The Australian Politics Thread

All things Rugby

Whos Going to Lead the Labor Rabble

Albo
12
41%
Plibbers
2
7%
Bowen
1
3%
Chalmers
4
14%
Uncle Tony
4
14%
Clive Palmer
3
10%
George Smith
3
10%
 
Total votes: 29

User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 6729
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Ellafan »

Slim 293 wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:51 pm
Ellafan wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:35 pm Justice Jago today ruled on the application to publicise the ABC's alleged "defences" to the Porter defamation suit.
Hey Perry Mason, are you suggesting that the ABC may not have actually presented a defence?

Allegedly?

“…”

:lol:
Perhaps you should read the judgement and see for yourself.

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/j ... 021fca0863
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 34571
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Ali's Choice »

Really good article in today's Guardian Australia by Calla Wahlquist about the deepening divisions between NSW and Victoria, and how these divisions have been exacerbated by a lack of Federal Leadership.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... -lockdowns
State v state: war of words heats up over Sydney and Melbourne lockdowns
Far from pulling together during the pandemic, NSW and Victoria have increasingly swapped pointed barbs

Calla Wahlquist
Sat 31 Jul 2021 06.00 AEST

Australia was hit by the pandemic in what seemed a moment of national unity. Large stretches of the east coast had been on fire all summer and the nation had pulled together to help. Volunteers – from firefighters to helicopter pilots to fence-fixers – drove across state lines to the areas of greatest need.

Eighteen months later, the nation – or at least its two largest cities – appear to be pulling apart. Requests for additional vaccines, first from Victoria, then from New South Wales, were rejected. The political rhetoric is pernicious.

On Twitter the debate has become toxic. Friends and colleagues in different states are in open argument. Beloved broadcasters have joined the fray. Reactions – both the frustration of Victorians and the upset of their NSW counterparts – are being policed. No other state can get a look-in.

Many Victorians scarred from a 15-week-long lockdown in 2020 are seething that NSW was slow to lock down against an outbreak of the Delta variant.

The NSW government has rejected suggestions it mishandled the outbreak by not introducing a snap lockdown, and dismissed calls to copy the Victorian rules, citing a lack of evidence that measures such as a curfew curbed virus spread.

This week the Victorian premier, Daniel Andrews, has urged NSW to learn from Victoria’s “bitter experience” and introduce in full the harsh measures imposed in Melbourne’s hard lockdown, brushing off questions about the efficacy of individual rules by saying they worked as a package: “All I’m doing is telling others what worked here and it’s through painful, tragic, bitter experience that we are able to advise what actually works.”

The NSW premier, Gladys Berejiklian, claimed on Thursday that new rules she had introduced “are the harshest measures any place in Australia has ever faced”, despite them being less restrictive than those imposed in Victoria’s second wave.

Only when discussing the failures of the federal government’s vaccine rollout do Andrews and Berejiklian, and their supporters, see eye to eye.

Cracks aren’t new
Animosity between Australia’s two biggest states is not new. The six independent colonies of settler Australia may have formed a federation, but the cracks remain.

“The pandemic is exposing the nature of Australia’s social fabric,” says senior researcher Mark Duckworth.

“There has been this veneer of a single Australian set of values, which works at certain times of sporting triumph or something. But underneath it, there are these divisions which have existed for the last 150 years.”

They existed in the bushfires, leaving communities along the NSW-Victorian border in danger because state emergency management information and radio networks did not extend beyond the borders.

And the pandemic has forced a significant improvement in interstate cooperation and effective national coordination, even as the feeling of national solidarity has dropped away.

“In many ways, a pandemic is about the only truly national emergency that Australia is likely to face,” Duckworth says. “Every part of Australia is to one extent or another having to work on preventing, responding to, or recovering an outbreak.”

As in a bushfire, communities have rallied.

“But one of the paradoxes of that process in which people kind of circle the wagons is that they look inward,” Duckworth says. “In a pandemic where the impact is much broader, that can be accompanied by scapegoating and othering processes as well.”

The wagons were circled in Victoria during the second wave and have not yet broken formation.

