Zagorath @ Zagorath @aussie.zone

Formerly /u/Zagorath on the alien site.

---

Read more

Posts

161

Comments

3,586

Joined

2 yr. ago

Well, no. The money that got spent on lawyers and court fees was definitely wasted. The ABC could have issued an apology and made a reasonable offer of settlement without the huge bill to the taxpayer.

Or, you know...just not fired her in the first place. But that would have required not kowtowing to the Israel lobby...

It's not easy, but you're not guaranteed to end up

either lose your shirt, sell your business, or become entrenched in a position whose inertia is difficult to break

It depends on the personalities involved and the business model they go with.

Nebula has done really well with consistent growth as a premium offering where people pay one subscription fee to get ad-free videos from exclusively high-quality creators across a quote broad range of niches, in addition to bonus extras and Nebula Originals.

Dropout seems to have a lot of success with a range of mostly unscripted comedy, centred around a core cast of trusted comedic actors with a larger range of guests.

Floatplane, on the other hand, seems much less successful, probably owing to its business model being basically Patreon's, but only for video. Instead of the wide range of content you get for surprisingly reasonable amounts of Nebula and Dropout, Floatplane ends up looking very expensive if you want to support more than one or two creators. Plus the creators on it haven't got the same degree of trust; it ends up reeking of the sort of techbro vibes that people are explicitly trying to get away from.

I'm not on my home computer to check right now, but this claims to have both torrent and direct download.

Not living up to your username there

Well, there is Nebula, which is kinda like that. But most of them also put their videos on YouTube, using Nebula as the premium ad-free option with a little bonus content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

Uhh, no? Lattouf spent money fighting zionists. The ABC, and hence the Australian tax payer, was spending money defending zionism.

Unfortunately it's only speculation. I have no idea if it's correct. But it definitely is interesting.

From the comments under that page:

So…. (I haven’t looked in 5 years) when you move livestock there is paperwork that is required for tracking that shows where it was moved from and where it was moved to. So farm to auction yard, form. auction yard to meat works, form. The Meat and Livestock Association is the body that all the forms go to and until maybe a year or two ago the database part was a bit dated but there was still a process in place.

With the movement of livestock the drivers and transporters who do this dont exactly do cows one day and boxes of hand sanitiser the next, they only do livestock so they do know what they are doing. There is/was an invisible line near Rockhampton that required livestock crossing that line to go through a dip for ticks or something like that as I recall.

This camera suggests either A) there is livestock moving without traceability paperwork or B) there is a second or the line for biosecurity has moved from Rockhampton.

I am only curious enough to write this and move on because it’s not something I need to know anymore but we do have biosecurity built into livestock movements…. chickens do not have the same livestock requirements but they do have a smaller number of steps as there is no auction yard step and is more directly between producer and buyer.

We are not equipped to store that level of sensitive information

For what it's worth, the legislation seems pretty clear on this one point (despite being unbelievably unclear on just about every other point):

• Government-issued ID cannot be the only way a person is able to verify themselves
• If Government-issued ID is used, it cannot be stored past the length of time it takes to verify

How that's going to play out in practice is anybody's guess at this point.

Well done Khawaja, and kudos to The Guardian for the reporting on it. By comparison, the ABC article:

• Doesn't mention Israel's atrocities (except when directly quoting Khawaja)
• Doesn't explain why Khawaja was asked to give the interview
• Closes on the only-relevant-for-context bit showing the ICC's censorship of his humanitarian views in the past, and in so doing sort of implies this is the most important final word on the subject (i.e., that opposing Israel is wrong)
• Doesn't explain why SEN are the only ones there he can talk to

Giving them a simple yes/no to the question of if you are legal age based on a trusted third party

Who's that trusted third party? There's no third party that I trust with that information. I don't want to have to tell the government "I use aussie.zone, and this is my username". I don't want it even without the username part. And I'd trust the government a hell of a lot more with that than any private company.

The problem with your comment is that you're framing it as all about Meta. It's not. It could have been. Maybe even should have been. Have it apply only to specific platforms designated by the Minister. But the way the legislation was written, it applies to all social media. Including Lemmy instances. Including Mastodon. Including old-school forums. This is why all sensible people were opposed to the bill when it went through within a week late last year. Not because the underlying goal is bad, but because it had been rushed through without proper consideration, and it was missing obvious problems that arose from the way it was drafted. Problems which could have been addressed, if they had done a proper inquiry and responded to feedback from experts, knowledgeable amateurs, and the broader public.

Only those who look “Under 25 years” may be required to produce ID

Could you tell the guy at the bar I went to a week ago this, please? I got carded for the first time in years (not counting Safer Night Precincts where everyone gets carded) despite being—and looking—in my 30s.

My problem is that for privacy reasons, I'm opposed to any system that requires giving information about the sites that you're visiting to anyone other than that site. It's not that I don't trust JPs, it's that I don't believe I should have to tell a JP that I use aussie.zone.

You joke, but remember the proposed UK porn age verification law? Where the verification would legally have to be done by going down to your local pub?

Well said

I don't think you'll find anyone in the fediverse willing to defend face-based age-verification systems. It's a complete farce to pretend it's ever going to be viable, even if you completely ignore all the obvious privacy issues and how easily-bypassed it is. People's faces just have far too weak a correlation with their age to get the kind of bright line result a law like this needs.

Uploading ID is a better option. Still bad because it kills all anonymity/pseudonimity and introduces enormous privacy risks. And is still not difficult to bypass. But if options for age verification were political parties, this would be the LNP, to facial-aging-AI's One Nation.

Which means we need to somehow adhere to whatever the government deems necessary to confirm our userbase’s ages

As I see it, you have three options.

• Adhere to the regulations, whatever the fuck they end up being (frustrating that we're halfway through the year and there's still no clear indication of what that is). Technologically, who knows, this may be more difficult than it's worth. It may expose the admins to liability in terms of privacy laws. May also involve a financial cost if 3rd-party providers are required.
• Reach out to MPs and Ministers to try and seek an exemption. If granted, probably the ideal case. If not granted, it puts you on their radar pretty explicitly.
• Try to fly under the radar. If they had any sense, the bill would have required the Minister to name social media platforms to which it applies, or at least have included an automatic exemption for platforms under a certain size (say, under 1000 MAU, what have we got? Not that, surely). In the absence of that, it's likely (though not certain) that realistically nobody in Government knows about this place and no police are going to bother investigating it. Opens up major risk if those assumptions end up being wrong.

I can’t see any instance outside the country caring about this law. Why should they?

It's the same as the EU when it creates legislation and says "if you have any European customers, even if they're not in Europe, you have to comply". It's bullshit, and they know it. They can't even enforce it on non-European companies that do provide a service to people in Europe. This will be enforced by the big guys with a global presence, and it'll kill off small social media in Australia, while small social media elsewhere will just choose to ignore it.

Paragraphs 172 and 207 show then–editorial director Simon Melkman explaining in pretty damn clear terms why the actions they would end up taking were a terrible idea. Shame on the ABC for continuing this any further than that.

They were mad to run the case, the only shame is everyone involved at management level is already gone from the ABC.

The ABC appointed a new General Counsel in April, so there's not even that head left to roll, although of course the old one may have advised against running the case and been overruled for all we know.