Видео

nah this is not on and this channel indirectly approving of it is also not on

Shouldnt the onus be on the government to have to show actual data or documents to prove that what they say is disinformation, actually is

Hilarious title, but the Deliberate Blindness technique is amplified by distracted good humor.

Every person have his or her opinion, in some cases their own truth too, right or wrong it must be respected, protected, in my opinion I truly believe that most of our politicians are corrupted, I don’t have to prove it, it’s a opinion, I also believe that political donations are legal bribes, in my humble opinion.

It's open to potential abuse. It should go.

Does this mean that people including those serving as government members at all levels including those people whom work for said Government can be subject to this Bill? I understand that politicians have parliamentary privilege while attending either house as a representative, however, can they call on this same privilege when using an internet medium to provide comments on any topic? I have a great concern around this Bill even after reading it and listening to, for and again, as well as those attempting to explain, such as yourself.

Doesn’t most political content aim to influence public opinion or sway voter behaviour? And isnt the decision about whether such content influences the outcome of an electoral process to an extent that it no longer represents the ‘free will of the people’ at the mercy of the political views of the decision maker?

Subscribed! Here via Robbie Barwick's video.

what it will mean if it passes is SM platforms will ban any posts on political opinion criticm of government vaccines etc which is terrifying.

This bill is egregious.

The constitution of Australia says , The governments of Australia shall not interfere with print media whatsoever . (So why write the bill).

Elizabeth II was proclaimed 'Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland' etc in 1952. That was changed to 'Northern Ireland' shortly afterwards.

I would like to hear your opinion on what we were told during Covid? We were lied to and there was proof and yet today we are still told that the jab safe and effective benefits outweighs not getting it. This was the start to the distrust for the Government, Mainstream media and Medical people cause up until then I stupidly thought our government wouldn’t hurt its own people.

"Inauthentic behavior'...what of sarcasm?

how can we get any politician who was involved in this Bill tested for Sociopathy and Psychopathy....as anyone that would even think of, or involve themselves in such a bill probably are.

THE ONLY ANSWER OF COURSE, IS TO TEACH RATIONALISM IN ALL SCHOOLS. RIGHT FROM THE START OF SCHOOLING THROUGH TO THE END OF SCHOOLING. CIVICS, AND ADULT POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY TOO, WHIST I'M AT IT.

The ‘not allowed to say anything decenting from regime narrative on social media’ bill

The mainstream media should be banned from the internet. That would be our utmost protection against misinformation.

Is Craig Kelly wrong? ruclips.net/video/zxszmcM-Lx0/видео.html

Amazing scarf!

Isnt this bill about ACMA ensuring full transparency of community notes etc? as the users would be considered arbiters of the truth.

get rid of the monarch

Here's a novel idea. How about we just have FREE SPEECH? It's a lot simpler than this proposed legislation, and doesn't require the government to do anything.

This comment is based on what I learned in passing Commonwealth Constitutional Law at ANU in 1995 and the Theories of Polical Violence unit in 2006 at Macquarie University. An AI research generator tool was used to "jog my memory" of specifics: When I was about 2 and half years old on 13 Feb 1978 a bomb exploded at the Hilyon Hotel in Sydney in 1978 at the CHOGM meeting killing 3 people. The Commonwealth used the Defence ACT 1903 to call out the Army to support the NSW Government (NSW Police) and this was done with Executive advice to the Governor General, and Section 119 of the Constitution would have supported this. I do not know if the State of NSW would have needed to specifically request the support or not, but I would think the bombing of Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting was a threat to both the NSW and other State government heada at the meeting but also a direct threat to the Commonwealth. So the Commonwealth just went ahead and did it. (It was a very good Theory of Political Violence lecture on this, which I still may have on CD somewhere, in 2006 from my lecturer at Macquarie University. I can not recall his nsme) but in 1978 he was serving in the Australian Army Unit that was called out.) Usually, terrorism is defined as being Violence that is politically motivated or where there is intent to intimate government policy. It may have specific definitions in various legislation. So the NSW Police being specific about what they do or do not label as an act of terrorism is important If more modern retrospective is used to analyse this historic precedent of the Army being called out internally, if a similar event occurred now, Thomas v Mowbray, the Defence power is relied on, but there would still be a requirement for the response in calling out the internally, to be proportionate.

It looks like the Senate is going to block this bill so all this will hopefully be moot. It is a horrible ugly bill and unworthy of any Australian politician.

Thankyou for your work in estimates. I watched it. Digraceful bill

The Bill does effectively ban people from saying things. Yes, it does so through control of the various social media platforms, but it achieves the gaol of controlling speech.

Read the bill you say... Good luck deciphering the governments mumbo jumbo method of document writing. Where's the transparency there? It should be simplified to the point that all people can understand it. Of course that's a deliberate ploy to baffle people with bullshit.

I wonder if the explanatory note accompanying the bill is misinformation or disinformation under the definitions in the bill it is supposed to explain?!