In October last year, around week 11 of the 15-week lockdown, Melbourne writer Dave Milner wrote: “I’ve never felt more Victorian and less Australian.”

Advertisement
There is a strong feeling in Victoria that the federal government distanced itself from Melbourne crisis.

Victorians have not forgotten that last year the prime minister, Scott Morrison, described the Melbourne outbreak as the “Victorian wave” and praised the NSW government’s contact tracing system as the “gold standard”. The hashtag #PMforSydney now trends whenever Morrison does a press conference.

They also haven’t forgotten the headline in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph after NSW closed its border to Victoria, which read “Mexicans locked out”, or the cover story on the Australian Financial Review magazine – also, like most of Australia’s national media, based in Sydney – which called Berejiklian “The woman who saved Australia”.


It was a hubristic portrait. Any wonder that on Twitter a Greek chorus waited for her fall.

NSW did remain open and economically active for much of 2020 – which is why both the AFR and Morrison branded Berejiklian a saviour – and the NSW contact tracing system did set the standard. Victoria based many of the changes in its contact tracing system, which helped the state shut down two outbreaks in two months, on the NSW model.

Still, as the state which has to date sacrificed the most to keep outbreaks contained, is it any wonder that Victorians felt a sense of vindication when NSW tripped?

Andrews, the most ruthless and effective political communicator in the country, has returned some of the barbs he was dealt last year. On Thursday he levelled up from the gold standard to describe PCR Covid tests as the “diamond standard” compared with rapid antigen tests, in response to NSW announcing it may use it to test year 12 students so they can return to school.

The Victorian government has paid for TV and radio ads on NSW channels warning people not to travel interstate, in a campaign that has drawn comparisons to national anti-asylum seeker campaigns.

The Australia Institute’s Bill Bowes says to the extent that parochialism has risen in the pandemic, it has been driven by politicians.

“The federal government, if it’s concerned about parochialism, could do a lot more to create a national spirit,” he says.

When Queensland went into a snap lockdown in April, Queenslander and defence minister Peter Dutton accused Labor premier Annastacia Palaszczuk of being a panicker. The Liberal premier for South Australia, Steven Marshall, was not accused of panicking in response to his snap lockdown this month.

The Nationals senator Matt Canavan called the second wave a “Dan-made disaster”.

When Victoria went into its fourth lockdown in May, the federal government initially resisted providing income support saying it did not want to incentivise lockdowns. Under pressure from the Victorian government it then announced a $500 a week Covid disaster payment, which was raised to $600 in a deal negotiated with NSW. It increased that to $750 a week on Wednesday.

The federal treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, whose electorate is in Melbourne, last year described Victoria’s extended lockdown as “the biggest public policy failure by a state government in living memory”. He did not bite when Melbourne-based ABC host Patricia Karvelas asked him this week if that mistake was now rivalled by what NSW was doing, and if Victoria was now the gold standard.

“You need to lock down fast when you get the outbreak of the Delta variant,” Frydenberg said. “Victoria has done that.”

Bowes says it is “hard to imagine a circumstance where the federal government would be identifying Dan Andrews’ Victoria as the gold standard, regardless of what kind of approach they took”.

Backing their premiers
Polling conducted by the Australia Institute shows that 42% of Australians think their state or territory government is doing better at responding to the pandemic than the federal government, with the gap narrowest in Victoria.

“It’s not simply the case that people are backing their own state, but rather that people in general support the premiers’ approaches, and the premiers’ approaches have been fairly consistent – at least, compared to what the federal government would prefer,” Bowes says. “States have had a popular authority that’s come from the pandemic.”

The state and territory governments seized control of the pandemic response over a single weekend in March last year when Andrews and Berejiklian pressured the federal government into implementing a national shutdown by releasing coordinated statements in favour of tougher restrictions, and the leaders of five other states, led by Tasmania, closed their borders.

They have maintained that control in the absence of stronger federal leadership.

The federal government had an opportunity to reclaim the narrative with a successful vaccine rollout, says Bowes, but that failed. Instead it was again the states that proved successful, running mass vaccination hubs that have delivered the bulk of the doses.

