radiofree.asia

Category: Social media

  • Social media ban: Platforms could be left to ‘infer’ age

    Social media platforms could use information they already hold about an individual to infer whether that user is under 16, avoiding the need to collect further identification or biometric data for the age limit ban, a Senate inquiry has heard. Amid concerns about how the proposed law would work in the absence of results from…

    The post Social media ban: Platforms could be left to ‘infer’ age appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Banning under-16s from social media ripe for High Court challenge

    On November 21 2024, the Albanese government unveiled its bill to introduce a minimum age of 16 for most social media platforms. The government claims the bill is necessary to protect children from social harm. But it might violate the implied freedom of political communication (IFPC) in the Constitution if it is passed. If so,…

    The post Banning under-16s from social media ripe for High Court challenge appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Fencing the Ocean: Australia’s Social Media Safety Bill

    The Australian government is being run ragged in various quarters.  When ragged, such a beast is bound to seek a distraction. And what better than finding a vulnerable group, preferably children, to feel outraged and noble about?

    The Albanese government, armed such problematic instruments as South Australia’s Children (Social Media Safety) Bill 2024, which will fine social media companies refusing to exclude children under the age of 14 from using their platforms, and a report by former High Court Chief Justice Robert French on the feasibility of such a move, is confident of restricting the use of social media by children across the country by imposing an age limit.

    On November 21, the government boastfully declared in a media release that it had officially “introduced world-leading legislation to enforce a minimum age of 16 years for social media.”  The proposed legislation, known as the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, is supposedly going to “deliver greater protections for young Australians during critical stages of their development.”

    The proposed legislation made something of an international splash.  NBC News, for instance, called the bill “one of the toughest in the world”, failing to note its absence of muscle.  To that end, it remains thin on detail.

    These laws constitute yet another effort to concentrate power and responsibilities best held by the citizenry in the hands of a bureaucratic-political class governed by paranoia and procedure.  They are also intended to place the onus on social media platforms to place restrictions upon those under 16 years of age from having accounts.

    The government openly admits as much, seemingly treating parents as irresponsible and weak (their consent in this is irrelevant), and children as permanently threatened by spoliation.  “The law places the onus on social media platforms – not parents or young people – to take reasonable steps to ensure these protections are in place.”  If the platforms do not comply, they risk fines of up to A$49.5 million.

    As for the contentious matter of privacy, the prime minister and his communications minister are adamant.  “It will contain robust privacy provisions, including requiring the platforms to ringfence and destroy any information collected to safeguard the personal information of all Australians.”

    The drafters of the bill have also taken liberties on what is deemed appropriate to access.  As the media release mentions, Australia’s youth will still “have continued access to messaging and online gaming, as well as access to services which are health and education related, like Headspace, Kids Helpline, and Google Classroom, and YouTube.”

    This daft regime is based on the premise it will survive circumvention. Children, through guile and instinctive perseverance, will always find a way to access forbidden fruit.  Indeed, as the Digital Industry Group Inc says, this “20th Century response to 21st Century challenges” may well steer children into “dangerous, unregulated parts of the internet”.

    In May, documents uncovered under Freedom of Information by Guardian Australia identified that government wonks in the communications department were wondering if such a scheme was even viable.  A document casting a sceptical eye over the use of age assurance technology was unequivocal: “No countries have implemented an age verification mandate without issue.”

    Legal challenges have been launched in France and Germany against such measures.  Circumvention has become a feature in various US states doing the same, using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs).

    While this proposed legislation will prove ineffectual in achieving its intended purpose – here, protecting the prelapsarian state of childhood from ruin at the hands of wicked digital platforms – it will also leave the apparatus of hefty regulation.  One can hardly take remarks coming from the absurdly named office of the eSafety Commissioner, currently occupied by the authoritarian-minded Julie Inman Grant, seriously in stating that “regulators like eSafety have to be nimble.”  Restrictions, prohibitions, bans and censorship regimes are, in their implementation, never nimble.

    For all that, even Inman Grant has reservations about some of the government’s assumptions, notably on the alleged link between social media and mental harm.  The evidence for such a claim, she told BBC Radio 5 Live, “is not settled at all”.  Indeed, certain vulnerable groups – she mentions LGBTQ+ and First Nations cohorts in particular – “feel more themselves online than they do in the real world”.  Why not, she suggests, teach children to use online platforms more safely?  Children, she analogises, should be taught how to swim, rather than being banned from swimming itself.  Instruct the young to swim; don’t ringfence the sea.

    Rather appositely, Lucas Lane, at 15 something of an entrepreneur selling boys nail polish via the online business Glossy Boys, told the BBC that the proposed ban “destroys… my friendships and the ability to make people feel seen.”

    Already holed without even getting out of port, this bill will serve another, insidious purpose.  While easily dismissed as having a stunted moral conscience, Elon Musk, who owns X Corp, is hard to fault in having certain suspicions about these draft rules.  “Seems like a backdoor way to control access to the internet by all Australians,” he wrote to a post from Albanese.  One, unfortunately, among several.

    The post Fencing the Ocean: Australia’s Social Media Safety Bill first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Social media ban bill lifts online safety fines to $50m

    Tech giants face fines of up to $50 million for breaches of Australia’s online safety laws under legislation introduced to give rise to a world-first social media ban for under-16s. Communications minister Michelle Rowland introduced the controversial Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill to Parliament on Thursday morning, having settled on 16 as…

    The post Social media ban bill lifts online safety fines to $50m appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Elon Musk’s transphobes panic as the ‘eXodus’ to Bluesky picks up pace

    Following the most-recent US presidential election of Donald Trump, many people have been examining their social media preferences. The always-awful Twitter has become increasingly dreadful since Elon Musk took over, reaching a zenith during the election when its owner used the site as a propaganda machine from the Republican Party. Wanting to take the power out of Musk’s hands, many are now abandoning his platform in favour of Bluesky.

    You know who isn’t abandoning it, though?

    The weirdoes who suspect their accounts won’t gain much traction beyond Twitter – particularly the transphobic hordes who have made Musk’s website their base.

    The tweet-to-TERF pipeline blown up by Bluesky

    The acronym TERF stands for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’; i.e. a transphobic person. These people are often British, and don’t exist in significant numbers outside of the worst spaces imaginable – i.e. Twitter and the mainstream British media. Some have used phrases like “brain rot” to describe transphobia in that people who are radicalised by TERF ideology become increasingly weird, hateful, and obsessed. This is very obvious in some of the people we’ll be discussing here – first off, Wings Over Scotland:

    If you’re unfamiliar with Wings Over Scotland, it’s the blog of Stuart Campbell, who began his career promoting Scottish independence. Here’s how New Statesman described his rise in 2021:

    The site was launched in 2011 after the SNP’s shock Holyrood majority, when the real prospect of independence gave the whole thought-world of Scottish politics a jolt of entropy and excitement. Identifying a gap in the market, Wings swiftly emerged as a fixture of pro-independence comment, a hyper-partisan media monitor with terrier persistence and a rottweiler bite.

    Here’s how they described his fall in the same piece:

    Today, the site is awash in transphobic vitriol and conspiracy theories, and the man who did most to radicalise the “alt-nat” worldview is winging away from mainstream reality. The site has been toxic for years – Campbell was banned from Twitter in late 2019 – but the rise and fall of Wings Over Scotland holds many lessons about the country’s changing media and political culture.

    If you look at the Wings Twitter account today, it’s wall-to-wall transphobic content. Strange, no, from an account which was established to promote Scottish independence? It’s almost as if some sort of rot has become established in the man’s brain.

    The New Statesman article actually gives us some idea of how this happened:

    Wings was never tied to the SNP, but Campbell was a powerful media outrider before he became a liability, and finally a significant foe. Accusations of transphobia and misogyny – first levelled in 2013 by the pro-independence blog A Thousand Flowers – continued to mount. By 2020, Graham Campbell, the BAME Convener of the SNP’s ruling body, described Wings as “an alt-right fascistic platform”. The councillor for Glasgow, who is also the co-convenor of SNP Socialists, argued that supporting Wings was “incompatible” with civic nationalism.

    This is common to many Twitter transphobes (especially the British ones for whatever reason). Many of them started out as outwardly progressive types, but they received pushback for perceived transphobia, and then the rot set in.

    What younger readers should understand is that before the 2010s, very few people knew the term ‘transphobia’, because being transphobic was so normalised that we didn’t even really comprehend it existed (see movies like 1994’s Ace Ventura). For most of us, then, it’s been a journey of hearing from trans people, examining our earlier positions, and growing into better people. For others, it’s been a journey in the opposite direction, with figures like Wings unable to accept they had bad opinions, and instead convincing themselves it’s the world which is wrong:

    Meme which reads "am i out of touch? no, it's the children who are wrong@

    We refer to this as a ‘journey’ rather than ‘stagnation’ because these people haven’t just defended an old joke they made back in 2008; they’ve travelled so far down the transphobia rabbit hole that they’re out-weirding the Mad Hatter.

    This is how you go from advocating for Scottish independence to telling random trans women on Twitter that they’re men (something he does an awful lot):

    Glinner

    You may have noticed that the article above stated that Wings “was banned from Twitter”. This is true, but he returned after Musk bought the platform and reinstated many banned accounts (an event similar to a Batman comic in which all the super villains escape from Arkham Asylum). One of those who returned to the site was one-time British comedy writer Graham Linehan.

    Linehan, the creator of Father Ted and The IT Crowd, was once a well-respected progressive on Twitter. So what led him down the path of transphobia? Specifically, it seems to have been criticism of a 2008 episode of The IT Crowd – criticism which came a decade later. As Screen Rant wrote in 2024:

    Throughout the episode of the Graham Lineham show — now known online as the “IT Crowd trans episode” for all the wrong reasons — various gags poke fun at trans women and undermine their identity. A musical montage shows April and Douglas doing various “masculine” activities, such as drinking beer or watching sports, which was meant to make a joke about April being a “typical man” on the inside. There are many sitcoms that made jokes now considered offensive, but the clear undercurrents of venom in The IT Crowd trans episode are uncomfortable, distressing, and can’t be excused with historical context.