"We penetrate the cabinets". If you have no effective borders, you are not a nation. Borders = Nation. Globalists want everyone under their own rule, which is serfdom. Down Under is always a guinea pig, they roll out testing here - and if it proves people are stupid enough, it goes global.

The devil is in the detail. The government sets ‘standards’ but the question really is, who controls those ‘standards’. An example of previously accepted ‘Facts’ or ‘Reasonable content’ would be the safety and efficacy of a recent medical product. The ‘standards’ set by ACMA may be deemed correct at one point in time, with dissenting commentary as ‘likely to cause harm’ but then proven incorrect as more data and observations become apparent. How is it possible for a discussion to occur which results in a new understanding, if the conversation is not permitted? Your cheery, casual assessment on this bill is either naive or you understand the value this legislation to a government which wishes to control the narrative by preventing discussion that is not supportive of the governments policies.

All this actually means is that the words mean whatever a particular judge decides that they mean on any given day. That is NOT a comforting thought!

Quinkinland has at least 7 big zones that naturally sub divde further in ecological arrangements. I don't know how the indigenous people mapped the song lines, their "religious" mnemonic navigational systems, but I heard that at least one group saw 13 seasons. Better ask Bush Tucker Man Les. Ie it's more respectful of Aboriginal lores to learn by doing experience of their stewardship and be careful how they saw justice than to play around with another PPP, pernicious persecuting penal system that is.

We've had a couple of Lawyers who claim that the procedures of justice are more like a Butcher's Picnic, so sausages will always be on the menus.

What could possibly go wrong with this? PS. Anyone read the headlines from The UK "15 years for VIEWING anything far right" & "time/imprisonment for silently praying in public places". That surely will NEVER happen in Australia!

Thank you for clarifying that the mad bill is a dogs breakfast: a feast for lawyers to ponder the finer points of the meaning of "truth" at a victim's expense; where the victim is the accused and the accuser is the victim. No wonder the creators of the bill have exempted themselves from this bill.

Any additional government control is unnecessary. The whole bill should be binned. BIN THE BILL.

Look at how RUclips handles copyright. They penalise transformative works and education and instead allow copyright holders to claim advertising revenue as opposed to the content creator. IP law is not trivial but is probably simpler than what we're seeing here with the MAD bill. Given the penalties involved why wouldn't a commercial corporation err on the side of caution and over censor things? It's simpler and less risky.

Goes directly to the meaning of authority and responsibility derived from elemental e-Pi-i sync-duration resonance materialisation, Mind-Body manifestation in parallel coexistence, inside-outside relative-timing holographic-quantization.., and bio-logical re-evolution containment in-of probabilistic correlations, "breed quality" of biological clocking. Fi Gians might explain this in the living participation in/of holistic living bio-logical beings, which is interesting for comparison because environmental fitness in the ecology from the old way of living is more reliable and relevant than military industrial finance machinations. It's an aspect-version assembly of Hilbert's Infite Hotel accommodation style of categories, Sciencing Re-search fun to imagine.

Slave are real now ,in Australia

Very clear and concise on all the issues. It appears a large portion of the potential/inevitable problems stems from the myriad of subjectivity that flows from “policing “ the intended purpose of the bill. Also, the well made point in the video that platforms are likely to err on the side of caution and be overly censorious.

Thank you so much

These tactics were Hitler's methods

So the political parties do not want scrutiny over them especially in government The citizens are not allowed to know what is going on

Just decided to cancel getting a Australian citizenship that way i keep not only a German passport but when I wrap things up here in this country I can not only still have a voice without censorship but thanks to the new taxation bill involving working overseas I will not be double taxed. Just as many of my peers that have made it are now living as expats after my duties to my father I am out of here. Worked all my life including when I was homeless three times yet being a white bloke no freaking beds , this country is using there folks as a cash cow and now it’s becoming just like George Orwell predicted! So for those that have property have a look at house prices as well as standards of living around the world and you will see how much you are being ripped off.

Crooked Mick once drove 300 Sheep from the Speewah down to Tasmania. When asked how he got them across Bass Strait, he replied, we didn't go that way! I dare anyone to prove him wrong

“Safe and effective”.

Back in 2021, I submitted multiple 100+ page requests to leave Australia during the border closures. I was granted permission to leave only after I submitted a FoI request demanding to know exactly why my requests were denied, thereby forcing them to read and counter my 100+ page argument. To me, it seemed like the Border Force didn't want to deal with me anymore, and let me out.

There are clearly many combinations of terms here that will be green fields for courts to determine but misleading and deceptive has about 50 years of precedent under the TPA/ACL. It's not a high bar. There are cases that have determined that there should be a reasonable class of consumers that could have been misled and that class can include both astute and gullible members.

That we even talk about not applying restrictions to a non-citizen unless they are present a risk of serious harm is an issue. A non-citizen who presents a risk of any harm, serious or otherwise, to a citizen should be subject to restriction. The Australian government should only concern itself with the harm, or risk of harm, to citizens, not non-citizens.