But the rise of state governments does not explain why NSW and Victoria are scrapping, while the other states and territories remain unbothered.

The perception in Victoria that NSW is the federal favourite has some truth to it that goes beyond political allegiance and the electorate of the prime minister, says Duckworth.

“Going back to my days working in government relations, there was a basic view which is that the interests of NSW and the national interest are always the same thing,” he says.

Sydney was the biggest city, the international city. But Melbourne has caught up.

“Sydney and Melbourne are basically exactly the same size cities, if it weren’t for the statistical anomaly that I think Gosford is included in the statistics for the size of Sydney,” he says. “Sydney and its role is obviously going to remain very important, but compared to other parts of Australia it is no longer as important as it was, and I don’t think the federal government has actually caught up with that.”

Part of that bias is geographical: Canberra picks up NSW broadcasts.

“If you work in Canberra you get a lot of your news from Sydney,” Duckworth says. “So what’s going on in Sydney tends to be your view of what’s going on in Australia.”
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37452
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

User avatar
shanky
Posts: 24067
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by shanky »

That is outstanding

:lol:
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37452
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

shanky wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:05 am
That is outstanding

:lol:
They're a national treasure :thumbup: :lol:
User avatar
Clogs
Posts: 6439
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Clogs »

"Fingering our chinfolds!"

:lol: :lol: :lol:

In tears!
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37452
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

'we've had to put on pants twice this week..."

:lol:
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37452
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

Also...John Hewson unloads on Morrison... again

This is scathing from an ex leader of his own party, just absolute scorn... the whole thing is worth a read. He winds it all up with the following;
Perhaps the most disturbing outcome of Morrison’s failure of governance has been the loss of national focus and significance. Instead a blame game has gathered momentum, both between his government and the states, and state versus state. The accelerating fragmentation of our Federation is a very significant backwards step at a time when the need to develop a national approach and, in particular, national resilience has been paramount.

Of course, Morrison would want to claim credit for the national cabinet process, and the National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, but again this is more words than substance – some co-ordination, sure, but the states have had to do most of the work, compounded by Morrison’s government ducking its responsibility for aged care, which has been particularly exposed to the virus, and its constitutional responsibility for quarantine.

The issue of state and federal financial responsibility has always been divisive but it is further complicated on this issue by debates about which state has been doing the heavy economic lifting and what the federal government owes. Moreover, states that would share resources during bushfires or floods have refused to do so in dealing with the virus. Border closures have been very disruptive and have compounded the economic and social pain. At its most ridiculous, Queensland claimed its hospitals were only for Queenslanders.

Our nation will pay dearly if this concept takes further hold, especially when the national interest, in a very challenging global environment, requires us to operate as a more effective Federation, with a much greater sense of national purpose.

Morrison sees himself as a “clever” politician with superior marketing skills. He sees being prime minister as a “calling from God”, delivered to him by a “miracle win”. However, the polls have recently moved against Morrison. Newspoll has shifted against his government 53-47.

The most recent Essential poll on “leader attributes” reveals Morrison has slipped on every measure since mid-March – more out of touch with ordinary people, more likely to avoid responsibility, less in control of his team, less trustworthy, less honest than most politicians and less visionary. His arrogance, assessment of self-worth and sense of entitlement are further disadvantages.

Morrison simply doesn’t understand leadership. It involves strategic thinking, being proactive, and acceptance of responsibility with integrity and accountability. It is finely balanced on trust and confidence. It certainly can’t be brushed aside with a rush of three-word slogans.

Morrison has lost control of the virus and vaccine narrative. He is losing control of the economic narrative as we now risk a double-dip recession.

He has accepted Barnaby Joyce back with no conditions – indeed, let him start to dictate climate and other policy. He has failed to deal effectively with claims of rape, bullying and harassment in Parliament House; has normalised pork-barrelling, corruption and wasteful expenditure; denies responsibility; is quick to blame others; and ignores the need for reform in response to the great social challenges of Indigenous recognition, child- and aged-care, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, mental illness and domestic violence.

