Albo to the rescue

[old man emu]

Previously, providing ID had seemed the most likely method, given it's still the only ironclad way to verify a person's age. Now, platforms will have to give us at least one other option, and biometric data is the next most likely candidate — specifically facial estimation technology, which guesses your age based on your appearance.

 

 

 

 

How will Albo go? I reckon he's got a boyish face. AI isn't perfect. It could identify his image as that of an under-16.

 

How does a person input their facial biometrics if they don't have a camera set up on their computer. (But I suppose that that is a moot point if they are using a mobile device.)

[onetrack]

The biometric system is literally full of holes. What would stop a clever under-16 from getting the biometrics scanner to scan the face of an older friend? The legislation is flawed, it is unenforceable (how do you penalise a 15 yr old for accessing social media?), and it's bound to eventually be dropped as unworkable.

[Marty_d]

It's not about penalizing kids, it's about forcing the tech companies to do their due diligence.

[pmccarthy]

The ABC is becoming less and less reliable. I read the Murdoch press and find it just as reliable as the alternatives. They are all full of opinion masquerading as fact.

[spacesailor]

My second G,grandson turned 14 yesterday. 

Will he be banned from his family & footy club .

His elder cousin was going to search the flying clubs .

After I told him about RaA on Facebook. 

So that's cancelled now .  ( I cancelled my FB account too).

spacesailor

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I liken Albo to a cross between SFM and Joan Kirner.

 

SFM because, at a political level, he was a party enforcer that managed to get to the top more on the failings of others than his own leadership merit.

 

Joan Kirner, because at the time the electorate were calling for something to be done, he and his party hasn't done much and propogate the status quo.. and does little to debumk the perception that all of the pollies (at least for the majors) are the same.

 

The electoral donations reform are thee to preserve the two party stronghold, and what do you get with a duopoly? Two snouts atthe trough, but not much competition.

 

Here are two vids of toobers I follow - both would seem to normally align themselves more towards Labor than LNP style ideologies, but even they can't find too much to like about how Albo is progressing with these electoral reforms (well, they find some good things about it, but not a lot).

 

What I didn't know what that similar reforms were made in Victorian politics and guess what? Virtually no more independents and only 7 Greens across both houses of the Vic parliament.

 

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

IF you obtained a list or what LABOR have ACTUALLY done It's considerable, despite Dutton and the Greens opposing much good legislation until the Last minute when the Greens realised they were damaging their reputation too much.  The ABC is as bad as the others unfortunately.. Dutton tries to make out HE's TOUGH and Albanese is weak.. The LAST person you'd trust to evaluate Albo is Dutton (& Murdoch) Surely? IF Murdoch supported ALBO We would THEN have to be worried about Albo.  Nev

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

IF Murdoch supported ALBO We would THEN have to be worried about Albo.  Nev

I also worry about a bill that gets bipartisan support.

[facthunter]

MOST bills do. It's mostly  when a STUNT is being pulled that they don't.   It's usually sorted out with amendments and a bit of  to and fro.  Nev

[nomadpete]

To & fro?

 

Or perhaps beneficial to maintaining the political duopoly.

[Jerry_Atrick]

On 24/11/2024 at 10:40 AM, nomadpete said:

Great.

Whose facts?

What about alternative facts?

Who would fund the 'official' factchecking department?

 

Rather a can of worms, I think.

I meant to reply to this earlier...

 

Because free speech today seems to be equivalent to lying about facts to support an opinion, as opposed to expressing an opinion (whether or not they are supported by facts), there would obviously have to be limits.

 

Here's a video of a somewhat satirically educative youtuber I follow:

 

 

The facts seem very easy to establish, however, what is really concerning is how the internet allows likes to propagate through seemingly informative podcasts in this case, complete lies designed to misinform the audience and pursaude a case for defunding an institution designed to protect people. The area of the Joe Rogan podcast touches some of the work I do; I didn't need to wait to the end of the video to know it was a complete untruth and would be able to be easily proved to be so.

 

In terms of holding people to account for what is designed to influence people to resist institutions designed to protect them (we are going throught he same thing here with the European Court of Human Rights). the application of criminal jurispridence could well assuade your concerns.

