Albo to the rescue

[nomadpete]

Wille said...

 

"do we have to supply Mr. Zuckerturd with drivers license details or a birth certificate. If not what's to stop kids under 16 working around the restrictions. "

 

No need. Artificial Intelligence will take one look at the user and using biometrics, instantly assess the age of the user.

Along with their ethnicity, financial status, mental risk factor, police records, home address, and credit rating.

Sort of like a Smart Blue Card.

[onetrack]

Just all part of the social media marketing drive to ensure your social media experience is the best you can get! (and to bring them in mega-$$$$$'s in data value!!)

[willedoo]

I'm sure there's advanced biometrics that can distingush a kid who is 15 years and 11 months from one that's 16. 😀

[willedoo]

It counts the pimples.

[spacesailor]

Ask the ' coach ' , of the junior footy club .

He's on FB .

Will my G.grandies have to stop for the next four years .

Until they can access the clubs FB page , for their match fixtures. 

spacesailor

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

Will my G.grandies have to stop for the next four years . Until they can access the clubs FB page , for their match fixtures.

Don't your Garndies take any interest in their kids' sporting activities, or do they consider the footy club a free child minding service?

[willedoo]

How is frantically trying to push through near 40 bills in a day good government? I think it just tells us Albo is panicking and will call an early election with no resumption of parliament after this week. Trying to whack through that much legislation all of a sudden is just making them look like dickheads. Albo just can't seem to get a grip on the politicking part of his job.

[spacesailor]

He stated '' they were from the senate " .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

The Senate is the Hold up and the Greens relented when they realised their brand and Brandt might suffer.. All that stuff was being blocked. It wasn't  just sprung on them at  the last minute. At the end a Vote was taken. No-one had a gun pointed at their head. They could have abstained or voted against it. Of course it MUST be a Win  for the government. More about the Xmas Break than much else. Stop reading Murdoch $#!t..   Nev

[willedoo]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

Stop reading Murdoch $#!t..

who does?

[red750]

To satisfy Negative Nev you have to personally witness everything yourself, then he still wouldn't believe it. Haven't read a newspaper in years, and might as well stick an axe in the TV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[willedoo]

Questioning what the government do and keeping them accountable is a basic part of a democracy. Blindly accepting every thing they do and passing off any opposition to it as the fault of Murdoch and gullible readers is a simplistic cop out.

[red750]

No Willie. You're not allowed criticise the gov't, federal or Vic. They're Labor. Infallible.

[willedoo]

Then there's this media quote:

"The end of a parliamentary year is usually a mess. But 2024's finale was beyond bad. A prime minister who likes to claim he runs an orderly government found himself presiding over a shambles, in which process was thrown to the winds and quick fixes and expedient capitulations became the order of the day."

 

If you're thinking Murdoch, no cigar, it's the ABC.

[red750]

Thar can't be right, ask Negative Nev. It's Labor so it must be fine.

[willedoo]

It must be Murdoch posing as the ABC. All jokes aside, the ABC has been increasingly frank in their treatment of the government lately. The rose tinted glasses have come off.

[willedoo]

Another angle I hadn't given any thought to before is the 2025 election is the first one where Gen Z and Millennials outnumber Baby Boomers at the ballot box. The boomers have lost their spot as the dominant demographic.

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, willedoo said:

The boomers have lost their spot as the dominant demographic.

But the Boomers still hold the reins of power in the political Parties, and I must admit that Boomer politicians are the product of their Depression Era parents and the Menzies Era of government. 

 

Perhaps the best thing for Boomers to do is retire quietly and let their children make the World theirs.

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 hours ago, red750 said:

Negative Nev. I

Let's play the ball and not the man.. 

 

With all due respect, Nev proffers up an opinion based on reported facts. Because he doesn't blindly accept what he reads and points out why, based on other reported facts which are omitted from the general news on this provides a fuller picture.. this is a positive IMHO.

 

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

8 hours ago, facthunter said:

The Senate is the Hold up and the Greens relented when they realised their brand and Brandt might suffer.. All that stuff was being blocked. It wasn't  just sprung on them at  the last minute. At the end a Vote was taken. No-one had a gun pointed at their head. They could have abstained or voted against it. Of course it MUST be a Win  for the government. More about the Xmas Break than much else. Stop reading Murdoch $#!t..   Nev

Yes, this is true; most notably the public housing fund being one of them. However, when you delived into the detail of the proposal, it should have been sunk as it is never going to realise its aims. Of course, something is better than nothing.

 

However, this is all part and parcel of the political process in Australia and has been for a long time. It has been rare in modern political times that a political party has held the majority in both chambers to ease through the regulatoy agenda. Whilst I am sure there have been previous governments that have rammed through legislation at the last minute, I can't recall the same magnitude - but accept that may come down to reporting. The reality is Albo has made himself an easy target for the press to get eyeballs and they are taking advantage of it.

