No response?
Maybe Australia's communications minister's mail server sends replies that contain only the poop emoji to the spam folder, so she might want to check there for Elon's response.
Australia’s communications minister Michelle Rowland has revealed that Twitter's Australian outpost has not responded to months-old correspondence about the slimmed-down social network's ability to meet its requirements under the nation's Online Safety Act. Twitter has made multiple rounds of redundancies since being acquired …
We already have digital identifiers here in Europe, which goes along with ID cards and so on. These are generally speaking sanely implemented systems that are carefully implemented (here in Portugal it's actually a criminal offence to photocopy someone's ID card).
Of course, things being what they are, the "not invented here" brigade will decide to come up with some crazy half-baked idea of "how it ought to work" that bumps up against the harsh reality of life very quickly. They should ask the UK government how well their ID system went*.
* feels like classic "second system effect" to me, to be honest, but there you go.
> ROTFLMAO
Glad someone got the joke! Forgot the /s.
Perhaps we can campaign The Register to give us a flying pink unicorn[1] icon for things we'd like to have (like a good Twitter) but we somehow suspect aren't going to seen.
[1] I'd suggest a flying pig but fear that woud be - repurposed - in an unfortunate manner; but not even the commentards can make a flying pink unicorn do anything regrettable[2]
[2] sigh, now I've issued a challenge, haven't I?
This was fairly obviously going to happen right from the start.
Musk displays the US conservative total misunderstanding of "free speech". Basically, if you cannot use the N-word, bully children and tell fawning lies about Donal Trump, you do not have free speech.
Will his new CEO even want to fix it?
I still have a Twitter account. This is at least curiousity but also because some companies (such as Octopus Energy) still consider it a valid medium.
Freedom of speech is the freedom of speech without repercussions.
Otherwise you have to argue that North Korea has freedom of speech as you can say anything you like but you get instant repercussion if the government finds what you say is “harmful”.
"freedom of speech without repercussions" is freedom to oppress.
Most countries have "Freedom of expression" which mean you can say what you want but inciting hatred is against the law and you will be prosecuted for it.
"Freedom of speech is the freedom of speech without repercussions"
That should be qualified as "freedom of speech without governmental repercussions" because, at least in the US, Constitutional protections of free speech apply only to governmental action. There are no protections against (non-violent) repercussions. If your employer fires you because your public comments embarrass it, that's not a violation of free speech rights. If a business owner is bankrupted because his comments result in an organized boycott of his store, that's not a violation of his freedom of speech, despite what some conservatives claim. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
But it is exactly what some people want, at least for themselves.
Maybe we should defer to a higher authority:
No practical definition of freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all the others are based.
Sir Terence David John Pratchett OBE
To misquote Yes, Minister's "it's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it: I have an independent mind; you are an eccentric; he is round the twist.":
..."What I say is free speech, what you say is fake news, what he says is slander"...
Well, isn't that fair? A lot of people seem to have just accepted that it's reasonable and right to push both the responsibility for deciding what gets posted online, and the entire cost of enforcing that decision onto social media companies. I find the former disturbing, and the latter likely to reinforce the former. I'm not saying the companies should do nothing, but I think it's fair to question exactly what roles government, law enforcement, and society in general should have in creating the kind of online spaces we want to have.
If you open a business it's your burden on making sure it operates within the laws of the land. If you open a club and a bunch of people start dealing drugs from it, it's up to you to sort it out, otherwise you get shut down.
The Australian government has, quite reasonably IMO, told numerous overseas companies that if they want to accept money from and provide services to Australians, they must comply with Australian corporation and consumer laws, even if they have no office here. Although if it's a free service I think the government's available remedies become less gentle, such as IP blocks.
> You're still accesable over the Internet regardless of where your business is physically registered to.
So if Twitter don't care about Aussie laws they won't complain if the Aussie gov tries to block it. Seems fair.
A car analogy (haven't seen these recently):
The car maker is selling us something that can go from A to B. They want to put in silly flashy gadgets and chrome fins to make you think theirs is the brand to buy.
The role of government (and thence law enforcement) is to say "your car must follow these rules: have indicators, brake lights, brakes that actually work, etc".
The manufacturer will build the car with all of the above included - but they'd rather cut as many corners as they can on the governmental requirements (hey, we can save money by re-using brake lights as indicators! We can put cheap brakes from the Morris Minor into this 15 tonne lorry!). All of the cost of manufacture, sales etc are paid up front by the manufacturer and his lackeys (the salesmen) and are then recouped (plus profit) by charging the customer.
