If more countries followed suit with a proportional fine, then X might take notice and remove child sexual abuse content from Xitter, make it somewhat less abhorrently Xitty, and just return to it's original angry place where people can fling Xit at each other.
This is the same Australian eSafety that also recently hit the news for fining X 700k/day for not doing enough to stop “online hate”.
Pardon me if I am skeptical about this being anything other than another money and power grab from the increasingly tyrannical and corrupt Australian government.
Interesting hearing comments where fine's are placed on tech companies being "a slap on the wrist". Then to hear when its considered too much its a power grab.
I am quite impressed with how heavy handed Australia has been on tech companies at times when it comes to fines.
> After taking the company private, Musk said in a post that "removing child exploitation is priority #1". But the Australian regulator said that when it asked X how it prevented child grooming on the platform, X responded that it was "not a service used by large numbers of young people".
A social network used by hundreds of millions of people, certainly including people under 18 (who it allows to sign up), should probably have a plan for fighting grooming.
Musk was referring to CSAM. Grooming is not the same as CSAM. To find grooming requires analysis of conversations over time, and knowing the victim is a child and offender is adult. A big difference not mentioned by Reuters.
At least Reuters mentions the fact the Australian eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, is a former Twitter employee. I'm sure her condemnation of the platform is completely unbiased and she's only thinking of the children.
"Increasingly tyrannical and corrupt"... perhaps they were referring to the proposed misinformation bill, where anyone could be found guilty of misinformation, except the government. Don't worry, it was slammed to the sidelines by Human Rights Commissioner, Lorraine Finlay[1].
Or perhaps they were referring to encryption backdoors, or the pandemic response. Regarding the pandemic response, the state governments were more tyrannical than federal.
Mate, you need to stop commenting on matters you have no idea about.
The current Australian government has spent half of its term burning all of its political capital on attempting to get the Voice to parliament up and move the objectives of the Uluru statement forward. They fumbled the execution but they couldn't have made a greater effort.
Hmmm. To me it seemed like they spent a whole bunch of effort on marketing, but didn't want to spend the effort on actually figuring out the details of their proposal first.
And if they can't be bothered to work out the full and complete details of a change to our constitution (up front), in order for people to make an informed choice... then there's no way they were actually serious about wanting to change things. Or they were just er... tripping.
Seems more like it was just a political stunt / bullshit for some (unknown) reason. :(
---
I was living in the UK when the government there did similar for Brexit. It was heavy on slogans and marketing, but they'd not even bothered to work out the details of what they were proposing.
And we've seen how well that went (extremely poorly). :(
No hate at all, but I am curious what the "full and complete details" might have looked like? I've heard that a lot and it seems like it differs person to person of what would've been sufficient.
Full and complete details is bulldust but a good tactic by the no campaign.
What they needed to do was release enough of a proposal to convince 50% + 1 of 4 of 6 states and the whole country to vote yes. There is no fixed amount but the proposal didn't fail because of a conspiracy. It failed because it was an ill-conceived change and an ill-conceived campaign.
> didn't want to spend the effort on actually figuring out the details of their proposal first.
This is an over simplification.
> can't be bothered
> there's no way they were actually serious about wanting to change thing
> Seems more like it was just a political stunt / bullshit for some (unknown) reason.
You're assuming malice. If you want some serious analysis from someone who has worked in electoral politics and won campaigns that have been called unwinnable... well, you're here.
It all comes back to the Uluru statement (published in 2017 during the term of the previous government, who did nothing). Perhaps most importantly this line:
> We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution. [1]
Change to the constitution = referendum. I won't go into the details of why it was thought by the authors of the Uluru statement was necessary but it distills down to democratic legitimacy. Theoretically: Demanded by the people, unable to be erased without the will of the people. If you want further details you shouldn't be reading a Hacker News comment. But from this the referendum was necessary for the government to act on the Uluru statement.
Initially support for the voice was polling well. From here the government had to figure out the question to put to Australian electors in a referendum.
Australian politicians are well aware of the electorate's resistance to constitutional change. To give the best chance of success they looked back to previous referenda to determine what an optimal strategy might be like. The two referenda that were considered most important by the campaign were the 1967 Aboriginals referendum and the 1999 Republic referendum.