    For the reasons stated above, we’d argue that historical context does go some way towards excusing the episode. As noted, very few people thought of the episode as transphobic at the time, because transphobia was the default position, with no public push back. The issue is that Linehan refused to acknowledge the very obvious transphobia even with the benefit of hindsight. As Screen Rant reported:

    With a growing trend of violence against trans women, audiences started to speak out against the episode, which trivializes the issue for cheap laughs. Channel 4 decided to pull The IT Crowd trans episode from their streaming service in 2020 after numerous complaints about the blatant transphobia it displayed. Creator Graham Linehan was furious about this, publishing on his blog that the decision infringed upon his freedom of speech. He also vowed to never work with Channel 4 again until it was reinstated.

    Before the backlash to the episode grew, we remember seeing tweets from IT Crowd fans politely asking Linehan what he thought of that episode (tweets from before his first ban). From what we remember, Linehan disagreed with the sentiment that it was transphobic, but he did so with civility. World’s apart from how he behaves now, with the man living, breathing, and frothing transphobia at every available opportunity:

    While Linehan regularly expresses his disdain for the sort of people leaving Twitter for Bluesky, he’s also following them there (almost as if he has nothing better to do than harass people):

    People on Bluesky are already accounting for how to deal with TERFs like Linehan:

    With the insane growth of this site comes the inevitable trickle of disgusting nazi accounts like Glinner. The difference is that we learn from our errors on "X". Don't hate follow, don't engage and trust the moderators to take action over here.

    — Jack D 🏳️‍🌈 (@jackdunc1.bsky.social) 2024-11-16T19:16:14.660Z

    i just blocked glinner. i don't see the point in giving him the attention he craves.that's the only reason for someone like him to come here.

    — รℓσαɳε ℓყรɓεƭɦ 🏳️‍🌈 (@sloanefragment.bsky.social) 2024-11-16T19:06:05.370Z

    List of British arseholes you should block. Including JKR and Glinner. bsky.app/profile/did:…

    — laurence 🇪🇺 (@laurencec123.bsky.social) 2024-11-16T19:17:24.545Z

    You could call this an echo chamber. At the same time, we all witnessed the shitty opinions of people like Linehan echo and amplify on Twitter, and we know that listening to them scream about trans people a million times over only made them worse. In other words, Twitter served as an echo chamber regardless of how many voices screamed in parallel.

    This phenomenon was neatly summed up by @dril:

    Of course, some probably can’t resist the urge to dunk on Linehan – a man whose dedication to transphobia led to the complete breakdown of his career and marriage:

    Me: I will not argue with transphobes here I will not argue with transphobes here I will not argue with transphobes here I will not argue with transphobes here Glinner: [joins Bluesky]Me: Hey lil buddy how’s the wife

    — Sam (he/him) (@mushycrouton.bsky.social) 2024-11-16T19:19:54.718Z

    Linehan is encouraging the idea that non-transphobes are leaving Twitter because they know they’re wrong:

    He’s still utterly convinced he’s right, despite losing his career, his family, and his ability to think about anything other than trans people. This is what happens to a person when they’re unable to acknowledge that they were wrong about something.

    The episode was very obviously transphobic, Graham! You didn’t know it at the time, but with hindsight you could have acknowledged that and moved on. Instead, you’ve let your brain rot.

    Rowling with it

    The world’s most famous transphobe hasn’t said much about Bluesky, but she did say this:

    Much like Wings and Linehan, Rowling was a broadly progressive person who found themselves captured by transphobic brain rot. While we’re also not in favour of long, solemn statements, it’s hard to imagine that Rowling wouldn’t be one of the first to leave Musk’s Twitter if it wasn’t the home of transphobia.

    So what was her transphobic origin story?

    This is conjecture, but it’s probably an inability to deal with criticism of her Harry Potter books,  as per this selection discussed by Viktorie Goldmannová:

    The books are filled with problematic aspects that I, as a young reader loving every word, never realized.

    But one of the worst is the character of Rita Skeeter, a reporter for the Daily Prophet which is the newspaper in the wizarding world.

    Rita is described as having mannish hands, a heavily jawed face, very fake nails and very fake hair. She is also an unregistered animagus, or a person who is able to change form into an animal.

    Rita uses this advantage of hers to spy on children to get information for the news.

    I believe Rita’s whole character is the embodiment of a terrible and disgusting stereotype about trans women, especially with Rowling’s latest tweets that prove her transphobia.

    Rowling’s books were always filled with unpleasant descriptions of characters, with fellow author Ursula K. Le Guin describing her as “ethically rather mean-spirited”. We also know that Rowling always had a hard time accepting criticism. Her descriptions of overweight people were particularly grim, but she hit back at these accusations, arguing that she didn’t have a problem because some of her good characters were also overweight. For reference, this is a description of a child from one of her books:

    Dudley looked a lot like Uncle Vernon. He had a large, pink face, not much neck, small watery blue eyes and thick, blond hair that lay smoothly on his thick, fat head… Harry often said that Dudley looked like a pig in a wig.

    As with the above, this sort of thing was a lot more normal when Rowling wrote it, and she could have just acknowledged the issue and grown from it. These people don’t grow, though; their brains just rot, and rot, and rot. And given that, it’s no wonder people don’t want to watch their decline any longer.

    Final notes on Bluesky

    It should be noted that while we understand the desire to switch social media platforms, we’re not giving Bluesky our unbridled backing. This, for instance, is very troubling:

    Moreover, Bluesky already feels a bit like how social media would look if a non-TERF version of the Guardian was running it. It’s very liberal, very centrist, and very ‘don’t rock the boat too much’.

    We’ll be keeping an eye on this, and for the moment we’ll be posting to both Twitter and Bluesky. We look forward to engaging with you wherever you end up.

    Amazing young people standing for justice and humanity

    — (@marcosaks.bsky.social) 2024-11-16T12:05:33.497Z

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The ridiculous social media ban and exporting Israel violence

    In this episode of New Politics, we break down the federal government’s recent proposal to ban social media access for all people under 16. This controversial move has sparked public outrage and raises critical questions about political motives and media influence in shaping the national conversation.

    Is this policy a genuine attempt to address the impact of social media on young Australians, or a calculated distraction by a government looking to appease specific voter bases and media giants? With the government’s lack of accountability toward local vested interests and its inclination to target overseas corporations like Google and Meta, this episode looks into the broader implications for media freedom and integrity.

    We also look at the media’s role in manipulating the narrative on behalf of Israel, especially surrounding recent events involving Israeli football hooligans in Amsterdam. When mainstream outlets pushed a storyline of anti-Semitism, independent media sources brought to light a more complex truth about the violence. Why are western political leaders and major news outlets reluctant to question Israel’s actions?

    As election rumours swirl, we examine the potential for an early election amid recent polling and economic indicators. Could an improved economy with lower inflation and possible interest rate cuts work in Labor’s favour? And while Peter Dutton’s populist appeal is under scrutiny, the strength of the crossbench remains a major factor in the 2025 election’s outcome.

    We explore the factors shaping the path to the next federal election, including the role of teal independents, shifting support for the Australian Greens, and the broader impact of public sentiment on Labor’s prospects.

    #auspol #NoAgeBan

    Support New Politics:

    @ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/newpolitics

    @ Substack: https://newpolitics.substack.com

    Song listing:

    • ‘Humiliation’, The National.
    • ‘Trouble’, Vox Noir.
    • ‘Brasil’, Bellaire.

    Music interludes:

    Support independent journalism

    We don’t plead, beseech, beg, guilt-trip, or gaslight you and claim the end of the world of journalism is coming soon. We keep it simple: If you like our work and would like to support it, send a donation, from as little as $5. Or purchase one of our books! It helps to keep our commitment to independent journalism ticking over! Go to our supporter page to see the many ways you can support New Politics.

    SUPPORT NEW POLITICS!

    The post The ridiculous social media ban and exporting Israel violence appeared first on New Politics.

    This post was originally published on New Politics.

  • Age verification tech trial results still six months away

    A trial of age verification technology will not deliver its findings to the federal government until six months after proposed legislation banning social media for under-16s is introduced to Parliament. The Communications department revealed the expected wait for the results while announcing a consortium of “industry experts” led by Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS) as…

    The post Age verification tech trial results still six months away appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Coalition demands split of privacy package

    The federal opposition has accused the government of wedge tactics by bundling a right to sue with other privacy reforms and new doxxing laws, and is threatening to withhold its Senate vote unless the package is split. The rift looms as another delay to the landmark reforms, which follow years of reviews and community consultation…

    The post Coalition demands split of privacy package appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Platform giants face digital duty of care in Australia

    Tech giants like Meta and X face a European-style duty of care to proactively protect Australian users under an Albanese government plan that could produce legislation by the end of the year. Communications minister Michelle Rowland on Wednesday night revealed the government will accept the key recommendation from a forthcoming review of Australia’s online safety…

    The post Platform giants face digital duty of care in Australia appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • It must finally be time to leave Elon Musk’s X for good

    You’ve been thinking about it, been creating excuse after excuse in your mind, justifying how you can leave all the connections you’ve built up. But it has become inexcusable to remain on X/Twitter – now a genuine propaganda machine spewing hate and disinformation to undermine facts, our information ecosystem and democracy. If leaving because of…

    The post It must finally be time to leave Elon Musk’s X for good appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • $50m fines proposed for social media scam slackers

    Social media companies failing to fight scams on their platforms will be subject to fines of up to $50 million under a new framework brought before Parliament on Thursday. Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones has put social media companies “on notice”, with the proposed legislation to enable sector-specific mandatory scam codes and require consumers to have…

    The post $50m fines proposed for social media scam slackers appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • World-first social media ban for under-16s

    Australia will move to ban social media for children under the age of 16, with the federal government expected to introduce world-first legislation to Parliament before the end of the month. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the minimum age requirements for social media on Thursday, “calling time” on the harm social media is having on…

    The post World-first social media ban for under-16s appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Palau Media Council condemns lawsuit as ‘assault on press freedom’

    Pacific Media Watch

    The Palau Media Council has condemned a political lawsuit against the publisher of the Island Times as an “assault on press freedom” with the Pacific country facing an election on Tuesday.