However, Morrison still seems to believe he can stand above all this. His election strategy is to finally catch up with the vaccine rollout, hoping that voters have short memories. He will then be in a position to use more words, this time about a possible opening of our international border, without actually opening it, and the promise of a return to “normalcy” if he is kept in office.

As I recall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. In the end, for all his words and his arrogance about their meaning, he couldn’t be put back together again.
User avatar
shanky
Posts: 24067
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by shanky »

Clogs wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:30 am
"Fingering our chinfolds!"

:lol: :lol: :lol:

In tears!
‘You can go and eat a bag of dicks’ was my personal favourite
User avatar
kiwigreg369
Posts: 6574
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by kiwigreg369 »

Apols if red rebel - I just read on Peter FS column:
TWEET OF THE WEEK
“Could the mainstream media start asking Scott Morrison if he harbours any leadership ambitions? #auspol” - @EddyJokovich
User avatar
The Optimist
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Chukity - puck!!!

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by The Optimist »

YouTube says it has barred Sky News Australia from uploading new content for one week, citing concerns about COVID-19 misinformation.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbup:

Time to block Murdoch propaganda. ;)
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

I love how people are cheering Google's (YouTube) banning of News Corp (Sky News) content. I get why this can be funny, but who is Google to decide what is and is not true? Don't get me wrong, it is a privately owned platform so they can do what they like, but this isn't the first time a privately owned platform has banned 'misinformation' and not all of the previous bannings turned out to be justified. Slippery slope....
User avatar
Pat the Ex Mat
Posts: 7364
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Pat the Ex Mat »

towny wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:04 am I love how people are cheering Google's (YouTube) banning of News Corp (Sky News) content. I get why this can be funny, but who is Google to decide what is and is not true? Don't get me wrong, it is a privately owned platform so they can do what they like, but this isn't the first time a privately owned platform has banned 'misinformation' and not all of the previous bannings turned out to be justified. Slippery slope....
We're laughing due to the fact that the Australian regulator can't ban them
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

towny wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 11:29 am This is a very good article that is specifically relevant by a dude who’s generally considered the best on the planet with this stuff - it even describes Google as a monopoly :shock:

https://stratechery.com/2019/regulating ... o-out/Yeah

Follow this guy if you want to understand more than what News Corp wants you to know.

Edit: paywall. Wait - I’ll post it later.
Okay, so I'm back on deck. I'll deal specifically with the 'are Facebook and Google engaging in anti-trust' stuff but the first thing is to go through why the internet is different than normal business. It is clearly not in my opinion. This is really important to understand and it's something that political leaders do not, which is why they fail in court and aren't able to pass meaningful laws. It is also something most business leaders do not (including my employer), which is why the big analogue companies are going to poop and tech companies are taking over the world.

https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/
The value chain for any given consumer market is divided into three parts: suppliers, distributors, and consumers/users. The best way to make outsize profits in any of these markets is to either gain a horizontal monopoly in one of the three parts or to integrate two of the parts such that you have a competitive advantage in delivering a vertical solution. In the pre-Internet era the latter depended on controlling distribution.

For example, printed newspapers were the primary means of delivering content to consumers in a given geographic region, so newspapers integrated backwards into content creation (i.e. supplier) and earned outsized profits through the delivery of advertising. A similar dynamic existed in all kinds of industries, such as book publishers (distribution capabilities integrated with control of authors), video (broadcast availability integrated with purchasing content), taxis (dispatch capabilities integrated with medallions and car ownership), hotels (brand trust integrated with vacant rooms), and more. Note how the distributors in all of these industries integrated backwards into supply: there have always been far more users/consumers than suppliers, which means that in a world where transactions are costly owning the supplier relationship provides significantly more leverage.