 

I am not sure what the question Whose facts means? Facts are facts that can be proved objectively. Otherwise they are a theory/statement/guess,. but not facts. But we can, using criminal jurisprudence, address some of the questions.

 

For example, the standard of proof would have to be that the facts are objectively proveable beyond reasonable doubt - and that an untruth (not yet a lie) is one that materially contradicts the facts - such that there is no way the untruth could be construed to be in anyway to accord with the facts (in the context of the discussion). And, to make it a lie, it would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the person intended it to be a lie or was reckless to its fact, again in the context of the discussion.  Once you hit those two hurdles, you are fairly sure that is was a lie, and these standards are requireed for most crimes. You could add to the law that for anyone to be liable, there has to be an evident attempt to pursuade the audience of something in the interests of the liar or ayone connected to the discussion at the time..

 

It ain't perfect, but its a start and requires further debate and discussion to get it almost right. That is why rushing it through would have probably been worse... Although I hadn't seen the bill so have no idea of its merits.

 

Edited Sunday at 08:54 PM by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

Can you have any sympathy for those who, not having little or no knowledge of the world of finance, place their money into unsafe places? Our banking system might not be completely run by rogues, but at least they are rogues who stretch the limits of a regulatory system.

[nomadpete]

34 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Because free speech today seems to be equivalent to lying about facts to support an opinion, as opposed to expressing an opinion (whether or not they are supported by facts), there would obviously have to be limits.

Thank you for taking the time to think about it, and to contribute to the discussion.

 

That was my intention.

 

You seem to be trying to boil the issue (regulation of the validity of information on the net), down to black and white. That would be nice if it were possible but it usually becomes more complex when the Rogan Joshes of the world introduce fragments of verifiable fact to create believable conclusions that are misleading.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 09:31 PM by nomadpete

[Jerry_Atrick]

I don't think I am trying to reduce everything to black and white..  it's a question of how far to go without infringing on a right to free speech.

 

Does the introduction of a verifiable fact that is very loosely connected and doesn't alter the total untuthful message absolve someone from liability? As an example if the interviewee said PEPs are both left and right of the political divide, but maintained the untruth of what a PEP is and why it is bad for consumers, would that be OK?

 

We already have laws against lying in court - perjury.. how do they go about proving the facts? 

 

41 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Can you have any sympathy for those who, not having little or no knowledge of the world of finance, place their money into unsafe places? Our banking system might not be completely run by rogues, but at least they are rogues who stretch the limits of a regulatory system.

Th US banking system ensures there are a good number of independent regional and local players, which is very different to Australia's system. The ads and their websites employed deceptive advertising using common parlance to claim they were banks, with the small print saying they weren't, and claiming deposits were covered by the FDIC,when they weren't.

 

I don't know too many people that look up ASIC or the PRA to check if the newly launched bank is really a bank. And defunded enforcement agencies that people have become accustomed to can't keep up.

 

The law doesn't protect foolishness, but it would seem reasonable to protect the average person in the market especially where a person's financial wellbeing is involved

 

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 10:04 PM by Jerry_Atrick

[facthunter]

With Party systems they have to put up POLICIES which should have had a lot of input and the voters are swayed by the appeal of them, one way or the other. WE will tell you AFTER we are in.  should ring alarm bells.. Independents are just that the Teals by Holmes a Court may be different. They target LNP seats. There are several good independents that get elected individually on their own merit. .    Nev

[nomadpete]

35 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I don't think I am trying to reduce everything to black and white..

When we make a law - any law, the terms must be reduced to black and white.

 

38 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

it would seem reasonable to protect the average person

Totally agree. However, I have a problem with the present attempts to create a fair and practical method to force media (and individuals) to stick to facts and to factually complete conclusions.

[Jerry_Atrick]

6 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

When we make a law - any law, the terms must be reduced to black and white.

This is a common misconception. If the law was black and white,  we would have no need for different methods of statutory interpretation nor a need for precedent.. and civil law is far more nebulous than criminal.. 

Edited Sunday at 10:51 PM by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

8 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

However, I have a problem with the present attempts to create a fair and practical method to force media (and individuals) to stick to facts and to factually complete conclusions.

