nigel99 144 #1 Posted August 18, 2020 https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/thewest.com.au/technology/google/google-warns-australians-against-new-media-law-in-open-letter-ng-b881640853z.amp From yesterday Google had a warning symbol and link to an article warning about the proposed change in the law. I don’t know what is driving the change perhaps trying to combat fake news? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,914 #2 August 18, 2020 6 minutes ago, nigel99 said: https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/thewest.com.au/technology/google/google-warns-australians-against-new-media-law-in-open-letter-ng-b881640853z.amp From yesterday Google had a warning symbol and link to an article warning about the proposed change in the law. I don’t know what is driving the change perhaps trying to combat fake news? Nothing at all to do with fake news. Everything to do with forcing services that post links to news articles as part of their business model to sell advertising to share some of the cash with the news providers. Another attempt to do something about the current model that is forcing news providers to lay off reporters. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 911 #3 August 18, 2020 1 minute ago, gowlerk said: Nothing at all to do with fake news. Everything to do with forcing services that post links to news articles as part of their business model to sell advertising to share some of the cash with the news providers. Another attempt to do something about the current model that is forcing news providers to lay off reporters. Yes If the International Confederation of Music Publishers can protect music from unfair use and duplication so should journalists. Who investigate, publish and inform in the face of fake news and Facebook false dialogue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #4 August 18, 2020 1 hour ago, gowlerk said: Nothing at all to do with fake news. Everything to do with forcing services that post links to news articles as part of their business model to sell advertising to share some of the cash with the news providers. Another attempt to do something about the current model that is forcing news providers to lay off reporters. Fuck yes. I've been wishing for a law that forces media outlets to rename 'news' shows to 'opinion' shows if all they do is have pundits talking about journalism that other sources have gathered, and an independent body that licenses vets journalists and news outlets. If you have people gathering information from first hand sources, report that information in a factual but unbiased way, and can cite the sources that's news. If you're talking about what you think that news means you're in an 'opinion' segment of the show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #5 August 20, 2020 On 8/18/2020 at 4:47 PM, yoink said: I've been wishing for a law that forces media outlets to rename 'news' shows to 'opinion' shows if all they do is have pundits talking about journalism that other sources have gathered, and an independent body that licenses vets journalists and news outlets. If you have people gathering information from first hand sources, report that information in a factual but unbiased way, and can cite the sources that's news. If you're talking about what you think that news means you're in an 'opinion' segment of the show. You'd put MSNBC out of business (and I would be delighted), but unfortunately, what you propose flies in the face of that pesky First Amendment. "It's difficult to have a marketplace of ideas when all the stores stock the same brand." - Mallard Fillmore Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #6 August 20, 2020 1 hour ago, markharju said: You'd put MSNBC out of business (and I would be delighted), but unfortunately, what you propose flies in the face of that pesky First Amendment. "It's difficult to have a marketplace of ideas when all the stores stock the same brand." - Mallard Fillmore Mallard Fillmore - a duck? Related to Billvon, no doubt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,914 #7 August 20, 2020 2 hours ago, markharju said: You'd put MSNBC out of business (and I would be delighted), but unfortunately, what you propose flies in the face of that pesky First Amendment. "It's difficult to have a marketplace of ideas when all the stores stock the same brand." - Mallard Fillmore Ya, I'm with you and that Mallard the Duck guy. It is not the fault of the various medias that people choose poor sources of information.The law needs to be very light handed because it will inevitably be abused and used for even more censorship than we already have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #8 August 20, 2020 13 minutes ago, gowlerk said: Ya, I'm with you and that Mallard the Duck guy. It is not the fault of the various medias that people choose poor sources of information.The law needs to be very light handed because it will inevitably be abused and used for even more censorship than we already have. Are you saying you have censorship in Canada? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,048 #9 August 20, 2020 4 hours ago, gowlerk said: that people choose poor sources of information. Hi Ken, And what is worse is that they actually believe it. Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #10 August 20, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, turtlespeed said: Are you saying you have censorship in Canada? Yes we do. Hate speech for instance. And personally I am just fine with it. Edited to add: Ironic this "question" comes up on the day your government asks the Supreme Court to allow it to censor critics. Edited August 20, 2020 by SkyDekker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 144 #11 August 21, 2020 12 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said: Hi Ken, And what is worse is that they actually believe it. Jerry Baumchen One of the things I dislike about Australia is that we are a nanny state. As a general rule Aussie’s accept far more restrictions than other places I’ve lived Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #12 August 21, 2020 2 hours ago, nigel99 said: One of the things I dislike about Australia is that we are a nanny state. As a general rule Aussie’s accept far more restrictions than other places I’ve lived You should try Virginia. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #13 August 21, 2020 On 8/20/2020 at 2:24 PM, SkyDekker said: Yes we do. Hate speech for instance. And personally I am just fine with it. Edited to add: Ironic this "question" comes up on the day your government asks the Supreme Court to allow it to censor critics. That question was for another poster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites