Philosophy Discussion Forums

Pattern-chaser wrote:Any way that we can reduce their influence is OK with me. Guillotines were found to be very useful, a little while ago, in France....

Steve3007 wrote: ↑February 19th, 2021, 7:41 am Arguably an analogous situation would be a poster on here posting a link to a news article and, as a result, Scott (the owner of this website) having to pay the news provider being linked to. It seems clear that if the news provider hasn't put their article behind a paywall then they should be ok with people reading it, and any advertising that they put alongside it, for free.

Scott wrote:Overall, I would put my bet on it being the case that both the Australian government and Facebook are both bloated organizations, tossing around billions if not trillions of dollars, run by mobs of self-serving dishonest human beings, most of whom if not all of whom can't even stick to their own personal diets, manage their own lives, and clean their own figurative backyards, the latter of which might be the very thing causing them to set their greedy self-serving sights on other people's backyards (and money). In other words, I at least anecdotally find that usually people struggle with the let live part of live and let live because they struggle with the live part. Their own inner house isn't in order and that motivates their restless (and typically violent) injection of disorder into society. In yet other words, they lack inner peace so their outward actions reflect that inner chaos in terms of them being outwardly unpeaceful.

Scott wrote:

Steve3007 wrote:Arguably an analogous situation would be a poster on here posting a link to a news article and, as a result, Scott (the owner of this website) having to pay the news provider being linked to. It seems clear that if the news provider hasn't put their article behind a paywall then they should be ok with people reading it, and any advertising that they put alongside it, for free.

Well, when you put it like that, then I guess I have to hold my nose and take Facebook's side on this one.

Across the Pacific, thousands of people are on pre-paid data phone plans which include cheap access to Facebook. Those on limited incomes can get news through the social network, but cannot go to original source websites without using more data, and spending more money.

The region’s largest telco provider, Digicel, with a presence in Fiji, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu, offers affordable mobile data plans with free or cheap access to Facebook.

Pattern-chaser wrote:I'm 100% behind Oz. Murdoch and his demonic billionaire cronies (or reptilian cannibalistic predatory paedophile Trump-friends, as they are sometimes called) pretty much rule the world anyway. Any way that we can reduce their influence is OK with me.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑February 19th, 2021, 6:13 am A current news story is Facebook denying access to news on their planform for Australians. This is a reaction to the Australian government seeking to pass laws making Facebook pay news providers for news provided on their platform. Facebook argues that they are merely a platform and that if news providers want people to pay for the news copy generated by their journalists then they're free to either place it behind their own paywall or fund it using advertising. Most of the world seems to be against Facebook and on the side of the Australian government on this one. Here is the UK it's a very rare example of The Guardian and The Daily Mail agreeing with each other!

Have I got the basic facts here right? What are your views on the story? If you take a side, is it with Facebook or the Australian government? Or can you see the points of view of both?

Pattern-chaser wrote:I'm 100% behind Oz. Murdoch and his demonic billionaire cronies (or reptilian cannibalistic predatory paedophile Trump-friends, as they are sometimes called) pretty much rule the world anyway. Any way that we can reduce their influence is OK with me.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑February 20th, 2021, 10:19 am When you say you're behind Oz do you mean you're behind (supportive of) the proposed legislation by the Australian government? If your point is that you're against Murdoch et al then it would be expected that you'd be supporting Facebook more than Oz (the Australian government) on this particular issue.

Robert66 wrote: ↑February 21st, 2021, 3:27 pm I sympathise with Sy Borg who has railed against Murdoch at the real risk of appearing obsessed. I add my voice to hers and say as another Aussie that she is correct. Australian governments have for decades done all they could to clear the way for the Murdoch-owned media, who now dominate the print media landscape, in fact monopolise it in many areas. Similarly they ("our" government) have fought for Murdoch against the public broadcaster, the ABC. With information now predominantly online they have continued to do Murdoch's bidding, however this time they are f___ed.

