Julie Inman grant's horrific assaults on free speech are so disturbing to me that I wish they would be banned from publication. She is a cold-blooded murderer of human rights and wants us all to watch as she slaughters decency and freedom with haughty self-righteousness. This is a disgusting spectacle no one should have to read about. Yes, I'm all for censorship of "unsafe" information. That is why Australia's efforts to promote censorship must be censored.
Also, re community notes - I wouldn't trust them. On a different adventure with twitter I'd got three strikes on 'misinformation' for completely true tweets - one talking about how infected cells are killed as part of the immune response, and the other two mentioned, (not a hard sell) just mentioned ivermectin. As a consequence of those three strikes I'm not allowed to be a contributor on community notes.
All of the evidence suggests that George Floyd was not choked to death but died of self ingested toxins taken before he was stopped by police and resisted arrest. State propaganda for political purposes is the other side of the coin of censorship. There are good reasons why especially after the Covid lockdowns why people have lost trust in government. Any ties to the so-called intelligence community is suspect. We are inching towards becoming a police state.
I agree that censoring this content will lead to a runaway train of censorship in our present climate, but that warnings and having to click through further to even see it must be in place so we have a chance to have a choice. I don’t like anyone on either side of an issue to meddle with my God-given right to have a choice. Even God Himself gives us full freedom to NOT choose to believe in Him! Maybe Musk’s first reaction is taking such an absolutionist hard line because the other side has literally gone overboard and it’s the only way to balance it? Maybe he will eventually come around with more dialogue from us to balance the ship? Maybe he believes that any less of a hard line will slowly move the power into their laps? And he refuses to make it easy for them? Idk But where does Australia have the right to make him do anything different with other countries? He immediately complied with Australia, and that should have been enough for them.
This “world order” is unsettling to me. I like knowing there are places to go to get away from a government I don’t like. If the whole world becomes one, we truly lose freedom.
Here’s what is confusing me though, (in addition to the lack of outcry over other atrocities that were freely disseminated in online social media in the past without any online censorship from these same governments): the argument parents gave against the ever increasing and overly shocking movie and TV show violence of the past 30-50 years to present is now the same argument I’m hearing about this event, that the exposure to a mind (young or old) could lead to emboldening others by desensitizing them to a cruel act of violence in such a way that it could lead to copycat crimes. The Matrix was pointed to by many to have emboldened some school shootings long ago. Yet that never caused any curbing of extreme violence in entertainment, which has gotten exponentially worse and more horrific, not less. How is their excuse or argument any different than my wanting to be shielded from the horrific and unthinkable acts of violence I am continuously exposed to these days when trying to watch an otherwise intriguing or very entertaining movie/show? That right to expose viewers to such acts is fully protected and never have they tried to censor it. I recently wanted to enjoy a high quality production about famous pirates from the 1700s (Black Sails) and the exposure to the extreme violence in it was more disturbing as this real life video is (according to what others have told me who have seen it, it’s nothing like what we see from Hollywood.) For me the show violence felt real. There was very little difference knowing it wasn’t. If someone is going to get ideas they can easily get them from Hollywood more than they would from a real act of violence that lasts only 11 seconds. This show had several minutes straight of grotesque violence. I did a lot of FF! And by bypassing those scenes I was still able to enjoy a stellar story and visuals. God help me if they ever take away my right to FF. There are no other options or choices for that caliber of production with less violence or shorter exposure. Our choices are limited. If the government cares so much about protecting the public mind from seeing these acts, then why didn’t they protect us with Hollywood and the like? One can say, “well that’s fake, people know it’s not real,” but that’s silly in light of how incredibly realistic movies and shows make it these days. I don’t see much of a difference anymore to the impact on our nerves, our senses, and our minds. Laws prevented me years ago as a young mother from editing out just those scenes so that we or our kids could still enjoy an otherwise brilliant show or movie. All the best acting and directing seems to go to exposing us to what I’d rather not see without any choice or warning, and my only choice is to go without any decent entertainment at all by not watching any of the shows, or to ff (as I do) through most of those scenes, and keep the content out of reach of a child without adult supervision, which as you know is now increasingly harder in this digital age, if even possible. I’m glad I’m not a parent of young kids in 2024! Would it be better if there were edited versions that we could choose to watch instead? Yes, but only if the director chooses to do that, and is not forced to by some government. I would have actually bought more shows and movies than I actually did in those years so they missed out on more profits with such an editing choice. But we will never get those choices because of how they use “censorship” as the reason against giving us less violent versions. I never thought true censoring was a valid option anyway because there were other ways they could give the viewer a choice. I did hope that social pressure and pushback from decent minds would start to cause producers to make different choices themselves, or better yet offer edited versions of their content. Alas, as it is with any sex, violence, or socially decrepit acts, we have all become so desensitized and never reached that backlash point that we needed to so they would be encouraged to do that.
