Elon Musk vs. Australia

[Riven]

Australia is very upset that Elon Musk won't censor content on his platform that they find offensive. Naturally, this is about that stabbing of a orthodox Christian bishop by a deranged Muslim.

Australia is of course, deep in the post-modern multicultural hellhole. So a video showing a Muslim stabbing someone offends their sensibilities. But of course, if the roles were reversed, they wouldn't have a problem with it at all. Because "White Christians bad".

I'm sure musk had a good laugh at their expense. Because like Canada, Australia is a meme country. No one takes it seriously. Hell, thee only time anyone did was after October 7, when thousands of musings living there began shouting, "gas the Jews". Which is particularly interesting as it relates to this story because, I don't recall the Australian government calling for that video to be taken down. Yeah...

Elon Musk accuses Australia of censorship after court bans violent video

The tech billionaire’s social media platform X had said it would fight Australian orders to take down posts relating to a knife attack on a Sydney bishop that was streamed online.

www.google.com

 

[Uncle J]

Australia is very upset that Elon Musk won't censor content on his platform that they find offensive. Naturally, this is about that stabbing of a orthodox Christian bishop by a deranged Muslim.

Australia is of course, deep in the post-modern multicultural hellhole. So a video showing a Muslim stabbing someone offends their sensibilities. But of course, if the roles were reversed, they wouldn't have a problem with it at all. Because "White Christians bad".

I'm sure musk had a good laugh at their expense. Because like Canada, Australia is a meme country. No one takes it seriously. Hell, thee only time anyone did was after October 7, when thousands of musings living there began shouting, "gas the Jews". Which is particularly interesting as it relates to this story because, I don't recall the Australian government calling for that video to be taken down. Yeah...

Elon Musk accuses Australia of censorship after court bans violent video

The tech billionaire’s social media platform X had said it would fight Australian orders to take down posts relating to a knife attack on a Sydney bishop that was streamed online.

www.google.com

Do you think if a school shooter streams video of his rampage, no government at any level has any right to have the video taken down?

 

[Riven]

Do you think if a school shooter streams video of his rampage, no government at any level has any right to have the video taken down?

That's correct. I think the platform hosting the stream should be the one to take action. That's usually what happens anyway.

As for as after the fact, I don't think the government should remove videos from the internet in an attempt to shield people from reality. That would be like censoring police body cam footage. It defeats the purpose.

 

[Uncle J]

That's correct. I think the platform hosting the stream should be the one to take action. That's usually what happens anyway.

So if the platform refuses, videos of kids being shot to death stay up.

As for as after the fact, I don't think the government should remove videos from the internet in an attempt to shield people from reality. That would be like censoring police body cam footage. It defeats the purpose.

Guess we'll just have to disagree on that. If it were my kid screaming and crying after being shot, I wouldn't want it up there for anyone to see. And since mass shooters tend to imitate, one-up, and learn from each other, that's one more reason I strongly disagree with you.

 

[Riven]

So if the platform refuses, videos of kids being shot to death stay up.

It's not possible. Those kinds of videos violate TOS. They're automatically taken down. However, police body cam footage is usually put up on the internet. I saw that trans school shooter get shot dead. The police were walking over dead kids. They blur it out though.

Guess we'll just have to disagree on that. If it were my kid screaming and crying after being shot, I wouldn't want it up there for anyone to see. And since mass shooters tend to imitate, one-up, and learn from each other, that's one more reason I strongly disagree with you.

Fair enough.

 

[Uncle J]

It's not possible. Those kinds of videos violate TOS. They're automatically taken down.

Isn't it the same for the video of the Bishop being attacked?

However, police body cam footage is usually put up on the internet. I saw that trans school shooter get shot dead. The police were walking over dead kids. They blur it out though.

But police footage is technically public property, right? So the public has an interest and right to see what sort of things their tax dollars are paying for.

That's not the cases with private vids.

 

[Riven]

Isn't it the same for the video of the Bishop being attacked?

Why would it be? It's not a video of a school shooting. It's a bishop being stabbed. It's no different than someone putting up a video of a random attack on the street. Besides, Musk owns X. What he says goes.

It's also important to keep in mind that X is any American-based company that is not subject to Shar... I mean, Australian law.

But police footage is technically public property, right? So the public has an interest and right to see what sort of things their tax dollars are paying for.

That's not the cases with private vids.

I am unsure about the legality of it. I like to think we have a right to see it. There's this YouTube channel called Police Activity that's truly a bastion of entrainment. Especially the shorter vids. They're the ones that get right to business.

 

[Uncle J]

Why would it be? It's not a video of a school shooting. It's a bishop being stabbed. It's no different than someone putting up a video of a random attack on the street. Besides, Musk owns X. What he says goes.

I'm asking how a video of a school shooting violates the ToS, but one of a stabbing doesn't.

It's also important to keep in mind that X is any American-based company that is not subject to Shar... I mean, Australian law.

Nope. If the company operates in Australia, they have to comply with Australian law.

