billstickers

joined 2 years ago
[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Looks like they just made a fancy google keyword alerts notifier to cash in on the AI craze. Poor marketing example but feels like blaming google for your search results.

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 7 points 2 years ago

We do. The award is called jobseeker. It is terribly insufficient though. The union who negotiated it should be sacked.

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

What AI stuff? I use freedly as a backend for Reeder so never touch the website. This might be the push I need to either go local or roll my own.

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago

Nope. It lists the excluded content on page 5. Can’t copy on my phone right now but basically just excludes good faith entertainment parody and satire; accredited educational bodies, professional news bodies and government bodies.

No mention of religion or belief in the entire bill.

You’d get a pass on interpretation but you won’t get a pass on making shit up that harms a religious or marginalised group. It defines harm too on page 6.

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago

I’ll preface with I fall more towards your view. But the following is the economic orthodoxy view.

I’ll give an example in property terms because it’s high capital and we’re all familiar with it these days. I’m using a simplified example for simplicity. Real businesses will be a lot more marginal difference.

10 years ago you bought a house with cash for $500k. Today the house is worth $1M. Your profit is $50k (5% yield) per year on rent after costs. The government decides to double your tax rate. Next year you’ll only profit $25k. You decide to sell and and buy somewhere else with lower tax. As long as you can sell for more than $500k (25k at 5% yield and the old tax rate in the new location) you’ll make more money by moving.

Similar logic would work in low capital industries where you can stop selling here and start selling in a new market that has a lower tax rate where you didn’t sell before or didn’t sell as much. Even if it’s a poorer market. As long as you sell your product for more than half the taxable profit your net positive.

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 0 points 2 years ago

Who is our/we? You’re literally in Lemmy.world.

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Wait what’s wrong with wearing sunglasses ?

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Yep. In the draft bill, Anything published by any level of government or anything published by political parties about electoral matters or referendums is excluded. So they’re free to push misinformation to their hearts content.

Professional news content is also excluded. Though to be fair is probably included under other acma rules.

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 3 points 2 years ago

Definitely apply to Lemmy. But Lemmy isn’t a website itself. It’s more like a protocol. So each server owner will be responsible. I didn’t think to look and too late at night for me now, but I wonder how the law would work with federation. Is Aussie.zone only responsible for the local communities or is each site responsible for their All streams. I suppose that’s a benefit of being able to defederate. And the mainline Lemmy communities seem really good in this regard.

I’d more worry about keeping to the industry code of practice and the record keeping aspects and being in breach that way.

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (9 children)

For the purposes of this Schedule, dissemination of content using a digital service is misinformation on the digital service if:

(a) the content contains information that is false, misleading or deceptive; and

(b)the content is not excluded content for misinformation purposes; and

(c) the content is provided on the digital service to one or more end-users in Australia; and

(d) the provision of the content on the digital service is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm.

Draft bill located here

I think the last one is key.

Also the bill doesn't empower the government to make individual rulings on misinformation. It says sites have to follow an industry code of practice to have systems in place to keep on top of misinformation.

Think of it as a way to avoid another Cronulla, or any of the pizza gate/Qanon shit happening here. i.e when news is breaking, sure let it through in the fog of war. But don't let people post for years that the election was stolen by the deep state kiddy fiddler alliance.

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

@Hangglide@lemmy.world , @jaidyn999@lemm.ee

The ACMA would also be able to request the industry to develop a "code of practice" covering measures to combat misinformation. Violating the code could result in penalties up to $2.75 million dollars or 2 per cent of global turnover — whichever is greater.

And lastly, the ACMA would be empowered to create and enforce its own industry standard. Penalties for breaching the standards could see companies paying up to $6.8 million or 5 per cent of their global turnover.

Read the actual draft bill here

This is actually pretty reasonable (with regard to the corporate players). All it says is the industry has to develop a code of best practice and try to follow it, and keep records of what they're doing to follow the industry code when ACMA come asking. ACMA may make a standard if the industry fail to create a code, or if the code is insufficient.

ACMA wont be dealing in individual cases here. They're trying to put the onus on the industry to do all the work. Apart from possibly annual reporting, ACMA are only going to take action if somewhere becomes a cesspool of misinformation.

What is worrying is that this will apply to Lemmy too. @lodion Thoughts? We'll probably fly under the radar as we're (currently) fairly inconsequential. But will this still be worth it to you if you have to keep to a code of practice, records, etc that he big players get to write.

[–] billstickers@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago

I can see where you’re coming from. But a no vote will make australia a shittier place for our nonwhite members. So I don’t see it as voting for the voice, I see it as voting not to empower racist shitheads. Voting yes will at least not make the situation worse.

view more: ‹ prev next ›