I can't see it over there, I assume this whole reply chain doesn't get federated to them because I started it. But I don't know how mentions work so I'm curious too.
Some fake vote manipulation instances were spun up last month and apparently I'd downvoted some of the same posts that were getting brigaded (see Quokka's reply) so a lemmy.world admin jumped the gun and banned me for "Vote manipulation". I haven't had the time to bother appealing the ban since I didn't post to there often anyway, but I didn't realise that a few of their users post here and wouldn't see my replies so I'll send .world a message about it tomorrow or so.
Just realised OP can't see my post on .world, so if you found this interesting I'd appreciate if you share this link with them: https://aussie.zone/comment/17588950
Thanks for sharing, definitely a huge leap from our situation over here. Monthly loss limits seem so obvious as an anti-addiction measure but I hadn't thought or heard of it.
As for the argument a Norwegian policy researcher quickly raises on personal liberties of citizens and which the US section expands on, I don't believe that applies well to machines designed to exploit human psychology to form addictions. Addiction is contradictory to liberty, it coerces a person to pressure them into a decision they likely would not make otherwise:
In 2007, the government ordered the removal of all slot machines that had been operating in public places. [...] Eidem said gambling support group members would cry with relief “because they were so happy they could go to the store and buy milk and bread without having to fight their way through the hallway with 10 slot machines.”
I think it's also interesting that they bring up this lad:
Gasparim said he doesn’t like to be told how much money he can lose. And he doesn’t appreciate the restrictions over what times he can gamble in Norway, especially since he likes to bet on U.S. ice hockey games that are in a different time zone. So he goes on foreign gambling websites that are illegal in Norway and have no limits at all. “I know that it's not healthy,” Gasparim said. “I could have saved all the money that I've spent all these years, but I do it because I think it's fun.”
[...] Magnus Eidem, the addiction specialist, says the foreign gambling sites are much more likely to lead to gambling disorders than the legal market; the more money people lose through unregulated play, the more they try to gamble it back. That includes young people who find foreign sites before they’re old enough to legally gamble.
So there becomes an element of pragmatic balance: if people feel too limited, they might just jump into fully unregulated territory and suffer more harm than the regulated solution. It's something to be careful of, and something which applies to all kinds of regulation.
Something I didn't see mentioned is that in Norway, the "gambling industry is run almost entirely by the government itself — one of the only countries with a state monopoly". Even casting aside US ideological issues over government ownership of industry, I simply wouldn't trust their current regime to balance, let alone prioritise, public health over corporate interests (profit). With Australia... maybe under Labor? Definitely more confident if Greens have the power to pressure them.
After the on-screen graphics spin for a few moments, the display lets him know he won 30 kroner. But you can hardly tell. There are no bells, no manufactured sounds of coins falling into a steel bowl. “All those sounds are meant to make you play more,” he said.
I recently came across an interactive article (similar to ABCs scrolling graphic articles) about some of the basic psychology and cues behind pokies. Not just triggers like the sounds and graphics, but also some tricks like 'losses disguised as wins':
For example, if you bet three credits on three lines, but only win one credit on one line, you might win back less money than you bet overall. This means you lost money, but because you get the flashing lights and reward from winning, you still get the good feeling of a win.
Also relevant, and my account's banner image: FriendlyJordies and Boy Boy collaborated with whistleblower Troy Stolz [omg I didn't know he got elected to council last year!] to make a fun but educational video about laundering in NSW casinos through pokies. How Much Money Can We Launder In A Day?
Horrible stuff. I'm glad no-one was injured, antisemitism has no place here (and attacking a synagogue and the surrounding community is certainly that).
oh yeah nah course we care about checks notes US lawmakers and their thoughts. utmost respect for em.
There is an interesting, complex conversation going on between the many different Australian advocacy groups here in the article, it's clearly got a few interesting angles to it. But if one thing is clear, the US lawmakers are not only ignorant of the discussion but incidentally hypocritical (see the Game Industry Council comment on US deer practices). They seem to mean well, in a surprising way, but that's no excuse for professional lawmakers to be so blatantly ignorant. Although, to be honest, I'd be surprised if any conservationist legislation went through their congress under this regime, so I doubt it will pass.
What do you think when two organizations you trust say different things?
To be honest, I would have trusted Cancer Council much more than Choice before this news challenged my trust (not because of any particular thing Choice has done). The ABC article today about the Princeton Consumer Research test and allegations of its results being concerningly homogeneous has just made this a bit more complicated.
Hey OP, I noticed at the bottom of the article it credits that it's a republishing of the original article by ABC. Always good to link upstream if you notice that happening, for example the upstream article might notice a mistake and correct it.
I disagree with the implication that a child should be left to die if the medical centre isn't paid. I know the doctors need to be paid and their work deserves to be compensated, I know medical centres need to have costly supplies to operate, of course, but the commodification of society's critical healthcare needs is an atrocity.
The author suggests it was the doctor's lack of care, but if there's some missing context that somehow justified their decision, it's still a damning insight into paid healthcare systems. Would distributing the cost of that treatment be more or less damaging than the cost of denying it?
one less doctor
On the other hand, if they're replaced with someone who doesn't let patients die like that, that's saving lives.
I hope they heal up alright and keep their sight. A friend who was arrested by NSW Police at Port Botany for similar protests said they saw headshot photos in the police station of people the police were aiming to arrest (union and organisation leaders) so I don't think it's an "unfortunate coincidence" they brutalised someone so famous. [scare quotes, not quoting anyone]
Yeah let's have a look into those tax-deductible charities they're dumping tens of millions into. I've seen this abused overseas so I won't blindly trust them over here.
Yeah part 2 is about a different subsection specific to niche indigenous groups trying to play the same kind of "well technically" game with fake laws instead of actual effective resistance strategies, so while I think it's interesting too, it's less relevant to these news stories we see so it's alright to hold off on.
Which brings us full-circle
Yeah, interesting to see that the legal system (at least that judge) has finally stopped with the initial toleration of these SovCit-style claims. When the system ignores or shows the restraint to tolerate this flavour of SovCit pseudolaw, it can validate them and (as you pointed out) some have lost homes or ended up in prison over their idiot ideas. That really puts context into the judge's quote below; it's not just the harassment or gun-holding compounds to worry about, but the danger this delusional arrogance can do to themselves.
Mr and Ms Martin have told me more than once they are not dangerous people," he wrote. "The ideas they express, however, can be extremely dangerous"
"These guys are honestly fairly chill as long as you’re not close to their nest (like inside 1m), and they’re important pollinators and great pest removal experts."
If this question was sincere surprise, there was an Australia documentary episode two years back ("War on Waste") with a section about "up to a third of" carrots being dismissed by the dominant supermarkets because they were "misshapen", sometimes really petty stuff, not even bruises or discolouration or anything that a picky person might question but being too long or short, skinny, not straight enough.
In reaction (or by recommendation), some supermarkets have added small sections marketing various fruit/veg as 'odd' funny-looking ones at discount prices. An improvement, but a long way to go.
I can't see it over there, I assume this whole reply chain doesn't get federated to them because I started it. But I don't know how mentions work so I'm curious too.