5 ms·

Ok, so what’s the real reason the government wants this?

by nojs 5y ago

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
Well, the Australian government has shown it's willing to throw people into camps against their will, so...greater control of the population would be my guess. You know. To keep kids safe.
- forum_ghost 5y ago
  They want us to live in Utopia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8
RobertMiller 5y ago
The "Five Eyes" anglosphere establishment uses Australia as a testbed for authoritarian measures that may later be implemented in the others.
aaa_aaa 5y ago
For the greater good. </s>
wutbrodo 5y ago
The ~only reason gov't ever does anything is because they think it looks good to voters. And any given voter doesn't have "wants" or "beliefs", just violent mood swings and social performance. This isn't really even a bug of government's! Government action is very often valuable and necessary. But the incentive structure is such that modeling the gov't as a somewhat-rational entity with well-formed desires is usually not the correct frame to start with, IMO
- codewithcheese 5y ago
  "because the voters want it" is just how they spin it, the reason is to have a chilling effect on expressing dissatisfaction with whatever party is in power.
- forum_ghost 5y ago
  "Princeton University study: Public opinion has “near-zero” impact on U.S. law.": https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/ https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/ The government does the bidding of the economic elites. Economic elites don't vote, they buy influence.
  - zo1 5y ago
    I think we also need to realize that those in power aren't necessarily plain old rich like the monocle guy from Monopoly or Mr Burns from the Simpsons. They're just connected, powerful, to a degree rich, and sometimes plain old skilled orators that can convince a lot of people.
- citizenpaul 5y ago
  You are not the voter anymore. Watch the second half of GCP Greys. Rules for Rules on youtube, or read the book its based on if you want to understand. The video is a really good summary though.
- zo1 5y ago
  If that's the case, then we should be able to do a referendum for legislation this "big" to go through, right? I'd argue that the lack of a robust, accessible and easy form of referendums means we're not fundamentally different to a dictatorship.
  - mikem170 5y ago
    I admire Switzerland's system, where the people can petition for a referendum to delete any law they don't like. This forces the politicians to negotiate with motivated minorities before creating new laws. Instead in the U.S. we allow rich people and corporations (who are not voters!) to give money to politicians. In most other democracies this is illegal and considered to be corrupt.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      Swiss system also allows people to pass any law that they like. For example, the infamous law banning construction of minarets. I'm also not sure how this is supposed to help minorities (motivated or otherwise), since the referendum is country-wide.
      - mikem170 5y ago
        Thanks for your comment, I had not heard of the minaret ban [0], which was an amendment passed by a double-majority (people and cantons), and was considered to violate existing constitutional protections. I guess this is what happens in a democracy when enough people believe in doing something, even if that something is not right by everyone. Many forms of government are susceptible to this, depending on the culture. The world would be a better place if people had more respect for each other. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Swiss_minaret_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Swiss_minaret_referendum
stubish 5y ago
The Australian Government wants social media to be able to identify users who make posts so they can be sued for defamation. Age verification is just an easy to accept start, getting people on board and setting the legal precedent of requiring foreign owned social media companies to collect this private and dangerous information (and note, Australia is also suing these same companies for abusing private information they collect). Assuming the opposition goes along for the ride, identity verification will also kick in before making Youtube comments, Facebook posts or comments, or Tweets. And maybe Mozilla will make some money marketing their VPN as a privacy service for Australians. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-28/social-media-laws-online-trolls/100657004 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-28/social-media-laws-onl...
- mrjangles 5y ago
  There is no connection between this and what is in the article, which is about age verification for viewing adult content. If you are commenting on social media, those companies already have all your information.
  - stubish 5y ago
    There is no provable connection, no. But I do find it a coincidence that age verification is being pursued now rather than years ago, just months after the government started pressing for social media to be able to identify users so they can be sued for defamation, bullying etc. Social media may already know who many users are, but they obviously can't prove it to the satisfaction of the courts or with enough reliability or this would not have become an issue.