I agree.. which is why I think rushing this through without full public consultation is dangerous.

 

I would argue they don't have to have factually complete conclusions; they can be totally illogical as long as they aren't concealing facts or mistaking them

 

We can make up our own minds with the facts. If a media organisation purport to be telling the facts they should be held to account as they are an unelected force in our political system

Edited Sunday at 10:59 PM by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

I see law as being binary.

One either obeys a law or they do not.

One cannot be half guilty.

 

How does a law about truth and fact become malleable?

 

And if it was, what good would that do?

Edited Sunday at 10:55 PM by nomadpete

[nomadpete]

Regarding the attempt to pass legislation to control social media (and hopefully MSM).....

 

I like the idea of requiring a name and date to be attached to each instance. The anonymity of the present system has allowed  massive damage to be carried out by nefarious individuals and groups.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Heard of contributory negligence?

 

In criminal it is often the case that there will be multiple charges for the same act so as to get them for something

 

But even if guilty or not as a binsry iption, the application of the law to facts can be very difficult with the decision no certainty

[facthunter]

You can be an accessory before and after the fact. Aviation Law is a  speciality. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

12 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

How does a law about truth and fact become malleable?

There are no doubt some acts or consequences that are binary. Strict liability offences, the most common ones being road offences, only requires that you do the thing - e.g speeding and you are liable. It is binary Are you going faster than the limit even by a small amount - yes,, you can be done if the policeman is not in a good mood

 

But most criminal offences and almost all civil wrongs (not all), will have a lot left open for interpretation. Yes, for some offences, the outcome has to be binary - you can't have a murder charge without a dead body - except you can.. People have been convicted of murder despite there being no dead body, so even murder requires a binary outcome - the missing person is presumed dead.

 

But for many areas, it is malleable, or at least not black and white. In  criminal law, you need the actus reus (guilt act) and the mens rea (guilty mind); except for strict liability offences and attempted charges, where you intended the guilty act, and did something positive to commission the guilty act, but it didn't come off.

 

As you mentioned in this discussion - what is the presenter or interviewee introduces some vague truth connected to the untruth. At what point does the introduction of truths nullify the untruths?

 

You will often see in legisation the term "material" or "materially".. And then you have this thing called intent to prove - all beyond reasonable (which is a higher bar than the average person) doubt. When cases go to court, there is nothing about the law to argue - everyone more or less knows the law - the question becomes, based on the facts of the case, what about the law applies, and is the person guilty of it. And then, what was the harm done. To take our Joe Rogan interview above, what if the interviewee had been entirely accurate about the PEPs but inaccurate about the debanking stuff? Of what happens if he had of preceded most of his points with "in my opinion... " or, "I think... ".. What happens then? Ultimately, the lawyers will argue their version of how the law applies, taking into account the legislation and any precedents, and attempt to sway the judge/jury of the answer...

 

Often you will read an article about some case where the outcome seemed to defy all reason and at odds to previous decisions. One has to remember that the judge and, if applicable, 12 ordinary members of society have heard all the evidence provided, and reached a conclusion of facts and how the law applied to them.

[nomadpete]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

even murder requires a binary outcome - the missing person is presumed dead.

I see that as an example of a binary outcome based on an assumption - as opposed to an undisputable proven fact. Therefore leaving grey areas.

 

I am trying to apply it to the efforts to police misinformation. Most convincing misinformation contains some facts, followed by somebody's interpretaion. The whole picture then becomes misleading (or worse).

 

As you point out, the problem is already  created by the phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt' which means 'our best guess'.

 

With respect to the attempts to force media operators to be accountable for damaging (mis)information, we are dealing with businesses with deep pockets, AND very powerful voices to influence the public. The highest level of power on the planet, over the masses.

Past history shows that laws work fairly well for people (entities) that do not have such power.

 

It looks close to unenforcable in a world where our politicians and leaders cannot be forced to use honesty in their electoral advertising.

As an aside, are we at risk of creating overt 'thought crimes'?

Edited Monday at 01:01 AM by nomadpete

[facthunter]

Dog ALbitey said to think about it is a sin. It's a guilt edged policy.  Nev