded out of control. Currently, social media bans things whimsically based on whether they view the material as bad PR, or based on how many reports/flags it's received. One might hope that with this kind of law, anything not legally banned would cease to be censored, and cease to be justification for being kicked off the platform; but I know that's probably not going to happen. Social media companies, even with this law, would keep up their extra-legal censorship. [1] Direct link to the legislation (good stuff starts on pdf page 7): https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/s1201_first-senate/toc_pdf/1908121.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...
vermilingua 8y ago
If I can doomsay for a moment: Let’s assume that this is another step on the slippery slope that leads to a totalitarian Australian government. What recourse do we (aus citizens) have? I have tried the political route, and my calls and emails have simply not been answered by my representatives; I have tried to raise awareness in my peers, and Australians are simply the most politically apathetic group in western civilisation. I could move to another country, but it seems that among all developed countries we are or will be seeing the same trend. I could move to an undeveloped country, but would be making a sacrifice in quality of life. I genuinely cannot see a way out of this system, am I self-deluding?
- externalreality 8y ago
  You could help to decrease the prevalence of the attitude whose extreme form was responsible for the passage of the law in the first place. Ever give that a thought? There is no totalitarianism here its Law & Order.
  - vermilingua 8y ago
    The “attitude” that allowed this law to pass, was an utter disregard for the will of the people, and the drive to ignore established democratic process. The A&A bill was rushed through parliament at breakneck speed, after the examining committee ignored over 300 recommendations condemning the law; a process that on the whole was kept extremely quiet, and had next to zero media presence. There is law and order yes, but whose?
- honzzz 8y ago
  As someone who was born and grew up in a totalitarian country, I hope I am not going to underestimate your risks but I would say that some bad law now and then does not mean you are on the slippery slope to a totalitarian government. It just means that we live in an imperfect world. I admit that I do not know much about Australia, but AFAIK you are not on a strategically important location right next to a much more powerful aggressive neighbor, there is no major economic crisis (think "we cannot get enough food" type, not "we can afford slightly fewer iPhones" type)... do you really have enough reason to think about moving to another country? Did any rich and independent country in history just "slipp" to totalitarianism? I am not saying you should not be cautious... but this feels out of proportion. Just my $0.02.
KiDD 8y ago
I hate this so much

131 points by jasonhansel 8y ago

And the opposition, who claimed to have "serious concerns" about this law, have waved it through parliament anyway: https://www.smh.com.au/technology/labor-won-t-stand-in-way-of-morrison-government-s-social-media-laws-20190402-p51a0z.html https://www.smh.com.au/technology/labor-won-t-stand-in-way-o...

threeseed 8y ago
It's all politics. They can't be wedged on the national security issue weeks/months before an election.
- thundergolfer 8y ago
  Yes, if the Labor party was in power we wouldn't have this law. Boy do I hope the Liberals get smashed at the coming election, but it's unfortunately not looking likely.
  - mrath 8y ago
    How can you be so sure? I think it probably would have been same with swapped roles.
  - hestefisk 8y ago
    Labor is just as fascist / totalitarian as Libs. Did you forget Senator Conroy’s great Aussie firewall? “Stop the bytes!”

Despegar 8y ago

Ad-tech monopoly margins going down

ajdlinux 8y ago
Ad-tech monopolies finally being threatened with some accountability for their impact on society. I mean, perhaps not in the right way, but I like the idea of ad-tech monopolies actually having to do something to uphold reasonable standards under threat of state involvement.
- Ceph62 8y ago
  exact opposite. legislation like this will force tech and give legal basis be more invasive on individual user privacy in order prevent, predict or minimize risk of costly 'offensive' content being posted. spill-over effect from more invasive privacy measures only benefit ad-tech.
- int_19h 8y ago
  Does the combination of "private monopoly" and "reasonable standards" not bother you? With explicit laws, at least there are political checks and balances on those standards. But with an indirect arrangement where businesses self-censor under threat of further regulation, the standards to which they do so do not undergo the same review, nor can you challenge them in courts.
  - ajdlinux 8y ago
    This is a good point. Yeah, the combination of "private monopoly" and "reasonable standards" does bother me. Though in this specific case, the list of material to be censored is very explicit.

