Major Australian telcos block access to Liveleak, 4chan & others

[Trik'Stari]

Certainly they wouldn't want the wider public to realize that they(government and media entities) are behaving in exactly the way THE SHOOTER FUCKING INTENDED.

 

This is what he wanted. This is what the shooter wanted. Go read his manifesto. They are basically complying with what he desired to happen because he knew the results of those actions (that of the governments and media).

 

What he did was despicable.

 

The media and government complying with his desires is worse.

[Serin]

Imagine thinking that trying to stamp out content from a terrorist who murdered 50 innocent  people and injured 50 more as 'virtue signalling'.
Jesus F**king christ.
Maybe we should be worried about these people. They seem to be utterly incapable of putting something bigger than their need to furiously masturbate to murder first.

There are places for people like that which also start with A, but not here.

[leadeater]

49 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

The media and government complying with his desires is worse.

He wouldn't know, he's barred from any and all news information and is in isolation. For all he knows there is a zombie apocalypse. 

[mr moose]

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

Hosting and distributing/sharing video like that is illegal in your country, the ISPs don't have much choice as doing nothing about it brings in all sorts of potential liability issues for them. As a business you generally don't want to run a foul of a government or push them towards passing legislation that would be even more harmful to your business. This is ass covering.

 

The ISPs aren't actually hosting the videos but they are providing access to them, that puts them in that difficult position of being directly in the spot light where inaction could lead to law change. You can bet ISPs don't want any more liability and responsibility than they already have.

 

You should know all too well the Australian government is more than willing to try and pass internet legislation laws, they've done it before.

 

Facebook is doing more than meager attempts to remove any videos of it. Plus they aren't not getting immense political pressure either, it's not sun shine and rainbows over at Facebook.

Don't go be rational about this, everyone wants to simply ignore the copious amounts of other factors and apply their own ideologues so they can make an uneducated shit dig.

 

9 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

“B-b-but Net-neutrality harms competition!”

 

Come on, what possible justification is there to censor news? What if Comcast and TWC just decided it wasn’t gonna allow coverage of 9/11 back when it was happening because they felt it was the right thing to do? 

No one is censoring news.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Seems kind of extreme to make it illegal. Do things like TV have to follow the same laws? For example can't news show footage or pictures of violent acts? And I mean, if an sites posting it need to be blocked then should Facebook, reddit, Twitter and some other sites be blocked too? 

Yes, all Australian entities have to follow the same laws.  No one is exempt except within parliamentary privileged.

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Short version no news can't show it either, there are special rules/exceptions for news to be able to report on such things but there are limits to what they can show. But it's not violent acts that are not allowed, it's 'very high-impact violence', something that would be above a typical R18 rating.

 

As you know the act of blocking those sites is ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Those sites are failing to remove the content, they aren't actually subject to Australian law (far as I understand) but are facilitating Australian citizens in breaking laws so they got blocked.

 

The modern day issue of are you breaking local laws using internet resources out of country, you are within the nations boarders physically so what actually does apply? If you got on a plane and went to another country then viewing and sharing that video is not breaking Australian law. Australia has passed laws to address that but it doesn't apply to the internet resources outside of the country, how could it? It applies to the citizens within the country using it.

 

Should internet services comply to local laws to be allowed to offer services in the country, generally speaking Australia says yes.

 

Specific to the issue of the video itself, we all agree video of child pornography is not acceptable? That happens to be international law as well. Is footage of a person killing 41 people up close, in full view and detail any less worse? It's not footage of person(s) getting killed but from a distance, or remote camera footage i.e. drone strike, it shows it point of view arms length with the attacker also going back to his car, getting more weapons, returning to scene, standing over the people and shooting them again. Is that less worse than child porn? And should that be shown on day time news, or freely accessed all ages on the internet?

 

There is a whole lot of problems that the Internet brings to the table in this regard.  I think the thing that annoys me more is not the complexity of the issues and what some entities have to do to avoid legal trouble, but that so many people put their head in the sand. They don't want to accept the fact that it is so complicated and that doing nothing is not a solution.