They had a freedom of speech that protected their craft. Why aren’t they protecting online venues the same way? Had there been censorship years ago, how far would the censors have taken it? Who decides what is considered socially inappropriate to share or see? Ultimately it is the viewers who hold the power in a free society with free speech, not the government.
I just struggled to get Ivermectin because of ridiculous government over-control fueled by financial interests, and now they are trying hard to highlight the harms to us to look like they are keeping us safe, but last I checked it isn’t a dangerous substance like street drugs are. It doesn’t lead to anyone committing acts of violence to society or to destroying young lives like street drugs do. It doesn’t kill us. Yet the level of Gestapo control over this drug is severe. You can no longer find in search results any of the valid information presenting the other side of the coin. Search results are hijacked and overpowered by what the government wants you to believe. Blogs and articles by the most common online outlets are heavily saturated with a single view. So most people can no longer even access the opposing views and data. It has become a hive mind of one chosen acceptable view. I want access to all sides of an issue so I can decide for myself but that has been taken away from us. Once we give any government the power to interfere with our choices over anything and decide for us, they can take it into any venue they want. Unfortunately the amount of money in Hollywood means they will never take it into entertainment.
I hope we all push pack about this present issue. I absolutely do not agree with censoring social media or giving ANY group the right to judge what is misinformation. How many years in the American political landscape has misinformation been actively and aggressively used to acquire a presidency or control over the house? No one stepped in to be fact checker experts until recent years and I only see it making matters worse. True facts are buried. Let everyone speak, fools and wiseman alike, and as always eventually the truth and correct path will show itself. But silencing opposition? Silencing alternative views, experts, and studies the way they do today, well the wisest path will be lost forever and only a fringe few will control the direction of the ship. This current issue with Julie Inman and with Musk is a political grab of power and nothing more. We need to stand up and protect our freedoms.
I’m sure this video is disturbing and I’ve chosen to not get near to it to see it, but I do not want government interfering with any online entity that chooses to make it available to someone who chooses differently. Instead we can use our voices and debate to encourage those online sources to first offer all of us the choice to even see it.
I am horrified that the government is using this dreadful occurrence to protect the group from the alleged attacker came from. If he was white or Christian it would be all over the net.
I just don’t trust anyone in government with a few exceptions to police our speech. The AFP commissioner and the Burgess were frightful at the press club. Where do they get these people from? We cannot have these people like Inman Grant or heaven help us - Lambie!! deciding what we can or cannot access.
I am also an absolutist. A warning note is okay but shutting down information is NOT okay. Let me decide whether or not I want to see something. I don't need or want some gah-damned politician or bureaucracy telling me if something is bad, or good, for me.
Defamation of character or a death threat should be retained for access by lawyers and police.
It's rather odd that someone with billions of dollars worth of national security contracts with five eyes countries would be defending against overreach of those very governments.
So at last common sense about global internet. As Bret Walker SC said there is no way governments of Russia or China should control what people around the world have access to
Good discussion Maryanne. It's a complex subject, and I think Andrew Lowenthal's perspective is pretty much on the money. Videos of violent homicides or attempted homicides are usually traumatic to watch, and I definitely think they should come with a warning and be downgraded in social media algorithms so users have to actively look for them, rather than them popping up in the feed and autoplaying, as they did for you. I think there may also be a case for banning videos that are promoting or glorifying a violent attack - this comes under incitement. However this must be concrete and explicit, not 'he made videos saying trans women are really men that might have made some people have less respect for/belief in the theory of gender self-identification so that is promoting 'violence'' against trans people.