    In a statement yesterday, the council added that the lawsuit, filed by Surangel and Sons Co. against Times publisher Leilani Reklai over her newspaper’s coverage of tax-related documents that surfaced on social media, was an attempt to undermine the accountability that was vital to democracy.

    The statement also said the lawsuit raised “critical concerns about citizens’ access to information and freedom of the press.

    Palau recently topped the inaugural Pacific Media Freedom Index for press freedom.

    “This lawsuit, combined with government’s statements endorsing that Island Times reported mis-information on its coverage of the tax related document and the decision to ban Island Times from Surangel and Sons [distribution] outlets, raises critical concerns about citizens’ access to information and the freedom of the press — both of which are cornerstones of a democratic society,” the statement said.

    “The council sees this legal action as an assault on press freedom and an attempt to undermine the accountability that is vital to democracy.”

    The statement said that Reklai, one of Palau’s senior journalists, was being targeted simply for reporting on documents that were already in the public domain.

    “She did not originate the information but responsibly conveyed what these documents suggested, raising questions about the current administration’s narrative on corporate tax contributions,” the council said.

    ‘Journalistic duty’
    “Reporting on such information is a journalistic duty to ensure transparency in tax policies and government incentives impacting the private sector.

    “The Island Times, by publishing these documents, has provided a platform for clarifying public understanding of the new PGST tax law’s impact on major corporations and the actual tax contributions of Surangel and Sons.

    “These issues are clearly within the public’s right to know, and the council emphasises that media plays a crucial role in reporting such findings and promoting informed debate.

    The council said it stood in solidarity with Reklai and all journalists who strived to find and uphold the truth.

    “In a healthy democracy, a free and open press is essential for informed citizens and responsible governance.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • “No regular people are getting f*cked”: centrists don’t care about disabled people in Budget reactions

    Rachel Reeves’s much-anticipated Autumn Budget has arrived – and the Starmerroids are happy, which should be almost as big as any red flag you see on Married At First Sight. Because while the Labour Party has, on the face of it, left their comfortable lives untouched – it’s a different story for the rest of us.

    Supertanskiii: WhAtS a BuDgEt?

    Everyone’s favourite Labour Party apologist Supertanskiii (real name: who cares?) was the epitome of centrist indifference to chronically ill, disabled, homeless, and non-working people. First, she concluded that the Autumn Budget meant “no regular people are getting fucked”:

    Supertanskiii’s one politically-educated brain cell was clearly on half term this week. Or, she was simply sprouting Labour Party propaganda. Because within the Autumn Budget, we saw:

    • 450,000 chronically ill and disabled people eventually losing health-related benefits thanks to Labour adopting Tory-designed changes to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Work Capability Assessment (WCA).
    • A further crackdown on the overblown idea of benefit fraud.
    • Just £707 per household who are currently homeless to try and get them permanent accommodation.
    • 50% increase in the bus fare cap.
    • A less-than 2% rise in benefit rates in April – maintaining nearly a decade of real-terms cuts.
    • Nothing for unpaid carers who cannot work due to their caring commitments.
    • Just £600m for social care – dwarfed just by the extra £800m councils spent on child services alone last year, for example.
    • Continuing the Tory-designed “settlement” for housing associations – letting them increase rents in line with inflation plus 1%.

    We could go on – but the point is the Autumn Budget was NOT a budget for the poorest people. It was a budget for Supertanskiii and her ilk. You can see that by the way she shut down someone raising concerns over chronically ill and disabled people:

    tHe GrOwN uPs ArE bAcK

    But what did the other centrist grown ups in their Ivory Towers think of the Autumn Budget? Helpfully, Supertanskiii gave us a veritable YouGov opinion poll via her X:

    Many of the responses were predictable:

    Some people clearly haven’t got a fucking clue (it was £500m for ‘affordable housing’ which, BTW, is not social housing):

    Others got emotional – clearly forgetting chronically ill, disabled, homeless, and poor people exist:

    And if you’re playing ‘Centrist Dullard Bingo’, then dab ‘the grown ups are back in charge’:

    A budget for them, not for the rest of us

    But then, why would Supertanskiii and her followers care about the poorest and most marginalised people in society? As long as they’re all right, and their grift can continue, then ‘Shush! Don’t mention disabled people!’

    We say grift, because Supertanskiii is a grifter. There can be no other reason as to why she would claim that “no regular people are getting fucked” and take herself seriously while doing it.

    Of course, this was all entirely predictable – as the Canary has been documenting. If Labour had been truly serious on resetting the UK, then they would have started by punching up, not down – and ensuring that our society’s most marginalised and poorest citizens were lifted up before anyone else. Of course, that’s not how capitalist economics works.

    So, they didn’t – and we knew they wouldn’t anyway.

    Yet it doesn’t make it any less palatable.

    It will now be down to grassroots campaign groups, sympathetic politicians, and independent media to hold the Labour government to account – because Supertanskiii and the rest of the middle classes certainly aren’t going to do it.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Social media age limits won’t work without a focus on privacy

    In recent weeks, the debate over controlling or banning social media for teenagers and children in Australia has gained momentum. The federal government has asked the states to weigh in, and the premiers of both South Australia and New South Wales have announced their support for age verification. Instagram also introduced new teen-specific accounts in…

    The post Social media age limits won’t work without a focus on privacy appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Labor-led committee calls for single Digital Affairs minister

    A Labor-led parliamentary committee has urged the federal government to appoint a Digital Affairs minister to coordinate the regulation of social media and other digital platforms, including across privacy, competition and online safety. The call to adopt a similar approach to that of Taiwan comes as the remit of existing existing regulatory agencies like the…

    The post Labor-led committee calls for single Digital Affairs minister appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Trump’s Push for Mass Deportation Is a Wake-Up Call on Normalization of Violence

    Stoked by vitriolic political rhetoric spread by the right and increasingly left unchallenged by leading Democratic politicians, the normalization of a hostile and violent attitude toward immigrants is spreading. Under such circumstances, democracy has reached a dangerous moment given the emergence of a violent politics emboldened by fantasies of racial cleansing and a national rebirth.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Premiers take aim at ‘unelected billionaires living in Silicon Valley’

    NSW and South Australia’s Premiers say they will limit young people’s access to social media after the success of a phone ban in schools and a lack of action from tech giants, declaring safety won’t be left to ‘‘unelected billionaires living in Silicon Valley”. “We’ve got the right to be suspicious of the impact social…

    The post Premiers take aim at ‘unelected billionaires living in Silicon Valley’ appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Google IS running an illegal monopoly – as the US DoJ threatens to ‘break it up’

    The US Department of Justice (DoJ) said on Tuesday it would demand that Google make profound changes to how it does business and even consider the possibility of a breakup, after the tech juggernaut was found to be running an illegal monopoly.

    Determining how to address Google’s wrongs is the next stage of a landmark antitrust trial that saw the company in August judged a monopolist by US District Court Judge Amit Mehta.

    An order to break up Google or require deep changes on how it does business marks a profound change by the US government’s competition enforcers that have largely left tech giants alone since failing to break up Microsoft two decades ago.

    Google dismissed the idea as “radical”.

    DoJ: Google is acting illegally… kind of

    The government told the judge in a court filing that it was considering options that included “structural” changes which could see them asking for a divestment of its smartphone Android operating system or its Chrome browser.

    The DoJ also said it could ask for the prohibition of Google’s default agreements with third parties that sees it pay tens of billions of dollars every year to Apple.

    Requiring Google to make its search data available to rivals was also on the table, it said.

    This case, focusing on Google’s search engine dominance, is part of a broader legal offensive against the company’s alleged antitrust violations in the United States.

    Google faces additional challenges from the DoJ regarding its advertising technology and recently lost a jury trial to Fortnite-maker Epic Games over its Google Play store practices.

    The DoJ’s remedy proposals are part of a “high-level framework” outlining how it envisions implementing the court’s verdict.

    A more detailed request will be submitted in November, followed by arguments from both sides in a special hearing scheduled for April.

    90% of US searches

    Google, in a blog post, criticised the government’s proposed remedies as “radical” and expressed concern that the DoJ’s requests “go far beyond the specific legal issues in this case”.

    Regardless of Judge Mehta’s eventual decision, Google is expected to appeal, potentially prolonging the process for years and possibly reaching the US Supreme Court.

    The trial, which concluded last year, scrutinised Google’s confidential agreements with smartphone manufacturers, including Apple.

    These deals involve substantial payments to secure Google’s search engine as the default option on browsers, iPhones, and other devices.

    The judge determined that this arrangement provided Google with unparalleled access to user data, enabling it to develop its search engine into a globally dominant platform.

    From this position, the company expanded its tech empire to include the Chrome browser, Maps and the Android smartphone operating system.

    According to the judgment, Google controlled 90% of the US online search market in 2020, with an even higher share, 95%, on mobile devices.

    The filing came just a day after a US court on Monday ordered it to open its Android smartphone operating system to rival app stores, the result of the company’s defeat in the Epic Games case.

    Google is appealing the order, which could reshape the mobile app landscape in the coming years.