RileyJames 8y ago

The fact that both major parties have supported this legislation, and the previous ‘anti encryption’ legislation is very concerning. This isn’t just an issue for Australia, through the 5 eyes agreements, the encryption legislation is likely being used to assist other 5 eyes nations. And beyond that, other countries will be watching the results of this legislation. I feel the global tech community needs to condemn this. And I think they should do so by raising concerns with employing of Australian tech workers, at least until the laws co-opting Australians to implement backdoors for the government are repealed or clarified. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19505880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19505880) A federal election is about to be announced, which means there will be a vote in approximately 3 months. Technology will never be an election issue, but jobs & economy always are. If these laws can be shown to directly harm our economy, and the prospects for Australian tech works (jobs), it might actually get some traction. The time is now. Keen to hear the community’s thoughts.

null0pointer 8y ago
> And I think they should do so by raising concerns with employing of Australian tech workers As an Australian tech worker... that would hurt. But I don't really see any other way to get them to listen either.
- kakarot 8y ago
  If you have to migrate as a result of your government's tyrannical attack on freedom, you will be punishing them even more by assisting in the country's brain drain. A tough sacrifice, but sometimes we must make sacrifices for our freedoms.
- RileyJames 8y ago
  As am I. But the reality is, these laws have made that inevitable. The question is when, and how badly, will this affect the Australians tech opportunities.
- xfitm3 8y ago
  My company has stopped doing business with Atlassian due to Australia's recent legislature. I can't say we won't hire Australian citizens but they will be at a serious disadvantage. I'm sorry.

microcolonel 8y ago

It's a good thing that a post on social media is inherently incapable of being violent, or this law could have some serious ramifications which are not on the minds of its broad supporters.

everdev 8y ago
> Australia passed sweeping legislation Thursday that threatens huge fines for social media companies and jail for their executives if they fail to rapidly remove “abhorrent violent material” from their platforms. > The legislation criminalizes “abhorrent violent material,” which it defines as videos that show terrorist attacks, murders, rape or kidnapping. The title isn't semantically accurate. They mean material that depicts violence.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

kakarot 8y ago

Cool, guess I won't be starting my independently-owned Australian social network SMB anytime soon thanks to this anti-SMB, pro-monopoly legislation. Glad we continue to support the competitive free market with forward-thinking legislation such as this. If Facebook wants to shut down my independent Australian social network by secretly paying people to spread violent propaganda on my platform until the government shuts me down in a war of attrition, that's their God-given right.

ajdlinux 8y ago

While this legislation is not well-drafted, it's got some giant flaws, it was passed without consultation, and (at least from my non-extremism-expert point of view) it won't do a huge amount to stop the rise of extremists (whether of the far-right, Islamist or other varieties) because they don't really need this kind of content to build their movements... In principle, I'm quite okay with the scope of the censorship that's imposed by this legislation (which is quite narrow), and in general, I'm quite okay with the idea of holding social media platforms to account with the threat of massive penalties, when it comes to content that is obviously objectionable. I think the fact that a pro-business Western government is willing to impose penalties of up to 10% of global revenue says something about the way we're beginning to view the place and the responsibilities of the big social media platforms. I don't think I support this particular piece of legislation as a whole, but I am okay with much of the core idea behind it, and I wish they had done it properly and thoughtfully rather than rushing it. It's also clear that they're not going to do anything about improving regulation of problematic elements of the mainstream media. (edit: I should add - I have given the text of the bill a skim read, and read some media commentary but not any serious expert or industry commentary on this. This is only a mildly-informed set of opinions.)

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tathougies 8y ago
> threat of massive penalties, when it comes to content that is obviously objectionable. Totally agree. Hacker news should be punished for providing a platform for your obviously objectionable statements.
- silvester23 8y ago
  That sounds a lot like a slippery slope fallacy.
  - jakeogh 8y ago
    Incrementalism is the most common route to totalitarianism.

theobeers 8y ago

Has it been argued that Facebook didn't act quickly enough to shut down the Christchurch stream and remove copies of the video posted that weekend? I thought the consensus was that they responded as well as could reasonably be expected.

