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

[Hellion]

Australia is becoming the new china...

 

Censorship, suppression of news/information and anti-encryption just to name a few recent ones.

 

Won't be long until the country is a full on dictatorship at this rate.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Hellion said:

Australia is becoming the new china...

 

Censorship, oppression of news/information and anti-encryption just to name a few recent ones.

 

Won't be long until the country is a full on dictatorship at this rate.

Australia hasn't done any of those things. 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Australia hasn't done any of those things. 

You say in a tech news thread about Australia censorship.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

You say in a tech news thread about Australia censorship.

Doesn't anyone read the articles anymore?

 

NO NEWS IS BEING CENSORED!!!!!

[Drak3]

Just now, mr moose said:

NO Mainstream  NEWS IS BEING CENSORED!!!!!

Correction in red.

[mr moose]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Correction in red.

Some websites, there are literally hundreds more non mainstream news site you can get your information from including all the offshore stuff. they literally only blocked a handful of sites that were streaming the video.    This is not censoring news, not even by a long shot.

[Drak3]

Just now, mr moose said:

they literally only blocked a handful of sites that were streaming the video.    This is not censoring news,

They’re censoring coverage of a recent event.

[mr moose]

Just now, Drak3 said:

They’re censoring coverage of a recent event.

Tell yourself what ever you need to to maintain the delusion.

 

 

[mr moose]

OH would you look at that, even alex jones's infowars is not blocked in Australia:

https://www.infowars.com/watch-live-nz-massacre-leads-to-criminalizing-free-speech-worldwide/

 

 

Contrary to popular beliefs there are ZERO requests from the Australian government or any of it's agencies to block any website reporting the NZ massacre.

 

 

[Hellion]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Australia hasn't done any of those things. 

All the news articles lately beg to differ.

 

Your view point as a citizen is also clearly flawed/biased.

 

Just because I haven't engaged in your endless attempts to put out the fires and defend all things Australian doesn't mean I haven't seen them.

 

Enjoy your rights now because at this rate they will be diminished to nothing in short order.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Hellion said:

All the news articles lately beg to differ.

 

Your view point as a citizen is also clearly flawed/biased.

 

Just because I haven't engaged in your endless attempts to put out the fires and defend all things Australian doesn't mean I haven't seen them.

 

Enjoy your rights now because at this rate they will be diminished to nothing in short order.

 

Please, it's even in this article,  3 ISP's out of 158 block 3 websites  (one is already unblocked ) is not the government censoring news.  Don't lie, and don't be so foolish as to assume I am biased for any ignorant reason you might dream up.

 

I have already linked to evidence in this thread that this is not the case and that internet censorship is not a thing.

[Hellion]

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Please, it's even in this article,  3 ISP's out of 158 block 3 websites  (one is already unblocked ) is not the government censoring news.  Don't lie, and don't be so foolish as to assume I am biased for any ignorant reason you might dream up.

 

I have already linked to evidence in this thread that this is not the case and that internet censorship is not a thing.

How many of those ISP's piggie back off of the larger ones?

 

I can guarantee that there aren't 158 ISP all with their own service networks.

[PlayStation 2]

I love this defense of banning 4chan because "muh bad people".

Go to any random subreddit that has that type of content. You're gonna find the same type of people from 4chan on those subreddits. Does that mean we should ban all of Reddit from being accessed in that country? No. Coming from someone who hates both Reddit and the chans, it just means that those people are shitty people. No reason to censor 'em if you can easily ignore 'em.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

This is not censoring news, not even by a long shot.

So 4chan and 8chan etc are news journalism sites? News to me, huh news... get it 

[leadeater]

37 minutes ago, Hellion said:

How many of those ISP's piggie back off of the larger ones?

That's not even how it works but to go down that path, it's called the NBN and is a wholesale network connection service provider and only that. Network routing and other policies is done by the ISPs, what one ISP does has no effect on another like you think it does. Even smaller ISPs that use larger service provider multi-tenant network operation services have independent network policies, so if an ISP using Vocus services blocks a site no other Vocus ISPs are blocking that site. Vocus also can't block a site and have that applied across other ISPs using their services, breach of contract. Only the eSafety Commission would have that sort of power and they don't, they have no authority to direct any ISP to block any website hosted outside of Australia. 

[mr moose]

41 minutes ago, Hellion said:

How many of those ISP's piggie back off of the larger ones?

None, they are all independent.

41 minutes ago, Hellion said:

I can guarantee that there aren't 158 ISP all with their own service networks.

Stop guaranteeing things you nothing about. In fact please stop talking about things you know nothing about.

 

 

 

 

[alicskysareblue]

While Im no fan of censoring Im not fully against telcos blocking these sits, liveleaks host torture and genetal harm to other humans, 8chan is notorious for /baphomat which was used strictly to dox and harrass people and child porn

 

 

And 4chan is just a general cesspool, trolls, general racism etc.