The fundamental disruption of the Internet has been to turn this dynamic on its head. First, the Internet has made distribution (of digital goods) free, neutralizing the advantage that pre-Internet distributors leveraged to integrate with suppliers. Secondly, the Internet has made transaction costs zero, making it viable for a distributor to integrate forward with end users/consumers at scale.
Image
....the pioneer of this model was Google which modularized content providers. It’s easy to see why this is the case: content has always been monetized by proxy, whether it be paying for newspapers (or advertising space in those newspapers), paying for CDs, or paying for cable TV. The shift to digital has exposed these proxies for the rent-collection mechanisms they are.
Facebook, though, has built in some respects an even stronger position: its suppliers are its users, so while it, like Google, aggregates content that it gets for free, it also has exclusive access to that content. Snapchat and other user-generated content networks are similar.
This next bit is key - there will always only ever be 1 winner!!!
What is important to note is that in all of these examples there are strong winner-take-all effects. All of the examples I listed are not only capable of serving all consumers/users, but they also become better services the more consumers/users they serve — and they are all capable of serving every consumer/user on earth. This, above all else, is why consumer technology companies are so highly valued both in the public and private markets.
Reid Hoffman (Paypal, LinkedIn, 1st big invester in Facebook, etc.) famously paraphrases a quote from Glenngarry Glen Ross when describing internet business, "First prize is a Cadillac, second prize is a set of steak knives, and third prize is you're f*cking fired."

Google doesn't have a competitive peer because the internet paradigm doesn't allow it - whomever is best wins it all. This is why the internet is so different than traditional business and also why laws written for the pre-internet world are so ineffectual in it.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37452
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

Have you guys had a chance to read through the Magna Carta?
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 19158
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Farva »

I couldn't agree more Towny.

I was (clumsily) trying to make that point earlier - it is a winner takes all situation, you almost always end up with just one dominant player in the market.

That doesn't stop them being a monopoly.
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

Some more misinformation to address:
- Google and Facebook do not set the price for their services. Prices are set by live auctions and as there is no minimum price, it means demand and supply determines what advertisers pay. Advertisers have never paid less to reach their target audiences.
- Google and Facebook do not sell user data. This is a falsehood. Advertisers request for their advertisements to be shown to particular types of users and Google and Facebook make it happen. The advertisers do not know who the people are or any of their details. The truth is, other than the CCP or scammers, no business cares who you are, where you live or how much you earn. Your data on its own is worthless. It only has value when its aggregated with others to create a target audience; however no one is able to pick apart the the data and no one would want to.
- Being a monopoly is not illegal.
- Google and Facebook do not meet the legal definitions of monopoly because they do not 'control supply'. If someone can prove that Google or Facebook 'control supply' then they would make billions of dollars as a litigator. But no one can, which is why anti-trust cases against Google and Facebook fail.
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

I really don't mean to sound like a pompous arse. I've been fortunate to find an amazing source of knowledge on this specific topic and because I find it so interesting, I've been drinking this stuff for years. It actually took me a long time to get my head around it and I'm probably just scraping the surface.

There are plenty of smart people on this thread - if you have an interest in it, my only advice would be to skip reading shite from biased print media and/or ye olde business types that don't want to admit they're irrelevant. Get into Ben Thompson - Ben did an MBA at a top uni and found the professors couldn't answer his questions. He couldn't get a job so started his this dude practically invented the solo-author subscription newsletter that became the business model of Substack.

He has an awesome free podcast, where he basically tries to explain stuff to an Australian bloke; who as it turns out, is someone Clay Christensen (Harvard BS legend that invented theory of 'disruption') said was the smartest student he ever had.

Ben is sometimes wrong and his theories have changed over time.

Here he explains how/why the internet is so different https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj6uGz2oo5c
Ben and James' free podcast is https://exponent.fm/
Ben's free weekly article is at https://stratechery.com/
Twitter https://twitter.com/benthompson?ref_src ... r%5Eauthor

The internet is completely different than traditional business - most people do not understand why this is the case.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37452
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

See, the thing with the Magna Carta is, it's an incredibly long document that bears little interest to those usually posting in this thread.
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

guy smiley wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:50 am See, the thing with the Magna Carta is, it's an incredibly long document that bears little interest to those usually posting in this thread.
If you have to explain your gags......
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

Pat the Ex Mat wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:06 am
towny wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:04 am I love how people are cheering Google's (YouTube) banning of News Corp (Sky News) content. I get why this can be funny, but who is Google to decide what is and is not true? Don't get me wrong, it is a privately owned platform so they can do what they like, but this isn't the first time a privately owned platform has banned 'misinformation' and not all of the previous bannings turned out to be justified. Slippery slope....
We're laughing due to the fact that the Australian regulator can't ban them
Yes, but I would hope the Australian regulator would not ban anyone. I'm a believer in free speech - even though sometimes this allows bad people to say bad things, I find this far better than a reliance on a government (who have the guns) to pick and choose what information can and cannot be shared. Who are they to decide what's true or not and what happens when the regulator is run by the bad guys?