[leadeater]

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

but that so many people put their head in the sand.

Don't you realize if you stand under a tree, close your eyes, block your ears and truly believe if I cut it down it won't fall on you that it will not.

[overlord360]

Quote

A spokesman for the eSafety commissioner said she did not provide "any direction or advice to Australian ISPs in regard to the blocking of websites".

The office does not have the authority to direct ISPs to block domains but can take action to remove content shared on Australian-hosted websites.

What's more unnerving is that this wasnt initiated by the government but by the service providers themselves...

[TempestCatto]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

 

Someone really needs to write a book to counter this one so we can then start to follow the timeline of that one. Seriously, it's very discomforting knowing just how similar our world is to one that is in a fictional book. At this point, it may as well be recategorized as nonfiction.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

 

Someone really needs to write a book to counter this one so we can then start to follow the timeline of that one. Seriously, it's very discomforting knowing just how similar our world is to one that is in a fictional book. At this point, it may as well be recategorized as nonfiction.

The problem here is the world hasn't changed.  The world Orwell created in 1984 was not new in concept or observation than from any civilization in human history.  People like to point to 1984 as if the concept is new and founded on modern changes to humanity, but it isn't.     Humanity swings through periods of over governance all the time.  The concept of census data goes back 2000 years and was introduced in order to keep tabs on where people come from and go to. 

[Teddy07]

vpn is basically necessary nowadays.

[Andreas Lilja]

56 minutes ago, Serin said:

Imagine thinking that trying to stamp out content from a terrorist who murdered 50 innocent  people and injured 50 more as 'virtue signalling'.
Jesus F**king christ.
Maybe we should be worried about these people. They seem to be utterly incapable of putting something bigger than their need to furiously masturbate to murder first.

There are places for people like that which also start with A, but not here.

And where do you draw a line? 

 

Morbid curiosity permeates media.

 

Hell our societies are based on killing. 

[Deus Voltage]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The problem here is the world hasn't changed.  The world Orwell created in 1984 was not new in concept or observation than from any civilization in human history.  People like to point to 1984 as if the concept is new and founded on modern changes to humanity, but it isn't.     Humanity swings through periods of over governance all the time.  The concept of census data goes back 2000 years and was introduced in order to keep tabs on where people come from and go to. 

If my memory serves me correctly, Orwell was influenced, in part, by what was going on in North Korea during the 50s?

 

Going back to topic. One argument that I find particularly silly/immature is when people say "you're doing what he wants." It doesn't matter what he wants or otherwise. Say for example that he went in a coop full of chicken with a fully loaded minigun and wrote on his manifesto:

Quote

Why did you shoot and kill 2000 chicken with a minigun?

 

To create divisions between chicken lovers and haters and accelerate the ban of minguns which in turn will lead to a civil chicken war between the aforementioned parties.

 

We can still ban miniguns regardless of whether he wanted us to ban em or not. Shit either makes sense or doesn't. 

 

 

 

[Jito463]

10 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

“B-b-but Net-neutrality harms competition!”

What possible relevance does this have to the topic at hand?  NN was in the US, not Australia.

38 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

 

Someone really needs to write a book to counter this one so we can then start to follow the timeline of that one. Seriously, it's very discomforting knowing just how similar our world is to one that is in a fictional book. At this point, it may as well be recategorized as nonfiction.

Unfortunately, we have too many people who didn't realize it was a warning and are instead using it as a guide.

8 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

We can still ban miniguns

Speak for yourself, I think it would be fun to shoot a minigun (at least once, anyway).

[Drak3]

12 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

We can still ban miniguns

We can also stab out our right eyes in hopes to see better.

[leadeater]

43 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

And where do you draw a line? 

 

Morbid curiosity permeates media.