Tax payers' money is then used to keep the manufacturers under control; if they play straight with us then this cost is lower and your taxes go down (well, they are supposed to, but that is another discussion - what is certain is the more the manufacturers play silly buggers the more it costs *all* taxpayers, not just the ones who have volunteered to be customers).
So, no, it is NOT "fair" that taxpayers should be funding Twitters moderators, any more than it would be fair for taxpayers to pay to have proper brakes fitted to the 25 tonne lorry.
Funding moderation comes under business costs and must be paid by the business, then passed onto the paying customers, as in any other business. If the can't manage that then they don't have a viable business model. End of story.
When will the reg report on the twitter files which showed that under pressure from the White House it was suppressing legitimate speech in a violation of the first amendment?
Or journalist Alex Berenson his successful settlement with the company over the removal of his tweets and account? An illusion shattering moment for social media hiding behind the section 230 defence.
Or his case against the White House over his first amendment rights online ?
This post has been deleted by its author
> When will the reg report on the twitter files which showed that under pressure from the White House it was suppressing legitimate speech in a violation of the first amendment?
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/12/elon-musks-twitter-files-a-giant-nothingburger/
Quote:
“Taibbi revealed… basically nothing of interest,” Mike Masnick wrote for Techdirt. “He revealed a few internal communications that… simply confirmed everything that was already public in statements made by Twitter, Jack Dorsey’s Congressional testimony, and in declarations made as part of a Federal Elections Commission investigation into Twitter’s actions…. Taibbi revealed some internal emails in which various employees (going increasingly up the chain) discussed how to handle the story. Not once does anyone in what Taibbi revealed suggest anything even remotely politically motivated.”
End Quote.
"Anything goes these days on Twitter," she said. "They're weaponizing. What do you expect? I've said this before, but you know, you let sewer rats, and you let all these people who have been suspended back on the platform while you get rid of the Trust and Safety people and processes."
We want a backdoor like the FBI /s
Online forums have always had problems with bad behavior because people presume that they are anonymous. They're not but site operators like to present the illusion to encourage their customers.
If you just make it clear that anything you post you own then you don't need a huge central apparatus 'moderating' -- censoring -- content. Having censors is an invitation to steer the content of a site in ways that favor a prevailing culture using the time honored excuse of 'protecting public morals' or 'protecting children'. (See article on Comstock Act.)
Personally, I like my Nazis out in the open where I can keep an eye on them.
...should "engage in dialogue" with Twitter in regard to the current lack of moderation and the apparent failure to follow the local laws. Maybe "discuss with them" the ramifications of not following the law and how upcoming changes in legislation might affect Twitters operation in Australia. When Australia gets either no response or just a pop emoji in reply, Australia can then assume that Twitter is all fine with whatever the government happens to decide to legislate for. Twitter may wake up and take notice when their domain is blocked for escalating non-compliance :-)
I saw a news feed piece yesterday claiming that Musk is going to revolutionize car production and make the first Tesla under 30K for the US market, enabled by new genius production line techniques. Putting on my reading between the lines glasses, it think it means it will be enabled by assembling in Mexico parts made in China's Tesla plant, and leveraging lobby power to get them to count as being made in the USA.
It's impossible to guess what's going on in the four-dimensional-tic-tac-toe in Musk's head, but whether Twitter under competent leadership would care is an interesting question. I thought Facebook or Google might tell Australia to fuck right off with the "pay our news megacorps" bullshit – that move seems like it would have a decent chance of being effective, since people are more likely to be loyal to their Internet shiny than to Rupert Murdoch's hand-wringing – but they folded with barely a struggle.
It seems these firms are so addicted to user counts that it doesn't take many to effectively threaten them.
What if Twitter continues to ignore the Australian Government? Ban the Twitter packets as they come in through Border Control and refuse them entry?
It sounds a lot like they're trying to do something that worked in the pre-Internet era but is completely unachievable in the world of Internet and global communication.
> Ban the Twitter packets
You've uncovered Musk's Grand Plan!
Australia can certainly block the traffic over the subsea lines: just have to install The Great 'Net Barrier Reef akin to the Great Chinese Firewall.
Then Ozzie Tweets (help me out here, what is the word for a Galah call?) will have to be beamed into Spaaaaaace - and guess who will happily offer a service to achieve that?