The 1967 referendum got up. Easily. It was a source of inspiration for many (I daresay all) involved in the Voice referendum. [2] The 1967 referendum was for the voice to remove the words "other than the aboriginal race in any State" [3] from the constitution with regards to Commonwealth government power and a clause about counting Aboriginals in the census. The view amongst the modern campaigners was that the referendum succeeded because the law was viewed as racist and the Australian people were ready for equality; the past is more nuanced than that. The referendum got up because it was pure equality before the law of the Commonwealth government. Australians didn't do it because they abhorred racism, it succeeded because it resonated with the values of a large cross section of society. Conservatives, Liberals, Fabian Socialists, Communists. This broad coalition had a myriad of reasons they all came to the same answer. "Could the voice have a similar path?" was not a question asked. It was viewed entirely with hindsight. In the minds of the yes campaigners the 1967 referendum was Australians abhorred by racism in the constitution.
The 1999 referendum has a lot of myth built around it in the myth of Australia's educated class. A view developed amongst the campaign that part of the reason the referendum failed was that the model was defined when a majority of Australians would support a republic but there was no majority for a single model. This is to some extent true. A view that also exists is that the less popular model was chosen deliberately by Prime Minister Howard to doom the referendum's to failure. This combined with an (internal)acknowledgement that Australians might be uneasy about a voice that was truly independent of Parliament led to them proposing a constitutionally mandated but parliamentary defined Voice. This would also allow the voice to change and grow as needed. I will put forward to readers that the 1999 referendum failed not because a model was defined or because it was sabotaged but because Australians looked at what was on offer and plainly did not believe that there was material benefit to voting yes.
These twin illusions combined with the high in principle support of the voice would cloud the judgement of the yes campaign. They assumed that Australian society viewed itself as structurally racist in its organisation but not the electorate (I agree with the view but don't believe that a majority of Australians view it that way). They also assumed that people would see the value of the voice, prima facie. So, they went ahead, no model defined, sure they would win largely based on good will that they incorrectly believed was very solid.
This led to them exposing their Achilles heel: they had no easy to communicate argument for the voice nor anything a voter could look at. They couldn't explain what it was going to be. They couldn't explain why it needed to exist. They couldn't explain why it needed to be in the constitution. Once the campaign you have called (on the taxpayer dime) is afoot it you would essentially be admitting you think you are going to lose to change the terms and the themes of your campaign. The only way you can really do it is with some kind of external event rocking the system.
For the opposition this was a good opportunity to let the government get itself enough rope and then torch a lot of their political capital. Never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake. Some of the voices inside the Labor party who were a bit further from the campaign and had clearer sight of it did try to urge the campaign to change tack before the starting gun. They were told their suggested changes would be seen as cynical and retreating.
The Uluru statement authors and yes strategists learnt the wrong lesson from 1967 and 1999 referenda (but not the abolition of ATSIC). The Labor Party silenced voices internally who criticised the strategy. The no campaign figured out the same flaws in the yes campaign and exploited them ruthlessly. The campaign was ritualistic and symbolic rather than based on actual causality. Like most superstition, the believers expended a lot of effort to convince themselves they were doing something that worked, and when it didn't work they did it harder.
It did not fail because of insincerity or lack of effort. Quite the opposite.
[1] Uluru statement from the heart
[2] "In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard." Uluru statement from the heart
[3] Australian constitution
No. I'm more assuming they were trying to win some mindshare by doing something progressive sounding, but they had no real intention of following through to make tangible changes.
As demonstrated by their lack of effort to actually figure out the details up front, rather than going on a marketing tour and trying to big note themselves.
Those aren't the ingredients of good, long term improvements for people.
So, rather than "malice" I'm thinking "stupidity or laziness".
Either way, no real desire on their part to actually change things for the better. Thankfully the Australian people didn't buy their bullshit.
That's my take anyway. :)
> They couldn't explain what it was going to be. They couldn't explain why it needed to exist. They couldn't explain why it needed to be in the constitution.
Yeah. I lump that into "didn't want to put in the effort to figure things out".
They seemed to be wedded to marketing (probably still are), and extremely light on putting in the effort required to actually figure things out.