    Featured image via the Canary

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Musk’s Trump rally appearance was somehow worse than a sniper’s one

    On 13 July, 2024, Thomas Matthew Crooks attempted to assassinate former president Donald Trump. On 5 October, Trump returned to the scene of the failed assassination only for Elon Musk do something much worse at a Trump rally.

    This time, Musk brutally murdered the scant swagger Trump had left:

    Here’s a close up if you really want to be horrified:

    Musk at the Trump rally: try Hard

    We’ve now gone several days without someone trying to assassinate Don; accordingly, this image of Musk at the Trump rally is proving something of an event:

     

    Some felt like the picture needed something adding to it, as if it wasn’t ridiculous enough to start with:

     

    The video of it made it even clearer that Musk was bounding about like a giant toddler:

    People also had points to make besides how stupid these dopes look:

    What’s in it for Musk Trump rally appearance?

    As reported by Sky News, Trump vowed that the US would “reach Mars” by the end of his second term. So there’s two things to note on that:

    1. There is no way we will be send a manned mission to Mars within the next four years – let alone reach the red planet.
    2. Musk owns a rocket ship company, and while he also knows there’s no chance we’ll get to Mars in that time, he will very happily claim otherwise to take taxpayers’ money.

    Musk actually has a long and storied history when it comes to making promises he can’t keep – so much so that there’s a website called ‘elonmusk.today’ that tracks them all. Here are some examples as of 6 October:

    • 3,301 days since Elon Musk said Teslas would have 1,000 kilometer (621 mile) range within a year or two. (9/23/2015)
    • 2,676 days since Elon Musk said all Superchargers were being converted to solar. (6/9/2017)
    • 2,564 days since Elon Musk said SpaceX rockets could soon take passengers from New York to London in 29 minutes. (9/29/2017)
    • 2,457 days since Elon Musk promised most operations in a Tesla would soon be controlled via voice command. (1/14/2018)
    • 2,275 days since Elon Musk said he would rescue children stuck in a cave with a custom built mini-sub. (7/15/2018)
    • 1,994 days since Elon Musk said there will be a million fully autonomous Tesla robotaxis in a year. (4/22/2019)
    • 1,662 days since Elon Musk predicted that Coronoavirus would vanish soon in the US to justify keeping Tesla’s factories open. (3/19/2020)
    • 1,263 days since Elon Musk explained bitcoin helps solve climate change by burning coal. (4/22/2021)
    • 870 days since Elon Musk announced he was building a new litigation department at Tesla for the purpose of suing people after he was accused of offering a horse in exchange for sexual services. (5/20/2022)
    • 679 days since Elon Musk predicted that under his leadership Twitter could reach a billion monthly users. (11/27/2022)

    Musk also has a long and storied history when it comes to greedily hoovering up taxpayers’ money – money which could be spent directly on the products he (sometimes) provides without enriching Musk in the process. As Quartz reported on SpaceX:

    SpaceX is, after all, primarily a government contractor, racking up $15.3 billion in awarded contracts since 2003, according to US government records. Its most important businesses are launching astronauts and scientific missions for NASA, and flying satellites for the US military.

    Musk may quibble that payments for goods and services aren’t government subsidies but he owes the existence of the company to NASA. If the US space agency hadn’t backed the rocket-maker with a critical contract in 2008, the company likely would have failed.

    Moreover, SpaceX’s business model has been working with NASA to develop space vehicles like the Falcon 9 and Dragon that it can then offer to private customers. These public-private partnerships have saved money for the government while helping to create a surge in private space activity; they aren’t the result of an entrepreneur acting alone. Meanwhile, SpaceX sought and is still seeking $885 million in government funding to support broadband access in rural communities.

    Regarding Tesla, it noted:

    Tesla, on the other hand, has actually benefitted from a number of outright subsidies created by the US government to encourage the development of electric vehicles to reduce carbon emissions. Notably, the auto company received a $465 million preferential loan from the US Department of Energy in 2010, which it paid off in 2013.

    Through 2020, the company benefited significantly from tax credits given to consumers who buy electric cars, which have reduced the cost of Tesla vehicles by $4,000 to $7,500. One attempt to track all these subsidies, including state and local incentives to support manufacturing facilities, estimates the total benefits at nearly $3 billion.

    Others pointed out that a ‘desperate’ Musk is no doubt eyeing up the further tax cuts Trump will deliver – cuts which Rolling Stone described as “a bonanza for Big Oil, big corporations, and the ultra-wealthy”:

    One giant lump for man…

    As everyone knows by this point, Musk is a gormless pan handler with all the charisma of a colonoscopy.

    Of course he’d jump up and down like an alien trying to imitate human behaviour. There’s an outside chance this man actually came from Mars, and that his career to date is all an attempt to get back home.

    But maybe he’s actually a cool guy on his home planet. If that’s the case, we really should set up a base there, if only to act as a dumping ground for all the people like him.

    Featured image via FOX 4

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Is big tech harmful? The research is being manipulated by big tech itself

    For almost a decade, researchers have been gathering evidence that the social media platform Facebook disproportionately amplifies low-quality content and misinformation. So it was something of a surprise when in 2023 the journal Science published a study that found Facebook’s algorithms were not major drivers of misinformation during the 2020 United States election. This study…

    The post Is big tech harmful? The research is being manipulated by big tech itself appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Saudi fitness instructor stabbed in face while jailed over women’s rights posts

    Pen used in assault on Manahel al-Otaibi, who has been imprisoned for 11 years for ‘terrorist’ tweets after secret trial

    A Saudi Arabian fitness instructor and influencer has been stabbed in the face in prison after being jailed in January for promoting women’s rights on social media.

    Manahel al-Otaibi, 30, was sentenced to 11 years in prison for “terrorist offences” in a secret trial that generated widespread criticism, with activists saying it showed the “hollowness” of Saudi progress in human rights.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • New research shows anti-migrant posts spread faster and further across racist cesspit Twitter

    Twitter (now X) is a hotbed of anti-migrant racism. Notably, anti-immigration tweets spread one and a half times quicker on the site when it was Twitter than pro-immigration posts. What’s more, a tiny number of users expressing anti-migrant sentiments were responsible for both the production and spread of this content.

    These are the results of a study of more than 200,000 tweets from 2019 and 2020 on the social media site. Of course, this was before Musk took over the site – showing that some of the problems were there already.

    Twitter: a hotbed of anti-migrant racism

    Andrea Nasuto and Francisco Rowe of the Geographic Data Science Lab at the University of Liverpool in the UK, have presented these findings in the open-access journal ‘PLOS ONE’.

    Nasuto and Rowe analysed 220,870 immigration-related tweets posted in the UK from December 2019 through April 2020. Specifically, they applied natural language processing methods and social network science to explore the three factors. To do so, they built a ‘ChatGPT-like’ language model to identify different stances towards immigration.

    Their analysis confirmed a high degree of polarisation between networks of pro and anti-immigration Twitter users in the UK during the study period.

    While, the pro-immigration community was 1.69 times larger in number than the anti-immigration community, they had far less reach. Crucially, the anti-immigration community was more active and engaged to a greater degree with each other’s content.

    In particular, they identified how anti-immigration content spreads 1.66 times faster than pro-immigration content.

    Significantly, they found that within the anti-immigration community, the top 1% of users generated about 23% of anti-immigration tweets.

    Largely, bots weren’t hugely influential for either pro or anti-immigration tweets. Overall, they appeared to make up less than 1% of all key producers and spreaders of pro or anti-immigration content.

    From social media to real-world violence

    There were other stark differences between pro-immigration and anti-immigration users on the platform too.

    The top 1% of pro-immigration posters generated almost half the proportion that anti-immigration users produced. This was 12% to anti-immigration users 23%.

    Furthermore, the difference was even more pronounced amongst those who disseminated this content. Anti-immigration users comprised over 70% of top 1% spreader accounts – those that retweeted posts. On top of this, while the top 1% spreaders of anti-immigration users generated over 21% of the total retweets of this content, pro-immigration spreaders in the top 1% accounted for markedly less than this. They retweeted little over 6% of the total pro-immigration retweets.

    The researchers noted the potential for online anti-immigration content to provoke real-world harm, including violence. On the basis of their findings, they suggested that efforts to curb online hate content might benefit from identification and monitoring of highly active anti-immigration users.

    The authors stated that:

    A concentrated effort by a few can amplify a message far beyond its origins, redefining the power dynamics of social media.

    Crucially, in the research itself, the study authors suggested that:

    The extent of the polarization in the online public debate on immigration-related issues in the UK could enhance online violence which can ultimately trickle down to physical actions towards migrants and minorities.

    Therefore, the findings are particularly pertinent in light of the UK’s recent race riots. Notably, the authors argued that:

    The speed at which anti-immigration content circulates is more than just alarming—it’s dangerous. England’s recent events reveal how fast online narratives can incite real-world violence.

    Of course, the data pre-dated these recent events. However, the authors essentially suggested that if this anti-immigration trend has continued on the platform, this type of real-world violence could easily be the result.

    Other studies have revealed how the right-wing has swelled on the platform under Musk. And given disinformation on X was partly to blame for fanning the flames of the fascist far-right pogroms, this assessment seems plausible.

    The new study might have analysed Twitter from 2019 to 2020, but it still holds relevance for the ongoing impacts of unfettered bigotry festering online. When racist vitriol spills over from social media, marginalised communities will pay the price.

    Feature image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Childish Fantasies: Age Verification for Social Media Down Under

    The Australian government has been in a banning mood of late.  In keeping with an old, puritanical tradition, the killjoys and wowsers have seized the reins of power and snorting a good deal while doing so.  In important matters such as anti-corruption and environmental protection, the government of Anthony Albanese is showing fewer teeth and no gumption.  On foreign policy, it has proved craven in its Middle Eastern policy, obsequious to the United States, to which it has handed the wealth of the land to in the event of any future conflict Washington wishes to fight.