Which has lead to many youths watching the footage causing many great distress, teachers have been talking to students about it and quite often about half the class has seen the video in some length. There are now youths from that group that have seen the video now seeking counselling due to what is depicted in the footage. As memes go, literally think of the children. Young people can be rather naive, most viewed it as part of a group where individually they would not have done so. That's not even taking in to account adults that viewed it who should know better greatly regretting having done so.

 

This is why there are broadcasting standards, for this exact reason, that every country has. Just because the method of distribution has changed that these protections no longer should apply. You might disagree with some of the specifics of broadcast standards laws but there is a reason they exist. Or should we just get rid of all broadcasting standards and all content classification everywhere? (I know some will say yes).

 

Society is about a group and the group comes to a general consensus, not everyone agrees but that's how it works. Needs of the many, the majority opinion is society. We can even have delegated representatives that are supposed to represent the will of a group to influence society, politicians. Either the society has deemed something not appropriate or the elected representatives are not representing the will of the people to the correct proportion. It is on you to put forward your opinion, to petition the society that they should adopt your view, it might not happen.

 

So to the actual point, the line is drawn where the society says it is.

 

43 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

Hell our societies are based on killing. 

Meaning we haven't or can't move past that? That we haven't in the past, present or future tried to protect people from things they should not see or be apart of. Yea societies are based on sending children in to conflict and we have never tried to protected them from it.....

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Speak for yourself, I think it would be fun to shoot a minigun (at least once, anyway).

That and quite a few other guns would be fun to shoot. Personally I'd also like to fire a cannon, even if it's only a blank.

[Jito463]

Just now, leadeater said:

Personally I'd also like to fire a cannon, even if it's only a blank.

That would be a bit much for me, heh.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

That would be a bit much for me, heh.

I've been semi close to a modern one, dunno I just really like the feeling of the pressure/sound wave. Which is an excellent side story.

 

I used to be part of a triathlon club that ran events out at our local army base, sometimes they would have drills which involved firing those cannons. Those cannons were sometimes on the side of the road right next to the cycle course, yes that was very much fun to watch .

[Dabombinable]

Simple proxy can be used to bypass the blocks....ISP are still shit at blocking things.

[williamcll]

Reminds me of a classic meme

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Yes, all Australian entities have to follow the same laws.  No one is exempt except within parliamentary privileged.

This is false. If it was true then sites like Reddit, Facebook and others where you can find the video would have been banned too. However, it seems to me like the Australian ISPs are being very selective with which sites they ban under this law.

Either the law applies to everyone equally, or it should not exist at all.

 

For crying out loud, Reddit used to have, up until very recently, an entire section called "watch people die" which consisted of nothing but videos of people dying horrible deaths. Yet that was allowed to be accessed in Australia.

 

What I am championing is that the Australian laws are actually followed, not just selectively followed. If the law is properly written it should be no problem enforcing it everywhere. If problems arise from enforcing the law then it should be rewritten.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

This is false. If it was true then sites like Reddit, Facebook and others where you can find the video would have been banned too. However, it seems to me like the Australian ISPs are being very selective with which sites they ban under this law.

Either the law applies to everyone equally, or it should not exist at all.

 

For crying out loud, Reddit used to have, up until very recently, an entire section called "watch people die" which consisted of nothing but videos of people dying horrible deaths. Yet that was allowed to be accessed in Australia.

 

What I am championing is that the Australian laws are actually followed, not just selectively followed. If the law is properly written it should be no problem enforcing it everywhere. If problems arise from enforcing the law then it should be rewritten.

That doesn't make it false.  The law does apply to everyone. Just because not every decides to follow the law doesn't mean the law doesn't exist.

 

It's against the law to speed  in your car, some people still choose to do it and others even avoid getting caught, but that doesn't mean the law isn't real or doesn't apply to everyone.

[LAwLz]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That doesn't make it false.  The law does apply to everyone. Just because not every decides to follow the law doesn't mean the law doesn't exist. 

 

It's against the law to speed  in your car, some people still choose to do it and others even avoid getting caught, but that doesn't mean the law isn't real or doesn't apply to everyone.

But that is not what is happening here.