Who is right? Possibly the easiest question yet on these forums. The habitually wrong Morrison government are this time wronger than a slice of bread sandwiched between ham. This latest wrong-headedness exposes the Morrison government once more as colossal hypocrites, arguing for business and free markets while intervening in those markets and interfering with businesses constantly. Why? Because Murdoch still has the power to install or remove a government. That simple - Sy Borg is not crazy!

The guillotine is too quick and therefore humane in this case. The Blood Eagle would be more suitable (if you don't know of Vikings then look it up).

Shayne Neumann learnt about real power the hard way. In August 2014, as Labor’s little-known federal opposition spokesman for Indigenous affairs, Neumann was one of many politicians who rolled up to the annual Indigenous Garma Festival in Arnhem Land. While on a panel discussing the Recognise movement for constitutional acknowledgment of Aboriginal people, Neumann decided to criticise coverage of the issue by News Corporation newspapers: “There’s too much power in the media controlled by one man who lives overseas.”

That was an interesting thing to say in a public forum, I said to him afterwards. It needed to be said, he responded. When I asked whether he was concerned about the political consequences of criticising News Corp in public, he seemed genuinely surprised by the question.

It took less than 24 hours for Neumann to realise the consequences. On its front page and in its leader column the next morning, The Australian turned its guns on him.

“Aboriginal leaders have described as disgraceful, divisive and ignorant an attack by Labor’s Indigenous affairs spokesman, Shayne Neumann, about coverage of reconciliation in The Australian and other newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch,” the page one news story began. In an editorial, it advised opposition leader Bill Shorten to counsel Neumann over his anti-News Corp comments.

Neumann is a bit player in the broader choreography of media power in Australia. But his front-page dressing-down in the house organ of Australia’s dominant media empire sent a salutary message — to him and to other senior politicians who ignore the ground rules of political and media life in Australia at their peril.

Don’t overstep the mark. Pay obeisance to the permanent source of power. Apply appropriate filters to your decisions and public utterances. And it doesn’t hurt to be obsequious.

Pattern-chaser wrote:That commerce should somehow trump an appointed government is just plain wrong, to me.

Robert66 wrote:I sympathise with Sy Borg who has railed against Murdoch at the real risk of appearing obsessed.

Robert66 wrote:I add my voice to hers and say as another Aussie that she is correct. Australian governments have for decades done all they could to clear the way for the Murdoch-owned media, who now dominate the print media landscape, in fact monopolise it in many areas. Similarly they ("our" government) have fought for Murdoch against the public broadcaster, the ABC. With information now predominantly online they have continued to do Murdoch's bidding, however this time they are f___ed.

Who is right? Possibly the easiest question yet on these forums. The habitually wrong Morrison government are this time wronger than a slice of bread sandwiched between ham. This latest wrong-headedness exposes the Morrison government once more as colossal hypocrites, arguing for business and free markets while intervening in those markets and interfering with businesses constantly. Why? Because Murdoch still has the power to install or remove a government. That simple - Sy Borg is not crazy!

Steve3007 wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2021, 6:16 am

Robert66 wrote:I add my voice to hers and say as another Aussie that she is correct. Australian governments have for decades done all they could to clear the way for the Murdoch-owned media, who now dominate the print media landscape, in fact monopolise it in many areas. Similarly they ("our" government) have fought for Murdoch against the public broadcaster, the ABC. With information now predominantly online they have continued to do Murdoch's bidding, however this time they are f___ed.

Who is right? Possibly the easiest question yet on these forums. The habitually wrong Morrison government are this time wronger than a slice of bread sandwiched between ham. This latest wrong-headedness exposes the Morrison government once more as colossal hypocrites, arguing for business and free markets while intervening in those markets and interfering with businesses constantly. Why? Because Murdoch still has the power to install or remove a government. That simple - Sy Borg is not crazy!

Despite my limited knowledge of the media culture in Australia I'm inclined to agree with your and Sy's general point. I also initially thought it particularly ridiculous to say that Facebook removing 3rd party sourced news stories from their platform constitutes cutting off access to news. Obviously Facebook is not the only possible source of news. Or so I thought. I've slightly modified my opinion on that now. What do you think?

Robert66 wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2021, 1:54 pm Where are the compelling right wing views to be found?