    With such an impoverished policy front, other areas for righteous indignation have been sought.  And there is no better trendy (and trending) target than the devilry that is social media, traduced for creating any number of vague maladies of society.

    Within such ills, one boringly conventional group has been found.  When the wowsers are in charge, chances are they will always pick out the vulnerabilities of children and do their utmost to politicise them.  Spare them, demands Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, from using and opening social media accounts unless they are of a certain age.  (He’s not quite too sure where to draw the line – a politician’s old dilemma.)  Keep them innocent from the horrors that lurk in the minefield that used to be quaintly called the Information Superhighway.  Let government officials, supposedly in league with parents evidently incapable of influencing let alone instructing their children, come up with appropriate ditches, moats, and other barriers to guard against the digital monsters that approach the keep.

    Inspired by South Australia’s breathtakingly naïve Children (Social Media Safety) Bill 2024 to fine social media companies indifferent to excluding children under the age of 14 from using their platforms, along with a report by former High Court Chief Justice Robert French on how this might be done, the PM told the ABC that he was “committed to introducing legislation before the end of this year for age verification to make sure we get young people away from social harm.”  Such harm was “a scourge”, involving, for instance, online bullying, or “material which causes social harm”.

    Typical to such proposals is the wistful glance to things past, preferably idealised and unblemished.  Albanese’s is curiously shorn of books and libraries.  “I want to see kids off their devices and onto the footy fields and the swimming pools and the tennis courts.”  That’s were the more traditional, good spirited bullying takes place.

    These laws are yet another effort to concentrate power and responsibilities best held by the citizenry, especially when it comes to decisions for individuals and family, in the hands of a bureaucratic-political class remunerated for reasons of paranoia and almost entirely devoid of merit.

    Even before it reaches the legislative stage, sensible heads can spot the canyon like flaws in such verification regulations.  Lisa Given, who cuts her teeth on studying information technology, calls it, with rank understatement, “a very problematic move.”  By adopting such a prohibitive position, children also risked being excluded “from some very, very helpful supports on social media.”

    Child advocacy group Alannah and Madeline take the firm view that raising the age is a sniff and a sneeze at the broader problem, band aid and the shallowest of balms.  “The real issue is the underlying design elements of social media and its algorithms, recommender systems, and data harvesting, which can expose children and young people to inappropriate and harmful content, misinformation, predatory behaviour and other damaging harms such as extortion.”

    This dotty regime is also based on the premise it will survive circumvention.  It won’t.  Children will find a way, and technology will afford them the basis of doing so.  In May, documents uncovered under Freedom of Information by Guardian Australia identified that the government’s own communications department had doubts.

    One document surveying the international state of age assurance technology dispiritingly noted that: “No countries have implemented an age verification mandate without issue.”  The UK’s Digital Economy Act 2017, which gave the regulator powers to impose penalties on websites not using age implementation systems to prevent minors accessing pornography, failed. The reasons: “multiple delays, technical difficulties and community concern for privacy”.  (A current scheme in the UK, still in early stages, only applies to adult sites, not social media.)

    Legal challenges are also noted in countries where age verification requirements have been imposed.  In France, the age verification law gives websites the latitude to decide age verification for their users. In December 2021, Arcom, the digital regulator, commenced legal action against non-compliant websites in an effort to block them.  To date, the issue remains bogged down in the courts.  A similar law in Germany has also “faced difficulty in compliance and enforcement, with attempts to block non-compliant websites currently before the courts.”

    In the United States – and here, the warning is prescient – attempts to block access in a number of states have seen defiant subversion.  In Utah, the demand for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) merrily rose by almost 1,000% following the announcement of a law imposing age verification requirements for porn sites.  In Louisiana, VPN usage increased threefold after the commencement of a similar law.

    The lists of defects in such proposals are monumentally impressive.  Broadly speaking, they work (and fail) on the infantilisation principle.  Children must be kept childlike by adults who fear growth.  Keeping children immature and cocooned to certain realities, however ghastly, is a recipe for lifelong dysfunction and psychiatric bills.  It is an incentive to deny that actions have consequences, that learning can be damnably difficult though, in many instances, deliciously rewarding.  Instead of encouraging fine circumspection and growing maturity, these laws encourage comforting insularity and prolonged immaturity.

    The post Childish Fantasies: Age Verification for Social Media Down Under first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Lies about Haitians reflect racist imperialism

    A crass new iteration of anti-Haitianism has recently received a remarkable amount of attention. This novel form of racism with deep anti-Black roots was even referenced in the US presidential debate.

    Recently racist and ignorant social media users have circulated the idea that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating pets. US Vice presidential candidate JD Vance greatly boosted the anti-Haitian claim with a post to X stating, “Months ago, I raised the issue of Haitian illegal immigrants draining social services and generally causing chaos all over Springfield, Ohio. Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn’t be in this country.”

    Vance’s X post had over 11 million views with Donald Trump even referencing the claim in the presidential debate. This despite an absence of any evidence whatsoever. Springfield officials haven’t received any credible reports of Haitian immigrants abducting and eating pets.

    The ‘Haitians eat pets’ tale is the latest in a long line of anti-Haitian claims. In the early 1980s Haitians were stigmatized as the originators of the HIV virus in the US. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) labeled Haitians as a risk group, which gave rise to “the 4-H’s” designation of Homosexuals, Hemophiliacs, Heroin addicts and Haitians. At the time the Canadian Red Cross publicly identified Haitians as a “high-risk” group for AIDS, the only nationality singled out. In 1983 they called on homosexuals and bisexuals with multiple partners, intravenous drug users, hemophiliacs and recent immigrants from Haiti to voluntarily stop giving blood. A Canadian government pamphlet, which was distributed in shopping malls, also linked Haitians with AIDS. Again, this was despite a lack of evidence that the incidence of AIDS in Haiti was greater than in the US. By 1987 it was lower in Haiti than in the US and other Caribbean nations. But, as a result of the unfounded stigmatization, the country’s significant tourism basically collapsed overnight. Out of fear the virus may transmit through goods, some Haitian exports were even blocked from entering the US!

    The Haitians are responsible for AIDS allegation still pops up. During an explosion of xenophobia against Haitian migrants in Guyana in 2019 reports focused on HIV/AIDS and Voodoo and in a 2016 radio outburst former Canadian Member of Parliament, André Arthur, labeled Haiti a “sexually deviant” country populated by thieves and prostitutes responsible for HIV/AIDS.

    In another example of stigmatizing Haitians over disease, CDC incident manager for the Haiti cholera response, Jordan W. Tappero, blamed Haitian cultural norms for the 2010 cholera outbreak that caused tens of thousands of deaths. He told Associated Press journalist Jonathan Katz that Haitians don’t experience the “shame associated with open defecation.” As was then suspected and later confirmed, cholera was introduced to Haiti by UN forces who followed poor sanitation practices.

    Ten months earlier influential US pastor Pat Robertson suggested the terrible January 2010 earthquake that devastated Port-au-Prince and surrounding areas was due to a “deal made with Satan” two centuries earlier. Robertson claimed Haitians “were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever … And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.’ True story. And so, the devil said, ‘OK, it’s a deal.’” Robertson added, “you know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other.”

    Canadian Protestant groups have promoted similar thinking about the August 1791 Bwa Kayiman (Bois Caïman) Vodou ceremony that helped launch the Haitian Revolution. In “Haiti’s Pact with the Devil?: Bwa Kayiman, Haitian Protestant Views of Vodou, and the Future of Haiti” Bertin M. Louis points out that some Haitian Canadian Protestants believe Haiti was consecrated to the devil. Mainstream Canadian voices have repeatedly denigrated voodoo. After the 2004 US/France/Canada coup the National Post published an editorial headlined “Voodoo is not enough”, arguing for “a coalition of the willing to permanently extract the country from the quagmire. A 1952 Globe and Mail story attempting to be sympathetic to the country began by noting, “Haiti’s principal export is not, as popularly supposed, Zombies.” One of the first books to expose North Americans to the voodoo zombie was Magic Island, a 1929 book by William Buehler Seabrook. The book sensationalized encounters with voodoo cults in Haiti and their resurrected thralls.

    Voodoo has been demonized by white supremacist and Christian forces for over two centuries. Important for defeating slavery and securing Haitian independence, the religion offered spiritual/ideological strength to those who revolted against their slave masters in maybe the greatest example of liberation in the history of humanity.

    The 1791-1804 Haitian Revolution was simultaneously a struggle against slavery, colonialism and white supremacy. Defeating the French, British and Spanish empires, it led to freedom for all people regardless of colour, decades before this idea found traction in Europe or North America. The Haitian revolt rippled through the region and compelled the post-French Revolution government in Paris to abolish slavery in its Caribbean colonies. It also spurred London’s 1807 Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade.

    The Haitian Revolution led to the world’s first and only successful large-scale slave revolution. “Arguably”, notes Peter Hallward, “there is no single event in the whole of modern history whose implications were more threatening to the dominant global order of things.”

    But, in the aftermath of the Haitian Revolution thousands of photos, articles and books denigrated Haiti, depicting the slaves as barbaric despise the fact 350,000 Africans were killed, versus 75,000 Europeans, over the 13 years. Anti-Haitianism has deep roots.

    It’s easy to mock those who claim Haitian immigrants are eating cats. But overt anti-Haitianism is also relayed by ‘sophisticated’ liberals. Their high-minded commentaries calling for foreign tutelage of the country appear regularly in the pages of the Globe and Mail and Boston Globe.

