Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[TillLindemann]

Someone needs to create a meme using that Simpsons joke when Homer says not everyone has a fear and Marge yells “sock puppets” and Homer cries “WHERE?”. A meme has to be used for the right whenever the term big tech is mentioned

If you like, I don't see it as a right v left issue at all though (and I personally don't identify with either left or right, partisanship is the worst thing in politics). Some of the biggest critics of big tech/sock puppets are from the left (e.g. Elizabeth Warren) which is quite understandable - I don't see why the left should have any allegiance whatsoever to powerful mega-cap transnational corporations, that have repeatedly engaged in unethical and at times illegal behaviour.

 

[Tiger5150]

Someone needs to create a meme using that Simpsons joke when Homer says not everyone has a fear and Marge yells “sock puppets” and Homer cries “WHERE?”. A meme has to be used for the right whenever the term big tech is mentioned

I dont think that you have to be "on the right" to be concerned about this. I find it terrifying that I cant google "Blue Anon".

I have no real interest in blue anon (or Qanon) but to think that a whole concept can be "disappeared" or hidden from the world because it doesnt fit an ideology is terrifying and if it doesnt concern you, you arent thinking hard enough.

 

[TillLindemann]

Someone needs to create a meme using that Simpsons joke when Homer says not everyone has a fear and Marge yells “sock puppets” and Homer cries “WHERE?”. A meme has to be used for the right whenever the term big tech is mentioned


I dont think that you have to be "on the right" to be concerned about this. I find it terrifying that I cant google "Blue Anon".

I have no real interest in blue anon (or Qanon) but to think that a whole concept can be "disappeared" or hidden from the world because it doesnt fit an ideology is terrifying and if it doesnt concern you, you arent thinking hard enough.

And it's not just the 'disappearing' of some ideas/issues/terms, it's the amplification of others. This is POWER. Generally it is quite subtle and unnoticed. 'Blueanon' was interesting in that Urban Dictionary, whose whole appeal is that they never censor anything, decided to remove it.

Google's removal of it was less surprising.

On culturally/politically contentious issues it is always good fun to compare search results between google and duckduckgo. The latter is objective, the former is not.

 

[Papacito]

At the end of the day, the great thing about the web is that nobody needs to rely on Google.

On the other hand, Australia's flimsy media ownership laws mean that in some parts of the country, you're only going to see, read or hear news from one company that is extremely political.

 

[jadtiger]

At the end of the day, the great thing about the web is that nobody needs to rely on Google.

On the other hand, Australia's flimsy media ownership laws mean that in some parts of the country, you're only going to see, read or hear news from one company that is extremely political.

That is exactly what Scammo is relying upon

 

[TillLindemann]

At the end of the day, the great thing about the web is that nobody needs to rely on Google.

On the other hand, Australia's flimsy media ownership laws mean that in some parts of the country, you're only going to see, read or hear news from one company that is extremely political.

Nobody is *forced* to read the Daily Terrorgraph or the UnAustralian. But we rightfully view their owner as representing a monopoly in some states. Google has a market share that absolutely dwarfs News Limited, yet people seem unwilling to call it an unhealthy monopoly - I don't understand why.

 

[Tiger5150]

At the end of the day, the great thing about the web is that nobody needs to rely on Google.

On the other hand, Australia's flimsy media ownership laws mean that in some parts of the country, you're only going to see, read or hear news from one company that is extremely political.

Nobody is *forced* to read the Daily Terrorgraph or the UnAustralian. But we rightfully view their owner as representing a monopoly in some states. Google has a market share that absolutely dwarfs News Limited, yet people seem unwilling to call it an unhealthy monopoly - I don't understand why.

Because it is happening to "the bad guys", so why are you worried about it?

 

[BZN]

On the plus side, now academics have labeled me a "non-birthing parent" and my wife a "gestational parent".....
Nothing like living in the enlightened all inclusive 2021.....


Seriously?!?!


*Academics at the nation’s top university have told staff to stop using the word “mother’’ and replace it with “gestational parent”, while a “father’’ should now be referred to as a “non-birthing parent” in order to deliver gender-inclusive education.

The Australian National University’s Gender Institute Handbook instructs tutors and lecturers to use terms like “chestfeeding’’ instead of breastfeeding and “human or parent’s milk’’ instead of the phrase “mother’s milk’*

This is what appears to be coming out of the National University

Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks different from my point of view, but also looking into this matter with a different perspective and without being condemning of one's views and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and everyone's valid opinion, I honestly completely forgot what I was about to say

This has 2 b one of the most brilliant posts I have read on here.