I also think there is a big double standard in this case, as the mainstream media has increasingly chosen to show footage of violent incidents, accidents and natural disasters that is highly traumatic to watch, and I think contributes to destabilising community mental health and wellbeing for the purposes of attracting viewers, yet gets high and mighty over this type of video (I think they are right not to show it, but also shouldn't show the other stuff either unless there is a strong educational reason to do so). And as Lowenthal points out, they have been comfortable showing other footage of homicides (e.g. of George Floyd) when it is permitted to suit a political agenda.
The most concerning aspect of this case is that it is being weaponised by the government to try to resurrect their dangerous misinformation bill from last year. In this case, I think Musk was ill-advised strategically as well as ethically to take such an adversarial stand on this issue, as it is playing right into the government's hands.
Julie Inman Grant disturbed me, from the first time I saw her speak (on twitter, late 2022 -early 2023?) I was arbitrarily suspended from twitter not long after tagging her, saying I didn't like what she was doing. Connected events? I don't know.
On that video...
I think people need the opportunity to see the truth.
When I heard about the event it sounded violent. When the video came to my inbox I didn't find it as terrible as I'd imagined. It wasn't particularly graphic. I can see why he survived.
That said, if I was the person being stabbed I don't think I'd like that event circling the world.
But it was a public event, possibly a political event (haven't gone into it), an event that could alter rights and legislations, and in such a case I think we need to see/know exactly what happened. In this world I don't trust accounts of chosen experts and authorities.
I began this whole era thinking that some degree of censorship is a good thing, and now I don't feel like that in relation to anything that could have flow on effects. (Nws, zero tolerance for any exploitative material).
Julie Inman grant's horrific assaults on free speech are so disturbing to me that I wish they would be banned from publication. She is a cold-blooded murderer of human rights and wants us all to watch as she slaughters decency and freedom with haughty self-righteousness. This is a disgusting spectacle no one should have to read about. Yes, I'm all for censorship of "unsafe" information. That is why Australia's efforts to promote censorship must be censored.
Also, re community notes - I wouldn't trust them. On a different adventure with twitter I'd got three strikes on 'misinformation' for completely true tweets - one talking about how infected cells are killed as part of the immune response, and the other two mentioned, (not a hard sell) just mentioned ivermectin. As a consequence of those three strikes I'm not allowed to be a contributor on community notes.
All of the evidence suggests that George Floyd was not choked to death but died of self ingested toxins taken before he was stopped by police and resisted arrest. State propaganda for political purposes is the other side of the coin of censorship. There are good reasons why especially after the Covid lockdowns why people have lost trust in government. Any ties to the so-called intelligence community is suspect. We are inching towards becoming a police state.
I agree that censoring this content will lead to a runaway train of censorship in our present climate, but that warnings and having to click through further to even see it must be in place so we have a chance to have a choice. I don’t like anyone on either side of an issue to meddle with my God-given right to have a choice. Even God Himself gives us full freedom to NOT choose to believe in Him! Maybe Musk’s first reaction is taking such an absolutionist hard line because the other side has literally gone overboard and it’s the only way to balance it? Maybe he will eventually come around with more dialogue from us to balance the ship? Maybe he believes that any less of a hard line will slowly move the power into their laps? And he refuses to make it easy for them? Idk But where does Australia have the right to make him do anything different with other countries? He immediately complied with Australia, and that should have been enough for them.
This “world order” is unsettling to me. I like knowing there are places to go to get away from a government I don’t like. If the whole world becomes one, we truly lose freedom.
