4 ms·

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 Australia

by 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!
  - 0xdeadb00f 8y ago
    > Who came up with that line? They definitely don't control my attention. If you use them, your attention is on it. If your attention is on it, they can show ads to you, and make a profit. "Controlling" may not have been the right word for your case, and many others on this site, but it stands for the majority of users. And the main point still stands.
vermilingua 8y ago
Do not make the assumption that our views are represented by our politicians. Our political system is a travesty, and the will of the people hasn’t been heard in parliament for at least a decade.

by webXL 8y ago

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!
- 0xdeadb00f 8y ago
  > Who came up with that line? They definitely don't control my attention. If you use them, your attention is on it. If your attention is on it, they can show ads to you, and make a profit. "Controlling" may not have been the right word for your case, and many others on this site, but it stands for the majority of users. And the main point still stands.

vermilingua 8y ago

Do not make the assumption that our views are represented by our politicians. Our political system is a travesty, and the will of the people hasn’t been heard in parliament for at least a decade.