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

At the end of the day, the great thing about the web is that nobody needs to rely on Google.

On the other hand, Australia's flimsy media ownership laws mean that in some parts of the country, you're only going to see, read or hear news from one company that is extremely political.

Nobody is *forced* to read the Daily Terrorgraph or the UnAustralian. But we rightfully view their owner as representing a monopoly in some states. Google has a market share that absolutely dwarfs News Limited, yet people seem unwilling to call it an unhealthy monopoly - I don't understand why.

People can read SMH "independent Always" and watch Aunty instead for non biased comments

 

[Papacito]

At the end of the day, the great thing about the web is that nobody needs to rely on Google.

On the other hand, Australia's flimsy media ownership laws mean that in some parts of the country, you're only going to see, read or hear news from one company that is extremely political.

Nobody is *forced* to read the Daily Terrorgraph or the UnAustralian. But we rightfully view their owner as representing a monopoly in some states. Google has a market share that absolutely dwarfs News Limited, yet people seem unwilling to call it an unhealthy monopoly - I don't understand why.

The Murdoch monopoly is protected under law. The Government won't give you or me a radio or tv license in the regions where they have 100% mass media market share.

Google is competing in the free market with no protection racket.

 

[Papacito]

At the end of the day, the great thing about the web is that nobody needs to rely on Google.

On the other hand, Australia's flimsy media ownership laws mean that in some parts of the country, you're only going to see, read or hear news from one company that is extremely political.

Nobody is *forced* to read the Daily Terrorgraph or the UnAustralian. But we rightfully view their owner as representing a monopoly in some states. Google has a market share that absolutely dwarfs News Limited, yet people seem unwilling to call it an unhealthy monopoly - I don't understand why.

People can read SMH "independent Always" and watch Aunty instead for non biased comments

One's chaired by an ex Liberal party deputy PM.

The other gets their funding cut at the drop of a hat.

Both are about as unbiassed as my Mum when I ask her whether I'm handsome.

 

[Tiger5150]

At the end of the day, the great thing about the web is that nobody needs to rely on Google.

On the other hand, Australia's flimsy media ownership laws mean that in some parts of the country, you're only going to see, read or hear news from one company that is extremely political.

Nobody is *forced* to read the Daily Terrorgraph or the UnAustralian. But we rightfully view their owner as representing a monopoly in some states. Google has a market share that absolutely dwarfs News Limited, yet people seem unwilling to call it an unhealthy monopoly - I don't understand why.

The Murdoch monopoly is protected under law. The Government won't give you or me a radio or tv license in the regions where they have 100% mass media market share.

Google is competing in the free market with no protection racket.

How do you work that out? What law? The federal media ownership laws, specifically Broadcasting Services Act 1992 specifically outlaw exactly what you are saying.

The Act states...


Television

A person must not control television broadcasting licences whose combined licence area exceeds 75 per cent of the population of Australia, or more than one licence within a licence area (section 53). Foreign persons must not be in a position to control a licence and the total of foreign interests must not exceed 20 per cent (section 57). There are also limits on multiple directorships (section 55) and foreign directors (section 58).
Radio

A person must not be in a position to control more than two licences in the same licence area (section 54). Multiple directorships are also limited (section 55).
Cross-Media Control

Under section 60 a person must not control:


* a commercial television broadcasting licence and a commercial radio broadcasting licence having the same licence area
* a commercial television broadcasting licence and a newspaper associated with that licence area
* or a commercial radio broadcasting licence and newspaper associated with that licence area.

There are also similar limits on cross-media directorships (section 61).
Subscription Television Broadcasting Licences

A foreign person must not have company interests exceeding 20 per cent in a broadcasting subscription licence, and the total of foreign company interests in any licence must not exceed 35 per cent (section 109).

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

At the end of the day, the great thing about the web is that nobody needs to rely on Google.

On the other hand, Australia's flimsy media ownership laws mean that in some parts of the country, you're only going to see, read or hear news from one company that is extremely political.

Nobody is *forced* to read the Daily Terrorgraph or the UnAustralian. But we rightfully view their owner as representing a monopoly in some states. Google has a market share that absolutely dwarfs News Limited, yet people seem unwilling to call it an unhealthy monopoly - I don't understand why.

People can read SMH "independent Always" and watch Aunty instead for non biased comments

One's chaired by an ex Liberal party deputy PM.