watson_ian 8y ago
On Australian radio - yes. 'It took Facebook 29 minutes to realise the content was there' and then another 30 minutes to take it down after being reported. It was first reported ~14 minutes in. This hour lapse is why the video was so widely shared. In the Australian publics mind, as the perp was our citizen, we have a lot to answer for. The livestream was purely to broadcast to his own people (see how he had the names of similar assaulters on the weapon), so the concept here is removing the platform that provides an incentive - in this situation - to do the deed. Since the guy thrives on being noticed, NZ has actually barered photographs of him unpixalted from the 1st appearance in court. Today they announced total bans on photos and videos until further notice of him at the trial. Bit of a long winded answer, but this is the link that a lot of the foreign commentary is missing. While the reach is wide of the legislation, there is no 'what about before the internet existed?' claims on how this tech makes things better. It was also considered when people used facebook live for suicide broadcasting.
- easymodex 8y ago
  >see how he had the names of similar assaulters on the weapon Those names were actually the names of terrorist victims in recent attacks. I thought that was the case but I'm not 100% sure though, can't really check or find any source.
  - theobeers 8y ago
    It was a mixture of things, including other killers like Alexandre Bissonnette, victims like Ebba Åkerlund, historical events like the 1683 Battle of Vienna, memes like "Crab Rave," etc.
- int_19h 8y ago

webXL 8y ago

I'm completely dumbfounded. It's as if the expressions don't shoot the messenger and one abhorrent act does not a trend make are completely unknown to Australians and Kiwis. When will the nanny state realize that violence as a whole is still on a downward trend [1] and that these bandaid solutions are just that? Something doesn't always need to be done. This law only reduces culpability for would be terrorists. [1] https://slides.ourworldindata.org/war-and-violence/#/6 https://slides.ourworldindata.org/war-and-violence/#/6

xfitm3 8y ago
It just goes to show how flawed the political process is. It has nothing to do with outcome and everything to do with perception. This is nothing new. The internet was safe for a few decades because lawmakers hadn't caught up to it. Now it'll be just as fucked as everything else - or worse.
Gatsky 8y ago
Social media companies aren't messengers mate, nor are they a basic human right, or a free speech platform. They are machines that optimise controlling your attention to show you ads so they can make money. Also it is clearly fallacious to assume that the downward trend in violence is some kind of force of nature that won't be derailed by, for example, connecting a whole bunch of crazy people together across the world and helping them swallow their own perverse version of reality.
- webXL 8y ago
  > Social media companies aren't messengers mate They're closer to a messenger than an accomplice. > They are machines that optimise controlling your attention to show you ads so they can make money. Who came up with that line? They definitely don't control my attention. Could it be that they just optimize capturing the attention of those who would otherwise consume other forms of digital media? > Also it is clearly fallacious to assume that the downward trend in violence is some kind of force of nature that... I never said it was, but a knee-jerk reaction to an anomalous event like this is obviously ignorant of trends. "Crazy people" (deemed by whatever "sane" minority) will always be connected/have the ability to connect provided they haven't already committed acts of violence and are locked away. Sure you can make it harder for them by enlisting private entities, but that undermines the market and places undue liability on the participants. This is all blame shifting anyway. Why isn't the government held accountable here for allowing "crazy people" to be on the streets? Just think of all the things that can be used as a weapon!

logicchains 8y ago

As an Australian I'm glad I no longer live there. Even Chinese internet censorship laws look sane compared to this: at least they don't threaten to jail employees for failing to do what's technologically impossible. This law is basically the Australian government saying we don't want any social media companies or video sharing platforms in Australia, ever (or at least until some AGI is invented that's capable of identifying violent videos as effectively as humans).