[NunoLava1998]

I agree with the blocking of 4chan. It's a very bad site.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 3/19/2019 at 10:58 AM, 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.

 

Well, whether they could be held accountable for anything really depends on their consideration, which leads back to the net neutrality debate in the US, the title 2 vs title whatever status, etc. That is, it may very well be that they would be liable in the Australian case if that's how ISPs are regulated, but it doesn't follow from the video being illegal (as they could also be fully "transparent" if regulated differently, the way a phone company or the mail is).

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Well, whether they could be held accountable for anything really depends on their consideration, which leads back to the net neutrality debate in the US, the title 2 vs title whatever status, etc. That is, it may very well be that they would be liable in the Australian case if that's how ISPs are regulated, but it doesn't follow from the video being illegal (as they could also be fully "transparent" if regulated differently, the way a phone company or the mail is).

In Australia there are really only two possibilities for ISP's to be held to account for this, one is users taking them to court for blocking access to parts of the internet that they have contractually paid for.  In this case it goes through the court and the lawyers thrown various laws at the judge until he decides which one trumps.  Or,  the government (meaning the ACMA or similar entity) take them to court for allowing the content to be disseminated, in which case the same thing happens and a judge has to give reason for deciding which law trumps the others.

 

I dare say neither of these are going to happen and at the very most we will get a general policy change within the ACMA (likely directed by the government) that outlines exactly what a service provider must and must not do in such circumstances. 

[ARikozuM]

On 3/19/2019 at 5:56 PM, Real_PhillBert said:

Every time I see this picture... I always think "this dude looks more like a potato than the rock he's lifting"... 

 

On topic: Will the companies be allowed to sue for this? I don't think censorship of any kind should be allowed. Things are better left in the open forum for everyone to talk about. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

On topic: Will the companies be allowed to sue for this? I don't think censorship of any kind should be allowed. Things are better left in the open forum for everyone to talk about. 

It's very very very highly unlikely.   If 4chan sued the first thing they would be doing is providing the government with an identity that they can charge in the case of any other illegal content being delivered on 4chan (child porn for example).  Secondly they would have to prove financial damages and thirdly they would be arguing those damages are not related to being able to stream violent murders (which is illegal in Australia).  In other words they would have to prove the video was not part of the main site and income from the rest of site was damages from the unrelated blocking (which would be nigh on impossible to prove). 

 

Essentially 4chan taking the ISP's to court would almost guarantee they get charged under Australian law. 

 

 

[Dabombinable]

55 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's very very very highly unlikely.   If 4chan sued the first thing they would be doing is providing the government with an identity that they can charge in the case of any other illegal content being delivered on 4chan (child porn for example).  Secondly they would have to prove financial damages and thirdly they would be arguing those damages are not related to being able to stream violent murders (which is illegal in Australia).  In other words they would have to prove the video was not part of the main site and income from the rest of site was damages from the unrelated blocking (which would be nigh on impossible to prove). 

 

Essentially 4chan taking the ISP's to court would almost guarantee they get charged under Australian law. 

 

 

Thing is though, can our government enforce laws on an entity based outside Australia, that doesn't actually do business within Australia. As 4chan is, it isn't based (or hosted) within Australia and it doesn't seem to be making any money within Australia. All that it's doing is allowing people in Australia to access it to view/upload content.

Looking at their rules as well, one of the main things that is said, is that content uploaded can't violate local or US laws.

Either way though, the block doesn't really matter, as a piss poor job was done by our ISP, as usual their methods are easily bypassed by; free DNS, proxys or VPN.

And I doubt 4chan would have any grounds to sue based on any supposed loss of financial damages due the aforementioned piss poor job.

[Eaglerino]

On 3/21/2019 at 11:05 AM, Zeeus said:

YEP this was my thought exactly, these people get angry over censorship of clearly dispicable sites and theyre upset about "MUH FREEDUMS" stfu. Think bigger than your own selves for a second. Those sites are a legitimate cesspool of inbred morons who talk and do disgusting shit, including child pornography. So yeah REDDIT isnt banned FB isnt banned because theyre not even on the same level. Theres different levels to all things and different places have a certain threshold is what people dont seem to realize

How long until criticism of the government is deemed "too dangerous for the masses"? Who gets to decide the "certain threshold" today, tomorrow, or 10 years from now?

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Thing is though, can our government enforce laws on an entity based outside Australia, that doesn't actually do business within Australia. As 4chan is, it isn't based (or hosted) within Australia and it doesn't seem to be making any money within Australia. All that it's doing is allowing people in Australia to access it to view/upload content.

Looking at their rules as well, one of the main things that is said, is that content uploaded can't violate local or US laws.

 

If 4chan don't actually make any money in Australia then there is literally no point in them suing the ISP's.