The other gets their funding cut at the drop of a hat.

Both are about as unbiassed as my Mum when I ask her whether I'm handsome.

one is funded by tax payers and is extremely biased
Difference is DT you know what you get it is pro right, abc pretends to be impartial and is not

 

[Tim Sheens]

Update to the 'list of forbidden things' from the last 7 days:

- Dr Seuss
- Pepe Le Pew
- Mumford & Sons
- the term 'Blue Anon'

I find the attention to this laughable, particularly when I think of Ted Cruz reading out one of the titles to waste the taxpayers time and money to filibuster.

Is this in moving forward and past things in life worthy of the time it is given, while those that performed the greatest cancellation in that of Colin Kapaernick defer to this rubbish and have just unanimously voted against the wishes of the majority of the people that voted for them, included in the basically 4 in 5 of the nation.

Deflection, nothing more.

 

[Tim Sheens]

At the end of the day, the great thing about the web is that nobody needs to rely on Google.

On the other hand, Australia's flimsy media ownership laws mean that in some parts of the country, you're only going to see, read or hear news from one company that is extremely political.

Nobody is *forced* to read the Daily Terrorgraph or the UnAustralian. But we rightfully view their owner as representing a monopoly in some states. Google has a market share that absolutely dwarfs News Limited, yet people seem unwilling to call it an unhealthy monopoly - I don't understand why.

The Murdoch monopoly is protected under law. The Government won't give you or me a radio or tv license in the regions where they have 100% mass media market share.

Google is competing in the free market with no protection racket.

The most ridiculous of the preference given to Murdoch is the $40 million odd that they are giving them to broadcast sport and the ABC having to pay Foxtel to spread the broadcast further.

 

[TillLindemann]

Deflection, nothing more.

Deflection from what?

I don't agree with 'cancelling' anyone for their views, and that includes Kaepernick. Luckily for him his views are fashionable, so he has made more money than he ever would have as a footballer. But it was still wrong.

To see the Mumford and Sons dude grovelling and begging for forgiveness for reading a book was nauseating.

These new puritans are like the bible bashers in the 1990s trying to ban Marilyn Manson, except literally every aspect of contemporary and historical culture are in these people's scope.

 

[Tiger5150]

Deflection, nothing more.

Deflection from what?

I don't agree with 'cancelling' anyone for their views, and that includes Kaepernick. Luckily for him his views are fashionable, so he has made more money than he ever would have as a footballer. But it was still wrong.

**To see the Mumford and Sons dude grovelling and begging for forgiveness for reading a book was nauseating.**

These new puritans are like the bible bashers in the 1990s trying to ban Marilyn Manson, except literally every aspect of contemporary and historical culture are in these people's scope.

Ive just looked into this. Mumford and Sons are getting cancelled for supporting Andy Ngo? And Im reading everywhere that Andy Ngo is "Right Wing"? The world has gone insane. Andy Ngo is a gay liberal, left of centre, who happens to not like and documents why he doesnt like Antifa. His book isnt right wing, its Anti-Antifa.

 

[TillLindemann]

Deflection, nothing more.

Deflection from what?

I don't agree with 'cancelling' anyone for their views, and that includes Kaepernick. Luckily for him his views are fashionable, so he has made more money than he ever would have as a footballer. But it was still wrong.

**To see the Mumford and Sons dude grovelling and begging for forgiveness for reading a book was nauseating.**

These new puritans are like the bible bashers in the 1990s trying to ban Marilyn Manson, except literally every aspect of contemporary and historical culture are in these people's scope.

Ive just looked into this. Mumford and Sons are getting cancelled for supporting Andy Ngo? And Im reading everywhere that Andy Ngo is "Right Wing"? The world has gone insane. Andy Ngo is a gay liberal, left of centre, who happens to not like and documents why he doesnt like Antifa. His book isnt right wing, its Anti-Antifa.

The band don't even support him. One band member said he read his book, now he's been booted from the band for it. His statement begging forgiveness was reminiscent of a hostage video, it was embarrassing.

 

[TillLindemann]

But I still think, as bad as all this virtual book burning is, google arbitrarily and without explanation disappearing phrases is more frightening.

Even if you think 'blue anon' is a silly phrase, why should it be purged from the internet? And even urban dictionary fell into line and removed it, again without explanation.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Update to the 'list of forbidden things' from the last 7 days:

- Dr Seuss
- Pepe Le Pew
- Mumford & Sons
- the term 'Blue Anon'

Mumford and Sons? What's doing there?