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

[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. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Eaglerino said:

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?

That's a slippery slope argument.     There is no evidence anyone's at the top of a slope.

[Eaglerino]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

That's a slippery slope argument.     There is no evidence anyone's at the top of a slope.

What country do you live in? I'll send you a link of who's at the top, probably pretty easy to find, just have to search "Who is the leader of ____". How can you guarantee, whoever is there 10-20 years from now, won't decide criticizing them is deemed too unfit for the public?

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Eaglerino said:

How can you guarantee, whoever is there 10-20 years from now, won't decide criticizing them is deemed too unfit for the public?

Because application of the law has nothing to do with who the leader is, Judicial vs Executive. The leader in 20 years can deem what ever they like it means nothing without a law change, that's an even bigger assumption and is applicable to every single democratic country.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, Eaglerino said:

What country do you live in? I'll send you a link of who's at the top, probably pretty easy to find, just have to search "Who is the leader of ____". How can you guarantee, whoever is there 10-20 years from now, won't decide criticizing them is deemed too unfit for the public?

 

The whole idea that we can't do something that is logical now for fear that someone else might do something different in the future is illogical at best. 

 

In order for that to carry any weight you would have to show how today's decisions give the government of tomorrow any more power. 

 

 

 

For those who don't understand,  the whole world has been scared of governments, big oil, Mafia and corrupt cops since the beginning of time.  But things are only getting better for everyone.  The slope is actually inverse, no country is declining into dictatorship, in fact all countries are slowly becoming more and more democratic and free.  Quality of life and transparency is becoming more common.  

[Soppro]

On 3/20/2019 at 11:24 PM, LAwLz said:

Wait, what?

So the ISPs don't actually have any legal obligation to block these websites since they do not break any laws? So if 4chan was hosted in Australia it would be illegal to have the video on there, but since it's hosted in the US it's perfectly fine by Australian law?

 

Seems like a really bad idea to give ISPs the power to block whichever websites they like, even if those websites aren't breaking any laws.

Yep, there is no legal basis for the ISPs to block these websites, but because this action was deemed acceptable by the court of social media they've been allowed to continue this practice. 

 

The cynic in me wants to think that this is an attempt to bolster their reputations as socially responsible businesses to boost their brand image in the hope of future economic gain under the veil of protecting their fellow citizens.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Soppro said:

Yep, there is no legal basis for the ISPs to block these websites, but because this action was deemed acceptable by the court of social media they've been allowed to continue this practice. 

There was a legal basis, it just wasn't directed from a higher authority.

Quote

The cynic in me wants to think that this is an attempt to bolster their reputations as socially responsible businesses to boost their brand image in the hope of future economic gain under the veil of protecting their fellow citizens.

Of course they are trying to do that.  I think it goes without saying, however I doubt they think it's going to earn them anything.  This is not the type of virtue signalling that is exchangeable with standard marketing (like the gillette ad)

[ProngsOldGuy]

On 3/19/2019 at 8:43 PM, Enstage said:

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

 

As someone living in Australia I'm truly worried about a number of sites if Telcos can just decide to censor an them because it hosts something they don't like -- never liked the idea of some company deciding what I'm allowed to watch online. What I find even more interesting (and unsurprising) is the fact that the platform used to spread the video the most has been left untouched (Facebook...) Wouldn't want to lose customers while we're busy virtue signalling would we.

Bro, welcome to the club. Me your neighbor couldn't access reddit. 

[LePawel]

On 3/19/2019 at 10:01 PM, leadeater said:

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?

Yes it is less worse.

As others say here, this is actively trying to hide facts from people. Nobody was banning footage of khadafi getting killed. Why? Because it was good cause? Not HD enough?

On another note: The guy's manifesto actually states that the point of his actions so to force gun restrictions and censorship on people. Now government are yielding to his demands and banning his content and restricting gun laws. Quite the opposite of the usual "we don't negotiate with terrorists"... Now why would they ban it? Maybe because it would reveal how much they're using this event as a tool to push their agenda? Or how much they agree with him? Because truth doesn't paint him as the far-right they want to make out of him? Funny how it took just 30 years after USSR for people to forget that states are not always working for their citizens... regardless of what they claim.

[jaggysnake57]

well nice to see the typical tropes being rolled out, comparisons to nazis, 1984, "dangerous precident".........FML

 

the video showed people, of all ages,  being murdered and yet lets all panic at some sites being blocked. like it or not the internet needs to be regulated, how that happens i have no clue but you can not have safe havens for criminals and terrorists to do their business with impunity. 

"....but but but where does it end......" i think we all know that it ends when the people stop voting for people that allow it.

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, LePawel said:

As others say here, this is actively trying to hide facts from people.

You don't need to see the footage to know the facts of the matter, and secondly the footage is evidence in a case that will go to jury trial. You don't get to see other police crime scene evidence, live streaming is no exception.

 

And you know bringing up other instances doesn't at all help, those are also illegal in my country.

 

You can get all the facts from the coroners report.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, LePawel said:

On another note: The guy's manifesto actually states that the point of his actions so to force gun restrictions and censorship on people. Now government are yielding to his demands and banning his content and restricting gun laws.

 

The government are not yielding to anyone's demands,  they are approaching the incident and considering their options.  It would be very stupid of any government to consider a terrorist's demands when deciding what they need to do to prevent it happening again.