Probably because putting in effort is harder, and might take longer than "before the next election". :(
> they were trying to win some mindshare by doing something progressive sounding, but they had no real intention of following through to make tangible changes
That’s the malice you are assuming. And the idea that the voice is no tangible change when it was decried by the previous government as too radical beggars belief. The voice was to be the body to create the basis for negotiations for a treaty between the Commonwealth and the First Nations of Australia.
The campaigners aren’t stupid. They aren’t lazy.
Sometimes we disagree with people. Sometimes people are wrong. Success has papered over a thousand would be defeats. The best-laid schemes of mice and men, go oft awry, and leave us nothing but grief and pain, for promised joy.
The idea that the yes campaign and the government weren’t seriously committed to getting this across the line is laughable. They were simply wrong about the assumptions they were working under. Assumptions that are commonly held in Australia.
The referendum was the culmination of a process that began in 2015 when Turnbull was Prime Minister. That’s 3 Federal Elections (and prime ministers) ago. It has been through councils, reports, a convention.
They didn’t run the campaign you think they should have. They didn’t run the campaign I think they should have. That doesn’t mean it was a mess of lazy idiots making the wrong decision at every turn.
Extraterritoriality is disturbs me - its an assertion of power without any kind of neutral arbitrator. It's like sending invoices randomly to any company and see if they pay up. What if X says 'no' - X is banned in Australia? Fair enough I guess, if so
If a company is interacting with the citizens of a country, making their service available in said country, shouldn’t they follow the laws of that country? I don’t see why internet companies should be treated differently.
No. If I use services of a foreign company, I am the one who should follow the foreign law. I am the one who went out and used a foreign service, they didn't come to me.
That’s the tricky part about an internet company. Where are they located? If a US company ships you a physical product they need to follow local laws otherwise you can’t import it. But you think in the case of a digital product then the logic is reversed?
No, they don't need to follow the local law. I can buy whatever I want from anywhere in the world and the company doesn't need to follow anything other than the law of their home.
These are very significantly different cases:
1) a foreign customer buying
2) a foreign company selling
In the first case, the company follows their home law only. On the second case they would have to follow the local law of the customer's country too
That is definitely not how the world works. Import/Export laws do exist for a reason.
Your edit makes even less sense.
1) a foreign customer buying
2) a foreign company selling
Those two happen at the same time. If I’m in Australia and I’m buying something from the US I am a foreign customer (relative to the company) and the company is also a foreign company (relative to the customer)
If you want to export anything you have to follow the laws of the country you’re exporting to.
That is definitely how the world works. Import/export laws largely do not apply when it's the customer self-importing it for their own personal use. And that can include the seller sending it to them using FedEx or whatever, still self-import.
Import/export laws mostly affect stuff that's going to be resold again, and involve local subsidiaries or contracted distributors.
The two cases I listed do not happen at the same time. Try some other, more charitable interpretation.
If I went out and bought something out of my country, the seller never tried to sell in my country and it makes no sense they would have to follow my local law.
If the seller went out and started selling (doing marketing etc) in my country, that's a different story.
If I'm in Australia and I buy a new alarm clock from an online store in Japan, the alarm clock does not need to meet Australian standards. It's the customer's risk to take.
One obvious reason is that different countries have wildly incompatible laws.
Another reason is that it is not the job of a company (or random blogger!) to worry about all laws everywhere on the planet. If it were, it would be very difficult to even discuss regionally sensitive issues around religion, territorial disputes or even ongoing pandemics.
How is it not a company’s job to worry about the laws of the countries they operate in?
If it’s not its job, then whose job is it then?
I’m not going to argue that it’s an easy problem to solve. Far from it. But I also think there has to be some balance otherwise a company can simply set headquarters in a country with as fewer restrictions as possible and run wild.
It is the company’s job to comply with the laws of the country they operate in and I never implied otherwise. This does not mean complying the laws of all other countries where people use the internet.
For example, if you produce online maps and you’re based in China, you’d better be rendering maps that reflect their territorial claims. If you’re based in a neighboring country with competing claims, then those same maps that comply with Chinese regulations could get you into trouble.
> ”… otherwise a company can simply set headquarters in a country with as fewer restrictions as possible”
Yes. That’s how it works. Countries compete in terms of regulatory regime and less onerous ones do indeed attract more business.