Why are we wanting our government to retain this sort of power over us?
Dozy
Posts: 2301
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Dozy »

towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

Does Dozy pay to see what’s behind that paywall or is he guessing based on the headline?
User avatar
Pat the Ex Mat
Posts: 7364
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Pat the Ex Mat »

towny wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:01 am
Pat the Ex Mat wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:06 am
towny wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:04 am I love how people are cheering Google's (YouTube) banning of News Corp (Sky News) content. I get why this can be funny, but who is Google to decide what is and is not true? Don't get me wrong, it is a privately owned platform so they can do what they like, but this isn't the first time a privately owned platform has banned 'misinformation' and not all of the previous bannings turned out to be justified. Slippery slope....
We're laughing due to the fact that the Australian regulator can't ban them
Yes, but I would hope the Australian regulator would not ban anyone. I'm a believer in free speech - even though sometimes this allows bad people to say bad things, I find this far better than a reliance on a government (who have the guns) to pick and choose what information can and cannot be shared. Who are they to decide what's true or not and what happens when the regulator is run by the bad guys?

Why are we wanting our government to retain this sort of power over us?
Yeah, nah - purported news programs should have standards that should be monitored
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

I agree with this, but you previously mentioned that you wanted them banned, which I don’t agree with.
User avatar
Pat the Ex Mat
Posts: 7364
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Pat the Ex Mat »

towny wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 2:41 pm I agree with this, but you previously mentioned that you wanted them banned, which I don’t agree with.
A regulator with teeth would stop them from being banned
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

Pat the Ex Mat wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 2:53 pm
towny wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 2:41 pm I agree with this, but you previously mentioned that you wanted them banned, which I don’t agree with.
A regulator with teeth would stop them from being banned
So you do or don’t want them banned? I also want a regulator with teeth - what I don’t want is a govt or similar public authority with the power to silence opinion they don’t like. I personally don’t like private tech companies to have this power; however at least their power is limited to their platform.
User avatar
Pat the Ex Mat
Posts: 7364
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Pat the Ex Mat »

So you don't think other regulatory bodies should have the power to order ceasing trading, etc?

That's what the ban is.
User avatar
Brumbie_Steve
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Brumbie_Steve »

towny wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:04 am I love how people are cheering Google's (YouTube) banning of News Corp (Sky News) content. I get why this can be funny, but who is Google to decide what is and is not true? Don't get me wrong, it is a privately owned platform so they can do what they like, but this isn't the first time a privately owned platform has banned 'misinformation' and not all of the previous bannings turned out to be justified. Slippery slope....
That is how monopolies operate.
User avatar
Brumbie_Steve
Posts: 3530
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Brumbie_Steve »

Do I detect a poster who is convinced the government has it in for them and private corporations have their best interests at heart?
User avatar
shanky
Posts: 24067
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by shanky »

So, monopolies then….
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 37452
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by guy smiley »

The Doherty Inst modelling for Covid restriction lifting has been released.

Essentially, they're suggesting everyone over 20 yrs old should be vaccinated with the 20-29 yr group a high risk for spreading the virus. They also suggest some measures would need to stay in place once a 70% target is achieved. The Prime Minister for Not A Race doesn't see it that way...
But even once 70 per cent of the population is vaccinated, if restrictions were abandoned there would be hundreds of thousands of COVID cases within the first six months, and nearly 2,000 deaths— most of which would be unvaccinated people, according to the Institute.

By maintaining social distancing, capacity limits at venues and effective contact tracing, the number of deaths could be reduced to as few as 16 people.