throwawaygx 8y ago
To play devil’s advocate here: if social media companies were to desert a particular country, (unlikely as it is)...would it harm society in any significant way? Facebook, in particular seems to be a cesspit...in fact I spoke to a colleague who is mentally fragile, and gets worked up by looking at extremist Facebook pages... Add the other issues caused by social media, and it might be a blessing in disguise if they shut down.
- logicchains 8y ago
  >To play devil’s advocate here: if social media companies were to desert a particular country, (unlikely as it is)...would it harm society in any significant way? Society is made up of people, and a significant number of these people use Facebook. I imagine they wouldn't be particularly happy if it was taken away from them. How do you feel when somebody suddenly decides to take away something you like because they believe they know better than you about what's good for you? >Facebook, in particular seems to be a cesspit... Your experiences of Facebook are not representative of everybody's. The people in my circle of friends use Facebook to post jokes and memes, and keep in touch with extended family. I can't see how you'd accidentally come across extremist content unless either you're looking for it or your friends post it, in which case shouldn't your friends be the one you take issue with for sharing it? >in fact I spoke to a colleague who is mentally fragile, and gets worked up by looking at extremist Facebook pages... Mental illness is a tragic thing, but taking away Facebook won't solve it. Mentally ill people are distressed by many kinds of social interaction; would you suggest banning them all? >Add the other issues caused by social media, and it might be a blessing in disguise if they shut down. What other issues exactly? Trump being elected? Not everybody considers than an issue, e.g. the people who voted for him, and it's certainly not settled science that he wouldn't have been elected without it. Obama also made heavy use of social media in his election campaign; maybe he wouldn't have been elected without it. Personally social media has improved my life immensely, making it possible to keep in touch with people I'd otherwise have lost contact with completely. I can't be the only one. But I imagine on a social network like Hackernews you won't get a representative sample of the broader population, as engineers are more introverted on average, and introverts may get less value out of large social networks, digital or otherwise.

Ceph62 8y ago

This legislation is forcing tech company's to become "virtual deputies" of all content and information. It will eventually force tech company consider more invasive systems to analyze, scrutinize and evaluate every piece of content you post online for appropriateness. This is about political control over the internet.

happppy 8y ago

Are they being serious? Social Media companies should simply stop serving Australia.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

sadris 8y ago

Well that's one way to not have any Facebook servers or employees in your country.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

iscrewyou 8y ago

The tech industry brought this on themselves. They acted like the Wild West, and now the pendulum swings the other way. Because the legislators are uneducated about technology and only read bad things in the press. Software engineers are professionals and they should have ethics exams, a board, and licenses like other professions. Since companies don’t have any incentive to do it by themselves, a board for software engineers will help. The board will be able to represent all software engineers at the legislature level and not act as lobbyist for one particular company. But for now, we reap what we sow.

Ceph62 8y ago
The only path this leads is tech company's will be controlled and forced to become more than they already now virtual "depuities" for the state to enforce censorship and content controls. This is not the right direction. It will require even greater instruments of surveillance and reduction is privacy as systems need be built to study each user and all content they post. Freedom on the internet needs to be defended at all costs. These politicians exacerbate divisions between classes, religions, political idealogies and ethnicities for political purpose and when things inevitably go wrong and someone walks into a church with an AR and starts killing people the solution they propose is more control of speech, increased natsec laws etc etc?? Really?? Dark DARK days are ahead if people do not wake the f*#$ up!
ajdlinux 8y ago
I'm unconvinced that software development should have the same level of licensing as e.g. engineering. Software isn't the same as traditional mechanical/structural/electrical etc engineering - it's a faster-moving area, and most of the time software is not safety-critical and has only limited societal impact in case of failure. It's also a lot easier for newcomers to get started in, and I don't want that to change. But I definitely think there's some role for professional bodies, with ethical codes, certifications, PD and all that, which programmers have traditionally resisted. Unfortunately, the existing professional bodies are not that. The Australian Computer Society, to give one example, is more representative of corporate IT executives than of programmers, and I don't know anyone who is a member apart from those whose employers pay for it.

BLKNSLVR 8y ago

The right- or wrong-ness of passing new laws based on a single incident notwithstanding, there is an Australian Senator, an elected representative of the Australian people, that said this in response to being censured by the Senate: "What blame did I attribute to the victims? I said nothing of the sort," he told the Senate. "I issued a media statement condemning the shooting and the shooter in the strongest possible terms. "However, after putting the immediate blame where it belonged, I looked for contributing causes. I identified that immigration program that allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand was a key enabler of community violence. "The claim that this somehow blames the victims is absurd, Mr President. The hypocrisy and blind discrimination on display by an elected politician at the highest levels of Australian Government is a far more scary and far-reaching issue as far as I'm concerned. If a politician says those kinds of things it makes it OK for the communities that they represent to normalise that attitude. In this instance the terrorist was an Australian. Allowing an Australian fanatic into New Zealand was the cause. If New Zealand was to have a knee-jerk reaction to this incident it should be to put greater restrictions and tighter background checks on Australians coming into the country, not muslims. Good on the Senate for censuring his comments, but if laws need to be changed for social media responsibility then laws are well overdue for the responsibility of what politicians say in public and the anti-social attitudes they encourage.