Here’s what is confusing me though, (in addition to the lack of outcry over other atrocities that were freely disseminated in online social media in the past without any online censorship from these same governments): the argument parents gave against the ever increasing and overly shocking movie and TV show violence of the past 30-50 years to present is now the same argument I’m hearing about this event, that the exposure to a mind (young or old) could lead to emboldening others by desensitizing them to a cruel act of violence in such a way that it could lead to copycat crimes. The Matrix was pointed to by many to have emboldened some school shootings long ago. Yet that never caused any curbing of extreme violence in entertainment, which has gotten exponentially worse and more horrific, not less. How is their excuse or argument any different than my wanting to be shielded from the horrific and unthinkable acts of violence I am continuously exposed to these days when trying to watch an otherwise intriguing or very entertaining movie/show? That right to expose viewers to such acts is fully protected and never have they tried to censor it. I recently wanted to enjoy a high quality production about famous pirates from the 1700s (Black Sails) and the exposure to the extreme violence in it was more disturbing as this real life video is (according to what others have told me who have seen it, it’s nothing like what we see from Hollywood.) For me the show violence felt real. There was very little difference knowing it wasn’t. If someone is going to get ideas they can easily get them from Hollywood more than they would from a real act of violence that lasts only 11 seconds. This show had several minutes straight of grotesque violence. I did a lot of FF! And by bypassing those scenes I was still able to enjoy a stellar story and visuals. God help me if they ever take away my right to FF. There are no other options or choices for that caliber of production with less violence or shorter exposure. Our choices are limited. If the government cares so much about protecting the public mind from seeing these acts, then why didn’t they protect us with Hollywood and the like? One can say, “well that’s fake, people know it’s not real,” but that’s silly in light of how incredibly realistic movies and shows make it these days. I don’t see much of a difference anymore to the impact on our nerves, our senses, and our minds. Laws prevented me years ago as a young mother from editing out just those scenes so that we or our kids could still enjoy an otherwise brilliant show or movie. All the best acting and directing seems to go to exposing us to what I’d rather not see without any choice or warning, and my only choice is to go without any decent entertainment at all by not watching any of the shows, or to ff (as I do) through most of those scenes, and keep the content out of reach of a child without adult supervision, which as you know is now increasingly harder in this digital age, if even possible. I’m glad I’m not a parent of young kids in 2024! Would it be better if there were edited versions that we could choose to watch instead? Yes, but only if the director chooses to do that, and is not forced to by some government. I would have actually bought more shows and movies than I actually did in those years so they missed out on more profits with such an editing choice. But we will never get those choices because of how they use “censorship” as the reason against giving us less violent versions. I never thought true censoring was a valid option anyway because there were other ways they could give the viewer a choice. I did hope that social pressure and pushback from decent minds would start to cause producers to make different choices themselves, or better yet offer edited versions of their content. Alas, as it is with any sex, violence, or socially decrepit acts, we have all become so desensitized and never reached that backlash point that we needed to so they would be encouraged to do that.
They had a freedom of speech that protected their craft. Why aren’t they protecting online venues the same way? Had there been censorship years ago, how far would the censors have taken it? Who decides what is considered socially inappropriate to share or see? Ultimately it is the viewers who hold the power in a free society with free speech, not the government.
I just struggled to get Ivermectin because of ridiculous government over-control fueled by financial interests, and now they are trying hard to highlight the harms to us to look like they are keeping us safe, but last I checked it isn’t a dangerous substance like street drugs are. It doesn’t lead to anyone committing acts of violence to society or to destroying young lives like street drugs do. It doesn’t kill us. Yet the level of Gestapo control over this drug is severe. You can no longer find in search results any of the valid information presenting the other side of the coin. Search results are hijacked and overpowered by what the government wants you to believe. Blogs and articles by the most common online outlets are heavily saturated with a single view. So most people can no longer even access the opposing views and data. It has become a hive mind of one chosen acceptable view. I want access to all sides of an issue so I can decide for myself but that has been taken away from us. Once we give any government the power to interfere with our choices over anything and decide for us, they can take it into any venue they want. Unfortunately the amount of money in Hollywood means they will never take it into entertainment.