"It could help to turn what might otherwise be a bushfire into more of a controlled backburn and keep case numbers low," she said.

"Vaccination alone is a very big part of the answer, but it is not the whole answer ... we must maintain ongoing public health and social measures."


Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who has long argued Australia needs to learn to live with the virus, also played down the data.

"What has been modelled here is a scenario at those levels of vaccination where there is an uncontrolled outbreak that runs for 180 days, so it's not like an annual fatality figure of vaccinations at that rate" he said.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-03/ ... 48206871=1
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 19158
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Farva »

I didnt think we ever talked about a freedom day style all restrictions are out the door type event?
I know the idea was lockdowns are a thing of the past at 70%, at 80% border restrictions are relaxed with countries with high vaccine rates.
But we would keep some restrictions like mask wearing inside, etc?
User avatar
Clogs
Posts: 6439
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Clogs »

Yeh, I think the plan is a gradual releasing of restrictions and not a big bang. Where I think we may come unstuck is where we differ from the UK etc. We don't have much in the way of natural immunity in the community as a result of prior infection. So our 70% is 70% protected, not 70% plus 20% others that have recovered.

We have a long long way to go to get out of this, and there may still be a lot of pain ahead for us.
User avatar
MungoMan
Posts: 15049
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Coalfalls

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by MungoMan »

towny wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:30 am Some more misinformation to address:
- Google and Facebook do not set the price for their services. Prices are set by live auctions and as there is no minimum price, it means demand and supply determines what advertisers pay. Advertisers have never paid less to reach their target audiences.
- Google and Facebook do not sell user data. This is a falsehood. Advertisers request for their advertisements to be shown to particular types of users and Google and Facebook make it happen. The advertisers do not know who the people are or any of their details. The truth is, other than the CCP or scammers, no business cares who you are, where you live or how much you earn. Your data on its own is worthless. It only has value when its aggregated with others to create a target audience; however no one is able to pick apart the the data and no one would want to.
- Being a monopoly is not illegal.
- Google and Facebook do not meet the legal definitions of monopoly because they do not 'control supply'. If someone can prove that Google or Facebook 'control supply' then they would make billions of dollars as a litigator. But no one can, which is why anti-trust cases against Google and Facebook fail.
Here's a bit of information, not misinformation, to address: anti-trust legislation is merely one variant of competition law. Further, for the purposes of much competition law, it isn't necessary to find company X is a monopoly.

Munn vs Illinois (SCOTUS 1877) is often seen as a seminal decision in Anglosphere countries, and this is the meat of the matter:

Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence, and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use; but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control.
User avatar
Clogs
Posts: 6439
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by Clogs »

MungoMan wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:50 am
towny wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:30 am Some more misinformation to address:
- Google and Facebook do not set the price for their services. Prices are set by live auctions and as there is no minimum price, it means demand and supply determines what advertisers pay. Advertisers have never paid less to reach their target audiences.
- Google and Facebook do not sell user data. This is a falsehood. Advertisers request for their advertisements to be shown to particular types of users and Google and Facebook make it happen. The advertisers do not know who the people are or any of their details. The truth is, other than the CCP or scammers, no business cares who you are, where you live or how much you earn. Your data on its own is worthless. It only has value when its aggregated with others to create a target audience; however no one is able to pick apart the the data and no one would want to.
- Being a monopoly is not illegal.
- Google and Facebook do not meet the legal definitions of monopoly because they do not 'control supply'. If someone can prove that Google or Facebook 'control supply' then they would make billions of dollars as a litigator. But no one can, which is why anti-trust cases against Google and Facebook fail.
Here's a bit of information, not misinformation, to address: anti-trust legislation is merely one variant of competition law. Further, for the purposes of much competition law, it isn't necessary to find company X is a monopoly.

Munn vs Illinois (SCOTUS 1877) is often seen as a seminal decision in Anglosphere countries, and this is the meat of the matter:

Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence, and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use; but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control.

