I don’t think Australians actually want big change though. I think the vocal minority who follow politics and make a lot of noise…

Yeah, thats kinda what i’s nodding towards with my comment about the voters being responsible for pushing a stronger reform agenda as well.

What kind of arse about thinking gets you to a position to state this view in front of… people…

Eh, they’ve not been too bad. They’ve generally got things done. Haven’t been massive reformers, (tried but failed and backed off the Voice reform). But they’ve put in place a lot of slow burn policies and projects that will probably be more valued in years to come than they are now.

I think the voters of Australia themselves need to wake up. We need to vote in our collective best interests if we want big change. Instead it seems a scare campaign about an issue no further than the end of noses sinks a government these days. There seems little big picture thinking by our well educated nation’s people.

Also the Reserve bank really needs to start copping it harder, i question whether they are abrogating their 3rd duty to use their powers to contribute to the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia. Their decisions lately enrich some people, (the already wealthy and asset rich), to impoverish the rest of the people.

The stresses caused by this cost of living crisis are definitely contributing to the lack of big picture thinking. How can you look at the horizon when your face is in the mud? Problem is, the longer this problem and its societal and institutional reactions goes on, the more time and opportunity is lost.

Nup, this comment has gone over my head. Why is the Opera House linked?

I thought a large reason for the move was the ability for the ships to manoeuvre in and out of the port faster. Mr Pettitt doesn’t mention any opposition to that reason, and its a pretty big one.

Um, AFP are letting this slip by hey? These people recruiting for a foreign military in broad daylight and the AFP haven’t lifted a finger?

With friends like these…

Watch out jlai.lu the aussies are comin!

doing authentication or just gathering their ID data

So i did read last week when i’s going through the explanatory notes that sites would have to explicitly state and gain permission for the specific use of the data proposed.

I didn’t have time to read into that bit much, but it seemed like it might be setting a higher bar than the ‘check and forget’ boxes around now. So i’m cautiously hopeful this part of the amendment could be quietly good.

I’s talking about products in general, not new v old media. I actually had Jack Welch of GE in my mind when i wrote the comment yesterday.

That doctorow was a longer read than i’s expecting, clicked on a lot of links as well. This is why its taken soblong for me to reply :p I really liked the part about ‘heating’.

The heating part made me think about how youtube rarely showed me videos from channels i’d liked previously, i had to go looking for them, while the recommended videos showed so much weird crap.

I still think its no different to the ‘ever lasting search for the latest eFficiEnCeeeeee saving’ every MBA learns by rote.

But i take your point, User Attention is what these companies are selling. Like good little MBA’s they are doing everything they can to exploit that value from the user attention assets they have, and are singularly failing to build any new assets of any value.

I, and at least one other person here sent submissions in specifically mentioning the fediverse.

Mine wasn’t a very technical submission, i tried to focus on the value and potential destruction of that value if safeguards aren’t allowed for nascent social media.

So at least there is a record of it. My worry is all the Muskivites submissions will drown out ones like mine.

That goanna sounds like some schoolyard bully

thers bilkuosn for developers

I can’t work out what this says sorry. Do you mean “bullshit for developers”?

Certainly is better. But i don’t think it needs a ‘technology industry’ specific term.

Old terms like market monopolisation, or corruption of the public sphere.

Or something like those are better, because nothing the tech platforms have done is new, their tactics aren’t different from any other company seeking to dominate their respective product market. The key difference being the speed at which their product travels around the world.

Pretty impregnable net the legislative writers have cast there.

Meh, never liked the term.

I never felt it captured the seriousness of the undermining of the public’s access to reliable information, by the ownership of these public sphere’s being captured by profit maximising entities.

The temptation to skew algorithms to profit maximisation instead of best information delivery has proven too great, its why a fundamental shift away from the walled garden concept is required. In my view.

Further to this, how do you police that on something like the fediverse? Is @Aussie.zone going to shut down because the onus of checking IDs too much for a small social media provider?

I’m worried about this. I see no protections other than the minister’s discretion for small social media being liable for civil penalties of $9million. Thats the kind of money that freezes the social media market in place, allowing only the very largest to be involved.

This is of course if the fediverse admins are unable to implement reasonable steps for age verification.

I’m not technical, so i’ll be interested to know peoples thoughts on the implementation, and maintenance of age verification?

Can’t see where they state the definition for ‘material’, what does it say?

Eh, maybe they do, but the media wouldn’t broadcast it. Or start criticising Labor for not taking responsibility for leadership of the country themselves. Maybe a more media savvy person will know if theres a generally acknowledged time period, but the media only put up with new governments blaming the last for a short period. Maybe 1 year?

Labor knows this, and rather than have to explain how government and indeed institutional development works to each journalist, they let the ego’s of the journalists, and their ‘mystical’ knowledge of their readers/viewers interests dictate when that response has run its course.

If the concern is that it won’t have a significant impact before the next election, I don’t think we should lay all the blame on the Greens.

Nah, certainly not. I think Albanese’s biggest failure, so far, was not having the next part of this parliaments story ready to go as soon as the referendum was over.

Within a few weeks of that he needed to define the next couple years on cost of living, in particular housing, and just lay into the opposition over these last two years for their decisions turning Australian housing into the safest and easiest investment available.

The way they’ve brushed off Keating’s opinions on AUKUS means they could have been doing the same for his part in deregulating the banks, which indirectly contributed to the issue with the Liberals suite of other policy decisions as well.

Albanese had the chance to be bold, but it seems history is going to view his first term as being bold on a referendum then losing his nerve to come back and try again.

The Murdoch media will screech…

Yep

Great, just in time to be reversed without having time to have any effect when the Liberals get in because the narrative that Labor hasn’t done anything on housing will be yelled and screeched about by the Murdoch propandists.

I get the Greens wanting more, but playing hardball in times like these when there is an obvious electorate sentiment has probably hurt both the Greens and Labor to the benefit of their political opponents.

They should’ve passed the legislation and pressed for more action immediately.

In another reality Adam Bandt could have been saying this, “We won’t stand in the way of Australians getting a better deal on their housing, but we will continue pushing for a better see deal for all Australians.”

Adam Bandts a good speaker anyway, like he needs my help on that! :p