    Anti-Haitianism flows out of and reinforces the country’s weakness, which is spurred by imperial domination. Technically “independent” for more than two centuries, outsiders have long shaped Haitian affairs. Through isolation, economic asphyxiation, debt dependence, gunboat diplomacy, occupation, foreignsupported dictatorships, structural adjustment programs, “democracy promotion”, coups and rigged elections, Haiti is no stranger to the various forms of foreign political manipulation.

    JD Vance’s anti-Haitian musings have deep roots in centuries of anti-Black racism and US imperial ambitions. All those who fail to support real Haitian independenc are tainted by this legacy and present-day reality.

    The post Lies about Haitians reflect racist imperialism first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Contemplation: Which Values, What Actions?

    By mediating between our minds and social reality, the all-encompassing communications media processes such raw social facts into more digestible morsels of factoids, benighted biases, ignorant assumptions, distorted opinions, and alluring pseudo-pleasures.

    But imagine the following scenario: all interactive media break down.  Silence–and a blank, darkened screen.  No more conditioning and intermittent reinforcement and puppeteering–which string us along the information-glutted blind alley with its deafening roar of talktalktalk.

    Cognitive dissonance: one sits alone, or perhaps fetishistically fondles one’s dead smartphone, Aladdin-like.  Panic: what is one to think?  But then, almost imperceptibly… one’s mind enters a state of relaxation, even repose.  Freed from the constant stream of intrusions and distractions, one has time to reflect:

    “What exactly have I been doing–and why?  And where am I going with all this?

    What are the possible negative (unintended) outcomes of all this unremitting effort?

    Will this undeviating path turn into a blind alley–and lead to new problems?  And who decided on the impositions which structure my life?”

    Suddenly liberated from the pseudo-activity of constant re-activity (“messages,” “tweets,” “alerts”), one feels adrift.  Adrift and floating freely, into the rediscovered realm of self-awareness and conscientious reflection.  Coming up for air, so to speak, one may feel the rush of new insights and creative alternatives.  One suddenly recalls: didn’t Socrates himself remind us that “the unexamined life is not worth living”?

    Each individual, even in an emerging totalitarian technocracy, retains a secret treasure: the capacity for inner enlightenment (and the resolve to retain an optimal degree of autonomous self-direction).  Deep in thought, one may resemble Rodin’s brooding sculpture of The Thinker (who is not smiling).

    Drastic measures may be necessary.  Despite the weight of insidious habituation–which over time has normalized a world of nuclear arsenals and melting ice caps–one may fiercely resist the all-encompassing impositions which are falsely presented as desirable choices.  Modern medicine: drugs, drugs, and more drugs.  The “smartphone”: a brazen invasion of one’s privacy, volition–and dignity.  “Democratic” elections: lies, lies, and more lies.  The trivialization of one’s social encounters: excessive chatter and pointless garrulity.  The binary fallacy of two “genders”: rather, simply two sexes with an overwhelmingly shared set of (human) emotional and behavioral predispositions.  A lifelong occupation or “career”: for what, exactly?  The “necessity” of a relationship: personal fulfillment or constant adjustment to the expectations of another?

    It may appear that I am advocating a solipsistic withdrawal from socio-political engagement and  activism.  But, paradoxically, a revolution in values begins in the free thought of each individual.  And it is only in those precious periods of solitude that the individual feels free to transcend what Karl Marx, solitary thinker par excellence, termed the socially prevailing false consciousness.

    Moreover, given the constants of human needs and aspirations, individuals who regain such contemplative awareness are likely to realize the same new values and alternate solutions which can revitalize communal cooperation.  The first step, anticipated by Thoreau and Gandhi, is negative revolt: non-cooperation, non-participation, and, to a large degree, “not-doing” (Lao-Tze).  Or, in contrast to the frenzied, pointless activity all around us: “Don’t just do something, sit there.”

    The post Contemplation: Which Values, What Actions? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Rightwing astroturfers infiltrate Australian local councils, fire up unrest over Israel

    With similar Israel divestment motions having been passed at City of Sydney and Canterbury/Bankstown Councils, many had expected the motion to pass in what is supposed to be one of the most progressive areas of Sydney. Wendy Bacon reports on what went wrong.

    INVESTIGATION: By Wendy Bacon

    Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and the West Bank is tearing apart local councils in Australia, on top of the angst reverberating around state and federal politics.

    Inner West Labor Mayor Darcy Byrne has doubled down on his attack on pro-Palestinian activists at the council’s last election meeting before Australia’s local government elections on September 14.

    ‘Byrne’s attack echoes an astro-turfing campaign supported by rightwing and pro-Israel groups targeting the Greens in inner city electorates.’

    • READ MORE: Other articles by Wendy Bacon

    With Labor narrowly controlling the council by one vote, the election loomed large over the meeting. It also coincided with a campaign backed by rightwing pro-Israeli groups to eliminate Greens from several inner Sydney councils.

    In August, Labor councillors voted down a motion for an audit of whether any Inner West Council (IWC) investments or contracts benefit companies involved in the weapons industry or profit from human rights violations in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

    The motion that was defeated had also called for an insertion of a general “human rights” provision in council’s investment policy.

    With similar motions having been passed at City of Sydney and Canterbury/Bankstown councils, many had expected the motion to pass in what is supposed to be one of the most progressive areas of Sydney.

    It could have been a first step towards the Inner West Council joining the worldwide BDS (boycotts, disinvestments and economic sanctions) campaign to pressure Israel to meet its obligations under international law.

    MWM sources attest that the ructions at Inner West Council are mirrored elsewhere in local government. This from Randwick in Sydney’s East:

    Randwick Council
    Randwick Council: MWM source

    Global to grassroots
    Last week, Portland Council in Maine became the fifth United States city to join the campaign this year, while the City of Ixelles in Belgium announced that it had suspended its twinning agreement with the Regional Council of Megiddo in Israel.

    When the Inner West motion failed, some Palestinian rights campaigners booed and shouted “shame” at Labor councillors as they sat silently in the chamber. The meeting, which had nearly reached its time limit of five hours, was then adjourned.

    Byrne’s alternative motion was debated at last week’s meeting. It restates council’s existing policy and Federal Labor’s current stance that calls for a ceasefire and a two-state solution.

    This alternative motion was passed by Labor councillors, with the Greens and two Independents voting against it. Both Independent Councillor Pauline Lockie and Greens Councillor Liz Atkins argued that they were opposing the motion because it did not do or change anything.

    The Mayor spent most of his speaking time attacking those involved with protesting at the August meeting. He described their behaviour as  “unacceptable, undemocratic and disrespectful”. There is no doubt that the behaviour at the meeting breached the rules of meeting behaviour at some times.

    But then Byrne made a much more shocking and unexpected allegation. He said that the “worst element” of the behaviour was that “local Inner West citizens who happened to have a Jewish sounding name, when their names were read out by me because they’d registered . . . to speak, I think all of them were booed and hissed just because their names happened to sound Jewish.”

    News Corp propaganda
    This claim is deeply disturbing. If true, such behaviour would definitely be anti-semitic and racist. But the question is: did such behaviour actually happen? Or does this allegation feed into Byrne’s misleading narrative that had fuelled false News Corporation reports that protesters stormed the meeting?

    In fact, the protesters had been invited to the meeting by the Mayor.

    This reporter was present throughout the meeting and did not observe anything similar to what the Mayor alleged had happened.

    Later in the meeting, the Mayor repeated the allegation that the “booing and hissing of people” based “on the fact that they had a Jewish sounding name constituted anti-semitism”.

    Retiring Independent Councillor Pauline Locker intervened: “Sorry, point of order, That isn’t actually what happened. . . . It wasn’t based on their Jewish name.”

    But Bryne insisted, “That’s not a point of order — that is what happened. It is what the record shows occurred as does the media reportage.”

    Other councillors also distanced themselves from Byrne’s allegation. Independent Councillor John Stamolis also said that although he could not judge how the Mayor or other Labor councillors felt on the evening, he could not agree with Byrne’s description or that it described what other councillors or members of the public experienced on the evening.

    Greens Councillor Liz Atkins said that there were different perceptions of what happened on the night. Her perception was that the “booing and hissing” was in relation to support for the substance of the Greens motion for an audit of investments rather than an attack on people who spoke against it.

    She also said that credit should be given to pro- Palestinian activists who themselves encouraged people to listen quietly.

    Fake antisemitism claims
    Your reporter asked Rosanna Barbero, who also was present throughout the meeting, what she observed. Barbero was the recipient of this year’s Multicultural NSW Human Rights Medal, recognising her lasting and meaningful contribution to human rights in NSW.

    She is also a member of the Inner West Multicultural Network that has helped council develop an anti-racism strategy.

    “I did not witness any racist comments,” said Barbero.

    Barbero confirmed that she was present throughout the meeting and said: “I did not witness any racist comments. The meeting was recorded so the evidence of that is easy to verify.”

    So this reporter, in a story for City Hub, took her advice and went to the evidence in the webcast, which provides a public record of what occurred. The soundtrack is clear. A listener can pick up when comments are made by audience members but not necessarily the content of them.

    Bryne has alleged speakers against the motion were booed when their “Jewish sounding’ names were announced. Our analysis shows none of the five were booed or abused in any way when their names were announced.

    There was, in fact, silence.

    Five speakers identified themselves as Jewish. Four spoke against the motion, and one in favour.

    Two of the five were heard in complete silence, one with some small applause at the end.

    One woman who spoke in favour of the motion and whose grandparents were in the Holocaust was applauded and cheered at the end of her speech.

    One man was interrupted by several comments from the gallery when he said the motion was based on “propaganda and disinformation” and would lead to a lack of social cohesion. He related experiences of anti-semitism when he was at school in the Inner West 14 years ago.

    At the conclusion of his speech, there were some boos.

    One man who had not successfully registered was added to the speakers list by the Mayor. Some people in the public gallery objected to this decision. The Mayor adjourned the meeting for three minutes and the speaker was then heard in silence.