Tarq0n 8y ago
This is a very good point. The few acts of terrorism in my country's recent history were inspired by mainstream political discourse, I which certain groups were demonized and vilified. It doesn't take violent content to radicalize someone, our polarized political discourse is sufficient to do that in vulnerable people already.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Gatsky 8y ago

Well there a lot of posts here decrying the legislation, as expected. This is pretty ironic given Zuckerberg's recent request for more government involvement in regulating content on social media. Anyway, I think this is a positive move. The government should start with an extreme policy, anything less and nothing will change. Social media businesses basically do whatever they like, and have monetised human attention and outrage without any regards to the consequences. Brexit, kids getting measles, what happened in Christchurch... it is pointless to run counterfactuals, but the probability that social media contributed to these events significantly is certainly not zero. Society needs to defend itself against these entities which don't have our best interests at heart. Is it a well thought out legislation? Sure doesn't look like it. But then we aren't regulating schools or fresh air or hospitals, are we?

Ceph62 8y ago
your rightfully angry about certain aspects of tech industry worse thing you can do is have your anger misdirected in thinking this legislation will serve to improve the situation. this is about control. this is not about addressing root cause of problems like brexit, trump, brazil, etc.

veryworried 8y ago

I think it’s clear we will inevitably need those floating ocean cities that Peter Thiel talked about, where tech companies can be free to operate outside of irrational and ill-drafted geopolitical laws, and any country that doesn’t want citizens to access their content must simply block them off with a country wide firewall, and make criminals out of those who go around it. It is unlikely they will differentiate between child pornographers and unauthorized social media perusers in that case.

pojzon 8y ago
Then nations would unite to create "international waters" laws to fuck over those cities too. You really cant run from human ignorance.

tqi 8y ago

I remember watching the North Tower collapse on September 11th, first Live on the Today Show, then in numerous news segments over the years. Would that have been considered "abhorrent violent material" under this law?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
zmmmmm 8y ago
It might not matter. One of the worst aspects of this kind of thing is the chilling effect. It doesn't matter whether it actually breaks the law, just the fact of such laws existing will stop people from doing anything like it.
hiisukun 8y ago
Under the law as I read it, this would not count, as it was not filmed by the person committing the abhorrent violent conduct (or who arranged/aided/counselled etc the act). An example that might illustrate what you are considering could be a police officer murdering a civilian. The footage captured by their body-cam would be unable to be shown or shared. In this example, whether it was murder or not would be (likely) up for debate, but perhaps during a protest you agreed with, some people were killed. This would be a challenging situation for the law.
- tqi 8y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. I'm having a hard time understanding why the person filming it makes a difference, if the goal is to gain attention and spread a message of hate / fear. This legislation, and the recent media focus on the video rather than the actual act itself, makes me uneasy.

ImaCake 8y ago

The comments here are striking in how unanimous they are. This site often presents counterpoints to existing dogma which is why I keep coming back. But it is interesting to see where the tech community (and associated) stand on issues such as this kind of censorship (evidently against any censorship). The broader conversation in Aust and NZ is far less unipolar on these laws.

kmlx 8y ago

so what about sites that only feature violent content?

gravelc 8y ago

I don't have a problem with the vibe of law, though it might be terrible in implementation and its drafting may have unforeseen consequences (haven't read it, so don't know). Don't really understand why people are conflating it with the encryption law though, which is an absolute shocker for so many obvious reasons. It has clear foreseen consequences for the Australian tech industry. Australia isn't obsessed with free speech like the US. You would find very very few people here comfortable with not removing ISIS videos 'expeditiously'. Also don't see an issue with going after higher management in companies in addition to the companies themselves. Should happen more often for corporate malfeasance. I guess the counter argument is the 'slippery slope' - first they go after ISIS/white supremacist videos, next it's someone who posted a video of police brutality or something like that. I say - we managed to ban assault weapons and bring in a gun licensing system over 20 years ago. It hasn't gone any further since. There was no slippery slope in this case. Suspect this will be much the same.