What is happening here is that the people responsible for enforcing the law are turning a blindeye to some websites, and only enforcing the law on other sites they probably didn't already like to begin with.

 

If you want a speeding analogy, this is as if the police (ISPs and Australian government) only stopped black people (4chan, Voat, liveleaks, etc) for speeding, but let white people (Reddit, Facebook, etc) speed however much they liked.

Both black people (4chan) and white people (reddit) are speeding and breaking the law, but the law is only being enforced on one of them. That's what I am against. I am not saying that these sites being banned aren't breaking the Australian law. What I am saying is that there are other sites which should be banned too, but the backlash would probably be so big the law enforcement are turning a blindeye to them.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

But that is not what is happening here.

What is happening here is that the people responsible for enforcing the law are turning a blindeye to some websites, and only enforcing the law on other sites they probably didn't already like to begin with.

 

If you want a speeding analogy, this is as if the police (ISPs and Australian government) only stopped black people (4chan, Voat, liveleaks, etc) for speeding, but let white people (Reddit, Facebook, etc) speed however much they liked.

Both black people (4chan) and white people (reddit) are speeding and breaking the law, but the law is only being enforced on one of them. That's what I am against. I am not saying that these sites being banned aren't breaking the Australian law. What I am saying is that there are other sites which should be banned too, but the backlash would probably be so big the law enforcement are turning a blindeye to them.

You are confusing the ISP's with the government. They are not the same.   ISP's are no authority and are only blocking what they think will land them in trouble, the fact that some are and some aren't is irrelevant. 

 

In fact I am not even sure you understand what is happening here because the law is not actually enforcing anything at the moment, it is just voluntary actions by some ISP's.

[leadeater]

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

In fact I am not even sure you understand what is happening here because the law is not actually enforcing anything at the moment, it is just voluntary actions by some ISP's.

Helps to read the source to be better informed than to just use a thread topic title, small section quoted, and opinion points within the thread. The below information was readily available to read, it's not even that long of an article.

 

People are right to raise concerns over the ISPs making this decision to block the websites, precedents such as these can (not always) lead to future issues. My original post over this stands as is so I won't repeat it, however I do not object to the ISPs temporarily blocking those sites deemed to not be taking adequate action in the eyes of the ISPs and the public. That doesn't mean I'm not concerned but weighing up the factors I agree with blocking them, along with a parliamentary review of their actions and current legislation and also clarify if the ISPs are allowed to block websites like has happened, which should come first. The ISPs blocking the sites could actually be a breach of law.

 

Quote

Vodafone said while blocking requests normally came from the courts or law enforcement agencies "this was an extreme case which we think requires an extraordinary response".

 

"While there were discussions at an industry level about this issue, this is a decision Vodafone Australia came to independently," a spokeswoman said in a statement.

 

Quote

A spokesman for the eSafety commissioner said she did not provide "any direction or advice to Australian ISPs in regard to the blocking of websites"

.

The office does not have the authority to direct ISPs to block domains but can take action to remove content shared on Australian-hosted websites.

https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/19/16/47/telcos-block-access-to-4chan-liveleak

[Dabombinable]

36 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Helps to read the source to be better informed than to just use a thread topic title, small section quoted, and opinion points within the thread. The below information was readily available to read, it's not even that long of an article.

 

People are right to raise concerns over the ISPs making this decision to block the websites, precedents such as these can (not always) lead to future issues. My original post over this stands as is so I won't repeat it, however I do not object to the ISPs temporarily blocking those sites deemed to not be taking adequate action in the eyes of the ISPs and the public. That doesn't mean I'm not concerned but weighing up the factors I agree with blocking them, along with a parliamentary review of their actions and current legislation and also clarify if the ISPs are allowed to block websites like has happened, which should come first. The ISPs blocking the sites could actually be a breach of law.

 

 

https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/19/16/47/telcos-block-access-to-4chan-liveleak

So our net neutrality laws could come into effect? As in all traffic has to be treated equally?