 

A lot of the laws are perfunctory and procedural such as tidying up wording or replacing the "Queen" with the Mornarch or some such term. However, there are a couple that warrant a full and fair debate as well as adequate consultation before passing; the laws of unintended consequences may prevail in these situations. For example (although I admit, I have yet to read ther changes yet):

• The ban on social media for under 16s can cause as much metnal health issues as it solves. For example, it could isolate kids that are in more rural areas; it could push them to the dark web, which should be banned for everyone, but will be where they see a lot worse than on Facebook or Youtube, or even X; it could drive them to porn, etc. Not well thought out laws can cause more probloems than they solve.
• The changes to immigration laws dealing with refugees, at least by this report, would probably even make SFM cringe: https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/trump-would-love-these-terrifying-laws-why-are-we-passing-them-without-proper-debate-20241128-p5ku9e.html. Surely the minimum guarantee of deportation to a safe country should be thought of. Would we want to send people to likely mistreatment of their death?

Also telling is what he didn't want to put through - such as the establishment of a  federal environmental protection agency with teeth, and an independent environmental data collection agency to allow better decision making on more data. I think he has unwittingly set himself up a showdown with Plibersek and this seemed to have at least cross-bench if not cross party support, as well as was well consulted according to reports.

 

 

 

 

[red750]

 

++

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

based on other reported facts which are omitted from the general news

Where the hell does he find thise magical facts? Honestly, I'm seriously thinking of giving this forum the flick.

[Jerry_Atrick]

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/museum-of-political-disasters-truth-bill-dies-as-greens-join-coalition-to-block-it-20241122-p5ksx0.html?js-chunk-not-found-refresh=true

 

https://greens.org.au/news/media-release/greens-vote-against-aged-care-legislation-labor-caves-coalition-and-profit admittedly, this is from their website, but will take at face value their claims

 

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/explained-the-governments-stalled-housing-agenda-and-why-the-greens-are-opposing-it/wnvzf1i2u

 

 

But for a list of all bills that failed, including those not sponsored by the government, here is the complete list: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_not_passed_current_Parliament?drt=2&drv=7&drvH=7&pnu=47&pnuH=47&f=26%2f07%2f2022&to=29%2f11%2f2024&ps=10&ito=1&q=&bs=1&pbh=1&bhor=1&pmb=1&g=1&st=1&sr=1

 

Not all bills rejected were done purely on ideological grounds, either. I personally think the housing bill fell far short of meeting any aim apart from keeping asset managers under Costello rich... I wouldn't have supported it, either as the economics of direct investment in housing would have reaped far more back into the economy than using a $10bn fund to support housing off the profits of the funds, which had to have their asset management fees deducted first. Of course, when you control a media organisation, you can write the narrative so everyone tings the Greens were thwarting genuine efforts to relieve the housing crisis. I call that BS.

 

But you can't deny, a lot of government sponsored bills were frustrated in the senate.

 

Maybe Albo doesn't want to call an early electon - he has so far said it is not happening, and to then call one will even weaken his position further. So, maybe he was hankering for a double dissolution.

[nomadpete]

20 hours ago, willedoo said:

If you're thinking Murdoch, no cigar, it's the ABC.

Nowadays, (at least it seems) the ABC has trended toward the commercial news outlets style - and coincidentally allegedly has more ex merdok staff.

 

They definitely have dropped their standards over the past years. I didn't like them having an ex magazine boss running the place.

 

Just my opinion, though.

 

 

Edited November 29 by nomadpete

[willedoo]

Here's an article with some speculation about how social media companies will identify users. There's a section in the bill that social media companies can't insist on ID as the only means of age assurance. The article discusses the possibility of using facial recognition. One point I'm not sure about is whether existing users will have their accounts suspended if they are under 16. Initial reports said they would be exempt but I've read since that they'll be banned as well. If so, that means the social media companies might make all of us hand over either ID or facial recognition data to them to verify and keep our accounts. If facial recognition, would it be a one off verification process. I can't see it being practical to have our cameras on for facial recognition every time we log on if that was to be used as a means of stopping under 16's using an older persons account .

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-30/social-media-ban-australia-id-facial-data/104567566

[facthunter]

For a Moderator you're behaving badly Red. You should be preventing personal attacks not making them. ANYONE who makes a bit of an  effort can find out a lot of what is really going on, but bear in mind "Is it the truth OR did you read it in the Murdoch Press?". Even the ABC CITES stuff from other Papers and lets it adherents down. Musk says the ABC is Australia's PRAVDA. What a Jerk that CLOWN is. Nev.