    The speakers in favour of the motion, most of whom had Palestinian backgrounds and relatives who had suffered expulsion from their homelands, concentrated on the war crimes against Palestinians and the importance of BDS motions. There were no personal attacks on speakers against the motion.

    In response to a Jewish speaker who had argued that the solution was peace initiatives, one Palestinian speaker said that he wanted “liberation”, not “peace”.

    Weaponising accusations of anti-semitism to shut down debate
    Independent Inner West Councillor Pauline Lockie warned other councillors this week about the need to be careful about weaponising accusations of race and anti-semitism to shut down debates. Like Barbero, Lockie has played a leadership role in developing anti-racism strategies for the Inner West.

    There are three serious concerns about Byrne’s allegations. The first concern is that they are not verified by the public record. This raises questions about the Mayor’s judgement and credibility.

    The second is that making unsubstantiated allegations of antisemitism for the tactical purposes of winning a political argument demeans the seriousness and tragedy of anti-semitism.

    Thirdly, there is a concern that spreading unsubstantiated allegations of anti-semitism could cause harm by spreading fear and anxiety in the Jewish community.

    Controversial Christian minister
    The most provocative speaker on the evening was not one of those who identified themselves as Jewish. It was Reverend Mark Leach, who introduced himself as an Anglican minister from Balmain. When he said that no one could reasonably apply the word “genocide” to what was occurring in Gaza, several people called out his comments.

    Given the ICJ finding that a plausible genocide is occurring in Gaza, this was not surprising.

    Darcy Byrne then stopped the meeting and gave Reverend Leach a small amount of further time to speak. Later in his speech, Reverend Leach described the motion itself as “deeply racist” because it held Israel accountable above all other states.

    Boos for Leach
    In fact, the motion would have added a general human rights provision to the investment policy which would have applied to any country. Reverend Leach was booed at the conclusion of his speech.

    One speaker later said that she could not understand how this Christian minister would not accept that the word “genocide” could be used. This was not an anti-semitic or racist comment.

    Throughout the debate, Byrne avoided the issue that the motion only called for an audit.

    He also used his position of chair to directly question councillors. The following exchange occurred with Councillor Liz Atkins:

    Mayor: Councilor Atkins, can I put to you a question? I have received advice that councillor officers are unaware of any investment from council that is complicit in the Israeli military operations in Gaza and the Palestinian territories. Are you aware of any?

    Atkins:  No. That’s why the motion asked for an audit of our investments and procurements.

    Mayor:  I’ll put one further question to you. The organisers of the protest outside the chamber and the subsequent overrunning of the council chamber asserted in their promotion of the event that the council was complicit in genocide. Is that your view?

    Atkins:  I don’t know. Until we do an audit, Mayor . . . Can I just take exception with the point of view that they “overran” the meeting? You invited them all in, and not one of them tried to get past a simple rope barrier.

    Byrne says it’s immoral to support a one-party state
    During the debate, Byrne surprisingly described support for a one-state solution for Israel and Palestinians as “immoral”. He described support for “one state” as meaning you either supported the wiping out of the Palestinians or the Israelis.

    In fact, there is a long history of citizens, scholars and other commentators who have argued that one secular state of equal citizens is the only viable solution.

    Many, including the Australian government, do not agree. Nevertheless, the award-winning journalist and expert on the Middle East, Antony Loewenstein, argued that position in The Sydney Morning Herald in November 2023.

    Mayor in tune with Better Council Inc campaign
    All of this debate is happening in the context of the hotly contested election campaign. The Mayor is understandably preoccupied with the impending poll. Rather than debating the issues, he finished the debate by launching an attack on the Greens, which sounded more like an election speech than a speech in reply in support of his motion.

    Byrne said: “Some councillors are unwilling to condemn what was overt anti-Semitism”.

    This is a heavy accusation. All councillors are strongly opposed to anti-semitism. The record does not show any overt anti-semitism.

    Byrne went on: “But the more troubling thing is that there’s a large number of candidates running at this election who, if elected, will be making foreign affairs and this particular issue one of the central concerns of this council.

    “This will result in a distraction with services going backwards and rates going up.”

    In fact, the record shows that the Greens are just as focused on local issues as any other councillors. Even at last week’s meeting, Councillor Liz Atkins brought forward a motion about controversial moves to install a temporary cafe at Camperdown Park that would privatise public space and for which there had been no consultation.

    Labor v Greens
    Byrne’s message pitting concern about broader issues against local concerns is in tune with the messaging of a recently formed group called Better Council Inc. that is targeting the Greens throughout the Inner West and in Randwick and Waverley.

    Placards saying “Put the Greens last”, “Keep the Greens Garbage out of Council” featuring a number of Greens candidates have gone up across Sydney. Some claim that the Greens are fixated on Gaza and ignore local issues.

    Better Inc.’s material is authorised by Sophie Calland. She is a recently graduated computer engineer who told the Daily Telegraph that “she was a Labor member and that Better Council involves people from across the political aisle — even some former Greens.”

    She described the group as a “grassroots group of young professionals” who wanted local government officials to focus on local issues.

    “We believe local councils should concentrate on essential community services like waste management, local infrastructure, and the environment. That’s what councils are there for — looking after the needs of their immediate communities.”

    On Saturday, Randwick Greens Councillor Kym Chapple was at a pre-poll booth at which a Better Council Inc. campaigner was handing out material specifically recommending that voters put her last.

    Chapple tweeted that the Better councilwoman didn’t actually know that she was a councillor or any of the local issues in which she had been involved.

    “That does not look like a local grassroots campaign. It’s an attempt to intimidate people who support a free Palestine. Anyway, it feels gross to have someone say to put you last because they care about the environment and local issues when that’s literally what you have done for three years.”

    She then tweeted a long list of her local campaign successes.

    Never Again is Now astroturf campaign
    In fact, the actual work of distributing the leaflets is being done by a group spearheaded by none other than Reverend Mark Leach, who spoke at the Inner West Council meeting. Leach is one of the coordinators of the pro-Israel right-wing Christian group Never Again is Now.

    The group is organising rallies around Australia to campaign against anti-semitism.

    Reverend Mark Leach works closely with his daughter Freya Leach, who stood for the Liberal Party for the seat of Balmain in the 2023 state election and is associated with the rightwing Menzies Institute. Mark Leach describes himself as “working to renew the mind and heart of our culture against the backdrop of the radical left, Jihadist Islam and rising authoritarianism.

    Leach’s own Twitter account shows that he embraces a range of rightwing causes. He is anti-trans, supports anti-immigration campaigners in the UK and has posted a jolly video of himself with Warren Mundine at a pro-Israeli rally in Melbourne.

    Mundine was a No campaign spokesperson for the rightwing group Advance Australia during the Voice referendum.

    Leach supports the Christian Lobby and is very critical of Christians who are campaigning for peace.

    Anti-semitism exists. The problem is that Reverend Leach’s version of anti-semitism is what international law and human rights bodies regard as protesting against genocidal war crimes.

    For #NeverAgainisNow, these atrocities are excusable for a state that is pursuing its right of “self-defence”. And if you don’t agree with that, don’t be surprised if you find yourself branded as not just “anti-semitic” but also a bullying extremist.

    As of one week before the local government election, the Never Again is Now was holding a Zoom meeting to organise 400 volunteers to get 50,000 leaflets into the hands of voters at next Saturday’s local election.

    This may well be just a dress rehearsal for a much bigger effort at the Federal election, where Advance Australia has announced it is planning to target the Greens.

    Wendy Bacon is an investigative journalist who was professor of journalism at UTS. She has worked for Fairfax, Channel Nine and SBS and has published in The Guardian, New Matilda, City Hub and Overland. She has a long history in promoting independent and alternative journalism. She is not a member of any political party but is a Greens supporter and long-term supporter of peaceful BDS strategies. Republished from Michael West Media with the author’s permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Rightwing astroturfers infiltrate Australian local councils, fire up unrest over Israel

    With similar Israel divestment motions having been passed at City of Sydney and Canterbury/Bankstown Councils, many had expected the motion to pass in what is supposed to be one of the most progressive areas of Sydney. Wendy Bacon reports on what went wrong.

    INVESTIGATION: By Wendy Bacon

    Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and the West Bank is tearing apart local councils in Australia, on top of the angst reverberating around state and federal politics.

    Inner West Labor Mayor Darcy Byrne has doubled down on his attack on pro-Palestinian activists at the council’s last election meeting before Australia’s local government elections on September 14.

    ‘Byrne’s attack echoes an astro-turfing campaign supported by rightwing and pro-Israel groups targeting the Greens in inner city electorates.’

    • READ MORE: Other articles by Wendy Bacon

    With Labor narrowly controlling the council by one vote, the election loomed large over the meeting. It also coincided with a campaign backed by rightwing pro-Israeli groups to eliminate Greens from several inner Sydney councils.

    In August, Labor councillors voted down a motion for an audit of whether any Inner West Council (IWC) investments or contracts benefit companies involved in the weapons industry or profit from human rights violations in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

    The motion that was defeated had also called for an insertion of a general “human rights” provision in council’s investment policy.

    With similar motions having been passed at City of Sydney and Canterbury/Bankstown councils, many had expected the motion to pass in what is supposed to be one of the most progressive areas of Sydney.

    It could have been a first step towards the Inner West Council joining the worldwide BDS (boycotts, disinvestments and economic sanctions) campaign to pressure Israel to meet its obligations under international law.

    MWM sources attest that the ructions at Inner West Council are mirrored elsewhere in local government. This from Randwick in Sydney’s East:

    Randwick Council
    Randwick Council: MWM source

    Global to grassroots
    Last week, Portland Council in Maine became the fifth United States city to join the campaign this year, while the City of Ixelles in Belgium announced that it had suspended its twinning agreement with the Regional Council of Megiddo in Israel.