I hope we all push pack about this present issue. I absolutely do not agree with censoring social media or giving ANY group the right to judge what is misinformation. How many years in the American political landscape has misinformation been actively and aggressively used to acquire a presidency or control over the house? No one stepped in to be fact checker experts until recent years and I only see it making matters worse. True facts are buried. Let everyone speak, fools and wiseman alike, and as always eventually the truth and correct path will show itself. But silencing opposition? Silencing alternative views, experts, and studies the way they do today, well the wisest path will be lost forever and only a fringe few will control the direction of the ship. This current issue with Julie Inman and with Musk is a political grab of power and nothing more. We need to stand up and protect our freedoms.
I’m sure this video is disturbing and I’ve chosen to not get near to it to see it, but I do not want government interfering with any online entity that chooses to make it available to someone who chooses differently. Instead we can use our voices and debate to encourage those online sources to first offer all of us the choice to even see it.
I am horrified that the government is using this dreadful occurrence to protect the group from the alleged attacker came from. If he was white or Christian it would be all over the net.
I just don’t trust anyone in government with a few exceptions to police our speech. The AFP commissioner and the Burgess were frightful at the press club. Where do they get these people from? We cannot have these people like Inman Grant or heaven help us - Lambie!! deciding what we can or cannot access.
As for the chief moron complaining about memes!!!
I am also an absolutist. A warning note is okay but shutting down information is NOT okay. Let me decide whether or not I want to see something. I don't need or want some gah-damned politician or bureaucracy telling me if something is bad, or good, for me.
Defamation of character or a death threat should be retained for access by lawyers and police.
It's rather odd that someone with billions of dollars worth of national security contracts with five eyes countries would be defending against overreach of those very governments.
On the issue of videos playing straight away - that is fully controllable on your device. So you can use settings to make sure you need to press play
So at last common sense about global internet. As Bret Walker SC said there is no way governments of Russia or China should control what people around the world have access to
Good discussion Maryanne. It's a complex subject, and I think Andrew Lowenthal's perspective is pretty much on the money. Videos of violent homicides or attempted homicides are usually traumatic to watch, and I definitely think they should come with a warning and be downgraded in social media algorithms so users have to actively look for them, rather than them popping up in the feed and autoplaying, as they did for you. I think there may also be a case for banning videos that are promoting or glorifying a violent attack - this comes under incitement. However this must be concrete and explicit, not 'he made videos saying trans women are really men that might have made some people have less respect for/belief in the theory of gender self-identification so that is promoting 'violence'' against trans people.
I also think there is a big double standard in this case, as the mainstream media has increasingly chosen to show footage of violent incidents, accidents and natural disasters that is highly traumatic to watch, and I think contributes to destabilising community mental health and wellbeing for the purposes of attracting viewers, yet gets high and mighty over this type of video (I think they are right not to show it, but also shouldn't show the other stuff either unless there is a strong educational reason to do so). And as Lowenthal points out, they have been comfortable showing other footage of homicides (e.g. of George Floyd) when it is permitted to suit a political agenda.
The most concerning aspect of this case is that it is being weaponised by the government to try to resurrect their dangerous misinformation bill from last year. In this case, I think Musk was ill-advised strategically as well as ethically to take such an adversarial stand on this issue, as it is playing right into the government's hands.
Julie Inman Grant disturbed me, from the first time I saw her speak (on twitter, late 2022 -early 2023?) I was arbitrarily suspended from twitter not long after tagging her, saying I didn't like what she was doing. Connected events? I don't know.
On that video...
I think people need the opportunity to see the truth.
When I heard about the event it sounded violent. When the video came to my inbox I didn't find it as terrible as I'd imagined. It wasn't particularly graphic. I can see why he survived.
That said, if I was the person being stabbed I don't think I'd like that event circling the world.
But it was a public event, possibly a political event (haven't gone into it), an event that could alter rights and legislations, and in such a case I think we need to see/know exactly what happened. In this world I don't trust accounts of chosen experts and authorities.
I began this whole era thinking that some degree of censorship is a good thing, and now I don't feel like that in relation to anything that could have flow on effects. (Nws, zero tolerance for any exploitative material).