Ok, so what’s the real reason the government wants this?

by nojs 5y ago

Ok, so what’s the real reason the government wants this?

Well, the Australian government has shown it's willing to throw people into camps against their will, so...greater control of the population would be my guess. You know. To keep kids safe.

forum_ghost 5y ago
They want us to live in Utopia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8

RobertMiller 5y ago

The "Five Eyes" anglosphere establishment uses Australia as a testbed for authoritarian measures that may later be implemented in the others.

aaa_aaa 5y ago

For the greater good. </s>

wutbrodo 5y ago

The ~only reason gov't ever does anything is because they think it looks good to voters. And any given voter doesn't have "wants" or "beliefs", just violent mood swings and social performance. This isn't really even a bug of government's! Government action is very often valuable and necessary. But the incentive structure is such that modeling the gov't as a somewhat-rational entity with well-formed desires is usually not the correct frame to start with, IMO

codewithcheese 5y ago
"because the voters want it" is just how they spin it, the reason is to have a chilling effect on expressing dissatisfaction with whatever party is in power.
forum_ghost 5y ago
"Princeton University study: Public opinion has “near-zero” impact on U.S. law.": https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/ https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/ The government does the bidding of the economic elites. Economic elites don't vote, they buy influence.
- zo1 5y ago
  I think we also need to realize that those in power aren't necessarily plain old rich like the monocle guy from Monopoly or Mr Burns from the Simpsons. They're just connected, powerful, to a degree rich, and sometimes plain old skilled orators that can convince a lot of people.
citizenpaul 5y ago
You are not the voter anymore. Watch the second half of GCP Greys. Rules for Rules on youtube, or read the book its based on if you want to understand. The video is a really good summary though.
zo1 5y ago
If that's the case, then we should be able to do a referendum for legislation this "big" to go through, right? I'd argue that the lack of a robust, accessible and easy form of referendums means we're not fundamentally different to a dictatorship.
- mikem170 5y ago
  I admire Switzerland's system, where the people can petition for a referendum to delete any law they don't like. This forces the politicians to negotiate with motivated minorities before creating new laws. Instead in the U.S. we allow rich people and corporations (who are not voters!) to give money to politicians. In most other democracies this is illegal and considered to be corrupt.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Swiss system also allows people to pass any law that they like. For example, the infamous law banning construction of minarets. I'm also not sure how this is supposed to help minorities (motivated or otherwise), since the referendum is country-wide.
    - mikem170 5y ago
      Thanks for your comment, I had not heard of the minaret ban [0], which was an amendment passed by a double-majority (people and cantons), and was considered to violate existing constitutional protections. I guess this is what happens in a democracy when enough people believe in doing something, even if that something is not right by everyone. Many forms of government are susceptible to this, depending on the culture. The world would be a better place if people had more respect for each other. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Swiss_minaret_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Swiss_minaret_referendum

stubish 5y ago

The Australian Government wants social media to be able to identify users who make posts so they can be sued for defamation. Age verification is just an easy to accept start, getting people on board and setting the legal precedent of requiring foreign owned social media companies to collect this private and dangerous information (and note, Australia is also suing these same companies for abusing private information they collect). Assuming the opposition goes along for the ride, identity verification will also kick in before making Youtube comments, Facebook posts or comments, or Tweets. And maybe Mozilla will make some money marketing their VPN as a privacy service for Australians. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-28/social-media-laws-online-trolls/100657004 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-28/social-media-laws-onl...

mrjangles 5y ago
There is no connection between this and what is in the article, which is about age verification for viewing adult content. If you are commenting on social media, those companies already have all your information.
- stubish 5y ago
  There is no provable connection, no. But I do find it a coincidence that age verification is being pursued now rather than years ago, just months after the government started pressing for social media to be able to identify users so they can be sued for defamation, bullying etc. Social media may already know who many users are, but they obviously can't prove it to the satisfaction of the courts or with enough reliability or this would not have become an issue.