int_19h 8y ago
The most basic objection is that this seems to criminalize the act without mens rea, and with some very harsh punishments at that. It's one thing to criminalize the deliberate posting of such material - then we could talk about hate speech etc - but to criminalize not being fast enough at removing material someone else posted? On this: > I say - we managed to ban assault weapons and bring in a gun licensing system over 20 years ago. It hasn't gone any further since. This is not true, actually. Your government is currently obsessed with "rapid-fire lever action guns" that are "almost as fast as semi-auto", and actively trying to ban them. Which is exactly the kind of slippery slope that was predicted with your original ban. For another example, your police has recently banned a straight-pull bolt action rifle from importation. Which also happens to be a good example of the fact that your current system permits arbitrary reclassification of firearms by the executive with no legislative oversight - i.e. it's optimized for slippery slope.

harshreality 8y ago

The gist of the legislation is that it bans audio or video of abhorrent violent acts, which are defined roughly as: terrorist acts, murder, attempted murder, torture, rape, or kidnapping.[1] It appears that there's an "esafety commissioner" who would send notices identifying abhorrent violent material, and then the hosting company must expeditiously remove it. Tech companies that are against this want to have their cake and eat it too. They're already doing the same thing voluntarily, and it would create a moat: small competitors don't have the resources to have their own censorship department. Big internet platforms should welcome this, for giving them legal cover for some of their censorship. Instead, they complain because heaven forbid anyone interfere with their internal operations and their profiting from attention-capturing content. The target is clearly things like the NZ shooter video, but it would also apply to things like ISIS videos, which are academically important and newsworthy. I would fully expect puritans to try to use this law against BDSM porn; there's always the claim that pornstars in that either aren't participating voluntarily, or the nature of the activity forecloses the possibility of valid consent. At least if a government mandates this social media censorship, there is (theoretically) public accountability for the censorship criteria, and legal recourse if it gets expanded out of control. Currently, social media bans things whimsically based on whether they view the material as bad PR, or based on how many reports/flags it's received. One might hope that with this kind of law, anything not legally banned would cease to be censored, and cease to be justification for being kicked off the platform; but I know that's probably not going to happen. Social media companies, even with this law, would keep up their extra-legal censorship. [1] Direct link to the legislation (good stuff starts on pdf page 7): https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/s1201_first-senate/toc_pdf/1908121.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...

vermilingua 8y ago

If I can doomsay for a moment: Let’s assume that this is another step on the slippery slope that leads to a totalitarian Australian government. What recourse do we (aus citizens) have? I have tried the political route, and my calls and emails have simply not been answered by my representatives; I have tried to raise awareness in my peers, and Australians are simply the most politically apathetic group in western civilisation. I could move to another country, but it seems that among all developed countries we are or will be seeing the same trend. I could move to an undeveloped country, but would be making a sacrifice in quality of life. I genuinely cannot see a way out of this system, am I self-deluding?

externalreality 8y ago
You could help to decrease the prevalence of the attitude whose extreme form was responsible for the passage of the law in the first place. Ever give that a thought? There is no totalitarianism here its Law & Order.
- vermilingua 8y ago
  The “attitude” that allowed this law to pass, was an utter disregard for the will of the people, and the drive to ignore established democratic process. The A&A bill was rushed through parliament at breakneck speed, after the examining committee ignored over 300 recommendations condemning the law; a process that on the whole was kept extremely quiet, and had next to zero media presence. There is law and order yes, but whose?
honzzz 8y ago
As someone who was born and grew up in a totalitarian country, I hope I am not going to underestimate your risks but I would say that some bad law now and then does not mean you are on the slippery slope to a totalitarian government. It just means that we live in an imperfect world. I admit that I do not know much about Australia, but AFAIK you are not on a strategically important location right next to a much more powerful aggressive neighbor, there is no major economic crisis (think "we cannot get enough food" type, not "we can afford slightly fewer iPhones" type)... do you really have enough reason to think about moving to another country? Did any rich and independent country in history just "slipp" to totalitarianism? I am not saying you should not be cautious... but this feels out of proportion. Just my $0.02.

KiDD 8y ago

I hate this so much