That'd be like a company saying "Our company is based in Ecuador, so we don't have to abide by US law when we operate there".

I am unsure about the legality of it. I like to think we have a right to see it. There's this YouTube channel called Police Activity that's truly a bastion of entrainment. Especially the shorter vids. They're the ones that get right to business.

Exactly. Since we paid for the officers and their equipment, the public has a right to see their body cam footage. The same isn't true for private videos.

 

[follower]

Maybe the world would be a better place if people could only see what is within a hundred miles of there they stay home ......

 

[Corn Pop]

Maybe some material should be age restricted.

Then again peope compalin about extreme material yet the mainstream medias show thqt in general, just wars for example, injured children and places being bomed and idiots with guns fliping out. Whats the difference really? Thats exreme material yet its classd as current events and general news.

 

[Riven]

I'm asking how a video of a school shooting violates the ToS, but one of a stabbing doesn't.

There's probably a specific category for school shootings. Because video gang shootings are allowed on X.

Nope. If the company operates in Australia, they have to comply with Australian law.

That'd be like a company saying "Our company is based in Ecuador, so we don't have to abide by US law when we operate there".

Then how is every US-based social media company not in violation of Australian law?

Exactly. Since we paid for the officers and their equipment, the public has a right to see their body cam footage. The same isn't true for private videos.

But it's not private if it's being streamed on the internet. Anyone can tune in.

 

[Corn Pop]

Different palces probably have different rules. Im sure where i live its not a crime to film in public, so any public filming would just be independant media. If someone records something and publish it thats just public and freedom of information and media. Otherwise one could complain all those CCTV cameras recording in and the public around the city in public space are illegal.

 

[Corn Pop]

Do you think if a school shooter streams video of his rampage, no government at any level has any right to have the video taken down?

In my personal view something like that should be taken down by the website. And i guess it would be hard to control everything with millions of posts and videoa a day trying to moderate everything, but they probably have a team of moderators who would take responsibility and delete a live steamed violent account once its seen by the host or has been reported.

Im not a fan of cencorship but there is limits and common sense. Just like free speech it still has limits.

 

[Corn Pop]

Different countries, different states, different rules, there is no way for an example an american in america should have to bow down and ban something on there website thats legal where they live just because another country said so. They dont live under there rules.

 

[Riven]

As I'm very fond of saying, if the West didn't have double standards, it would have no standards at all. A bunch of Muslims promoting Jewish genocide? Totally fine, says Australia. Don't be islamophobic, you bigot. A video showing a Muslim attempting to kill a Christian bishop? Crikey! That Elon Musk should be jailed for... doing something we don't like! XD

They're so pathetic. If Australia were to sink into the ocean tomorrow, who would care? It's not even a real country, it's a prison colony. The only good thing they ever produced was Steve Irwin.

 

[Corn Pop]

What i dont understand is why anyone would want to view that type of material to start with. Thats what extremists want, they want the pleasure of people watching them flip so you dont give it to them.

Even after a fact if there was a video i would personally choose not to view it, unless there was some sort of debate around facts and evidence then i would view it to get the truth otherwise i dont need to see or want to see any crooked material.

The thing is some people are strong minded so there is nothing they could see or witness that can screw them up, yet some people it can be confronting and it could mess them up so its best they stay away from some material. I think its good some content gives people a warning first. Its not a joke people see confrontational things and it could give them PTSDand it will screw with there head.

 

[Corn Pop]

The only good thing they ever produced was Steve Irwin.

Thats dude was a legend. Its like impossible not to like him. Full of energy and just loved nature and was passionate and enjoyed what he did. I give him credit because i dont know how a fly could buzz around his face and he could call it a friendly critter or something and carry on.

I dont have that much dicipline, if a fly is buzzing around me thats a fight for invading my personal space and annoying me, nothing is more irritsting in life than a fly or a mosquito even if i have to slap myself in the face multiple and look like a idiot.

 

[Riven]

Thats dude was a legend. Its like impossible not to like him. Full of energy and just loved nature and was passionate and enjoyed what he did. I give him credit because i dont know how a fly could buzz around his face and he could call it a friendly critter or something and carry on.

I cried when he died. The only "celebrity" that's had that effect on me. Still mis the dude. It seems like Australia kind of died when he did. :/

 

[Corn Pop]

I only have 1 question and thats why anyone would want to watch someone/s being attacked?. They either get pleasure from it or they have no respect for victims of traumatic situations. Its a bit psychopatic.

I understand investigators who watch extreme things because thats there job or like i said similar i can handle anything and i would only watch something strickly for fact checking or evidence so there is a valid reason, otherwise i dont understand why people would want to watch violent things.

 

[Riven]

I only have 1 question and thats why anyone would want to watch someone/s being attacked?. They either get pleasure from it or they have no respect for victims of traumatic situations. Its a bit psychopatic.

Hmm... well, I enjoy watching the police shoot people on YouTube. It's sort of like the Roman colosseum, I guess. I'm actually a really gentle person.