Perhaps one of the more interesting things I have ever read on here. I take it this is only really applicable in the US (I know you mention Anglosphere) and perhaps less so here in Australia?
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

MungoMan wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:50 am
towny wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:30 am Some more misinformation to address:
- Google and Facebook do not set the price for their services. Prices are set by live auctions and as there is no minimum price, it means demand and supply determines what advertisers pay. Advertisers have never paid less to reach their target audiences.
- Google and Facebook do not sell user data. This is a falsehood. Advertisers request for their advertisements to be shown to particular types of users and Google and Facebook make it happen. The advertisers do not know who the people are or any of their details. The truth is, other than the CCP or scammers, no business cares who you are, where you live or how much you earn. Your data on its own is worthless. It only has value when its aggregated with others to create a target audience; however no one is able to pick apart the the data and no one would want to.
- Being a monopoly is not illegal.
- Google and Facebook do not meet the legal definitions of monopoly because they do not 'control supply'. If someone can prove that Google or Facebook 'control supply' then they would make billions of dollars as a litigator. But no one can, which is why anti-trust cases against Google and Facebook fail.
Here's a bit of information, not misinformation, to address: anti-trust legislation is merely one variant of competition law. Further, for the purposes of much competition law, it isn't necessary to find company X is a monopoly.

Munn vs Illinois (SCOTUS 1877) is often seen as a seminal decision in Anglosphere countries, and this is the meat of the matter:

Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence, and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use; but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control.
Good post!

I'm no legal expert [/grossunderstatement], but I think this comes to the different approaches to anti-trust. I think they are the 'classical' (which is the case you mentioned) and the 'Chicago school' - maybe someone can correct me.

As far as I'm aware, the 'Chicaco' approach is what is generally used to analyse anti-trust issues and it's perhaps not fit for purpose, because the tests it uses are redundant. For example, it is apparently necessary to prove 'monopoly' by assessing whether the company 'controls supply' - but there supply is infinite on the internet and users aren't controlled, so monopolistic companies such as Google and Facebook don't qualify.

The problem is the laws - they need to be updated because they were designed for a paradigm that wasn't imaginable when they were drafted.
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

Brumbie_Steve wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 5:08 am
towny wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:04 am I love how people are cheering Google's (YouTube) banning of News Corp (Sky News) content. I get why this can be funny, but who is Google to decide what is and is not true? Don't get me wrong, it is a privately owned platform so they can do what they like, but this isn't the first time a privately owned platform has banned 'misinformation' and not all of the previous bannings turned out to be justified. Slippery slope....
That is how monopolies operate.
Legally they are not monopolies, but that aside, I agree with you.
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

Brumbie_Steve wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 5:22 am Do I detect a poster who is convinced the government has it in for them and private corporations have their best interests at heart?
This is obviously a barbed question, but I actually think Google, Facebook and Twitter have done more to stop misinformation than the Government in recent years.

The thing is, they shouldn't have this power. Being dependent upon the magnanimity of Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg is a perilous place to be. Imagine if it was Murdoch with this power. This is why Murdoch, NY Times, et al fight so hard against these platforms - not only has their traditional business model been destroyed but their power has been eroded, and they love this power.

The NY Times has more culpability in the election of Trump and the invasion of Iraq for WMDs than any tech platform, yet we all line up to fight for their rights to maintain this power.
towny
Posts: 23439
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: The Australian Politics Thread

Post by towny »

What segments do Facebook, Google and Twitter have monopolies in?
Is anyone able to define it?

- Online advertising? Well, no. None have that? I've listed 3 and there are plenty more companies with online advertising.
- Online search? Nope. Amazon has more searches for shopping items than Google in the US and its growing elsewhere. People use booking.com and 50 others for hotels and there are dozens of aggregators that search better than Google for particular things.
- Browsers? Nope
- Social media? What is social media? Can someone define what social media is? Also, how can there be so many social media companies if one of them has a monopoly?

Where is this monopoly?

There is a couple I can think of that are close
- Amazon in the US isn't a monopoly but it's power is ridiculous. If there is a company with too much influence it's this one.
- The Apple app store is 100% a monopoly and acting illegally imo every day.
- The Google Play app store for Android is 100% a monopoly
Post Reply