    When the Inner West motion failed, some Palestinian rights campaigners booed and shouted “shame” at Labor councillors as they sat silently in the chamber. The meeting, which had nearly reached its time limit of five hours, was then adjourned.

    Byrne’s alternative motion was debated at last week’s meeting. It restates council’s existing policy and Federal Labor’s current stance that calls for a ceasefire and a two-state solution.

    This alternative motion was passed by Labor councillors, with the Greens and two Independents voting against it. Both Independent Councillor Pauline Lockie and Greens Councillor Liz Atkins argued that they were opposing the motion because it did not do or change anything.

    The Mayor spent most of his speaking time attacking those involved with protesting at the August meeting. He described their behaviour as  “unacceptable, undemocratic and disrespectful”. There is no doubt that the behaviour at the meeting breached the rules of meeting behaviour at some times.

    But then Byrne made a much more shocking and unexpected allegation. He said that the “worst element” of the behaviour was that “local Inner West citizens who happened to have a Jewish sounding name, when their names were read out by me because they’d registered . . . to speak, I think all of them were booed and hissed just because their names happened to sound Jewish.”

    News Corp propaganda
    This claim is deeply disturbing. If true, such behaviour would definitely be anti-semitic and racist. But the question is: did such behaviour actually happen? Or does this allegation feed into Byrne’s misleading narrative that had fuelled false News Corporation reports that protesters stormed the meeting?

    In fact, the protesters had been invited to the meeting by the Mayor.

    This reporter was present throughout the meeting and did not observe anything similar to what the Mayor alleged had happened.

    Later in the meeting, the Mayor repeated the allegation that the “booing and hissing of people” based “on the fact that they had a Jewish sounding name constituted anti-semitism”.

    Retiring Independent Councillor Pauline Locker intervened: “Sorry, point of order, That isn’t actually what happened. . . . It wasn’t based on their Jewish name.”

    But Bryne insisted, “That’s not a point of order — that is what happened. It is what the record shows occurred as does the media reportage.”

    Other councillors also distanced themselves from Byrne’s allegation. Independent Councillor John Stamolis also said that although he could not judge how the Mayor or other Labor councillors felt on the evening, he could not agree with Byrne’s description or that it described what other councillors or members of the public experienced on the evening.

    Greens Councillor Liz Atkins said that there were different perceptions of what happened on the night. Her perception was that the “booing and hissing” was in relation to support for the substance of the Greens motion for an audit of investments rather than an attack on people who spoke against it.

    She also said that credit should be given to pro- Palestinian activists who themselves encouraged people to listen quietly.

    Fake antisemitism claims
    Your reporter asked Rosanna Barbero, who also was present throughout the meeting, what she observed. Barbero was the recipient of this year’s Multicultural NSW Human Rights Medal, recognising her lasting and meaningful contribution to human rights in NSW.

    She is also a member of the Inner West Multicultural Network that has helped council develop an anti-racism strategy.

    “I did not witness any racist comments,” said Barbero.

    Barbero confirmed that she was present throughout the meeting and said: “I did not witness any racist comments. The meeting was recorded so the evidence of that is easy to verify.”

    So this reporter, in a story for City Hub, took her advice and went to the evidence in the webcast, which provides a public record of what occurred. The soundtrack is clear. A listener can pick up when comments are made by audience members but not necessarily the content of them.

    Bryne has alleged speakers against the motion were booed when their “Jewish sounding’ names were announced. Our analysis shows none of the five were booed or abused in any way when their names were announced.

    There was, in fact, silence.

    Five speakers identified themselves as Jewish. Four spoke against the motion, and one in favour.

    Two of the five were heard in complete silence, one with some small applause at the end.

    One woman who spoke in favour of the motion and whose grandparents were in the Holocaust was applauded and cheered at the end of her speech.

    One man was interrupted by several comments from the gallery when he said the motion was based on “propaganda and disinformation” and would lead to a lack of social cohesion. He related experiences of anti-semitism when he was at school in the Inner West 14 years ago.

    At the conclusion of his speech, there were some boos.

    One man who had not successfully registered was added to the speakers list by the Mayor. Some people in the public gallery objected to this decision. The Mayor adjourned the meeting for three minutes and the speaker was then heard in silence.

    The speakers in favour of the motion, most of whom had Palestinian backgrounds and relatives who had suffered expulsion from their homelands, concentrated on the war crimes against Palestinians and the importance of BDS motions. There were no personal attacks on speakers against the motion.

    In response to a Jewish speaker who had argued that the solution was peace initiatives, one Palestinian speaker said that he wanted “liberation”, not “peace”.

    Weaponising accusations of anti-semitism to shut down debate
    Independent Inner West Councillor Pauline Lockie warned other councillors this week about the need to be careful about weaponising accusations of race and anti-semitism to shut down debates. Like Barbero, Lockie has played a leadership role in developing anti-racism strategies for the Inner West.

    There are three serious concerns about Byrne’s allegations. The first concern is that they are not verified by the public record. This raises questions about the Mayor’s judgement and credibility.

    The second is that making unsubstantiated allegations of antisemitism for the tactical purposes of winning a political argument demeans the seriousness and tragedy of anti-semitism.

    Thirdly, there is a concern that spreading unsubstantiated allegations of anti-semitism could cause harm by spreading fear and anxiety in the Jewish community.

    Controversial Christian minister
    The most provocative speaker on the evening was not one of those who identified themselves as Jewish. It was Reverend Mark Leach, who introduced himself as an Anglican minister from Balmain. When he said that no one could reasonably apply the word “genocide” to what was occurring in Gaza, several people called out his comments.

    Given the ICJ finding that a plausible genocide is occurring in Gaza, this was not surprising.

    Darcy Byrne then stopped the meeting and gave Reverend Leach a small amount of further time to speak. Later in his speech, Reverend Leach described the motion itself as “deeply racist” because it held Israel accountable above all other states.

    Boos for Leach
    In fact, the motion would have added a general human rights provision to the investment policy which would have applied to any country. Reverend Leach was booed at the conclusion of his speech.

    One speaker later said that she could not understand how this Christian minister would not accept that the word “genocide” could be used. This was not an anti-semitic or racist comment.

    Throughout the debate, Byrne avoided the issue that the motion only called for an audit.

    He also used his position of chair to directly question councillors. The following exchange occurred with Councillor Liz Atkins:

    Mayor: Councilor Atkins, can I put to you a question? I have received advice that councillor officers are unaware of any investment from council that is complicit in the Israeli military operations in Gaza and the Palestinian territories. Are you aware of any?

    Atkins:  No. That’s why the motion asked for an audit of our investments and procurements.

    Mayor:  I’ll put one further question to you. The organisers of the protest outside the chamber and the subsequent overrunning of the council chamber asserted in their promotion of the event that the council was complicit in genocide. Is that your view?

    Atkins:  I don’t know. Until we do an audit, Mayor . . . Can I just take exception with the point of view that they “overran” the meeting? You invited them all in, and not one of them tried to get past a simple rope barrier.

    Byrne says it’s immoral to support a one-party state
    During the debate, Byrne surprisingly described support for a one-state solution for Israel and Palestinians as “immoral”. He described support for “one state” as meaning you either supported the wiping out of the Palestinians or the Israelis.

    In fact, there is a long history of citizens, scholars and other commentators who have argued that one secular state of equal citizens is the only viable solution.

    Many, including the Australian government, do not agree. Nevertheless, the award-winning journalist and expert on the Middle East, Antony Loewenstein, argued that position in The Sydney Morning Herald in November 2023.

    Mayor in tune with Better Council Inc campaign
    All of this debate is happening in the context of the hotly contested election campaign. The Mayor is understandably preoccupied with the impending poll. Rather than debating the issues, he finished the debate by launching an attack on the Greens, which sounded more like an election speech than a speech in reply in support of his motion.

    Byrne said: “Some councillors are unwilling to condemn what was overt anti-Semitism”.

    This is a heavy accusation. All councillors are strongly opposed to anti-semitism. The record does not show any overt anti-semitism.

    Byrne went on: “But the more troubling thing is that there’s a large number of candidates running at this election who, if elected, will be making foreign affairs and this particular issue one of the central concerns of this council.

    “This will result in a distraction with services going backwards and rates going up.”

    In fact, the record shows that the Greens are just as focused on local issues as any other councillors. Even at last week’s meeting, Councillor Liz Atkins brought forward a motion about controversial moves to install a temporary cafe at Camperdown Park that would privatise public space and for which there had been no consultation.

    Labor v Greens
    Byrne’s message pitting concern about broader issues against local concerns is in tune with the messaging of a recently formed group called Better Council Inc. that is targeting the Greens throughout the Inner West and in Randwick and Waverley.

    Placards saying “Put the Greens last”, “Keep the Greens Garbage out of Council” featuring a number of Greens candidates have gone up across Sydney. Some claim that the Greens are fixated on Gaza and ignore local issues.

    Better Inc.’s material is authorised by Sophie Calland. She is a recently graduated computer engineer who told the Daily Telegraph that “she was a Labor member and that Better Council involves people from across the political aisle — even some former Greens.”

    She described the group as a “grassroots group of young professionals” who wanted local government officials to focus on local issues.

    “We believe local councils should concentrate on essential community services like waste management, local infrastructure, and the environment. That’s what councils are there for — looking after the needs of their immediate communities.”

    On Saturday, Randwick Greens Councillor Kym Chapple was at a pre-poll booth at which a Better Council Inc. campaigner was handing out material specifically recommending that voters put her last.

    Chapple tweeted that the Better councilwoman didn’t actually know that she was a councillor or any of the local issues in which she had been involved.

    “That does not look like a local grassroots campaign. It’s an attempt to intimidate people who support a free Palestine. Anyway, it feels gross to have someone say to put you last because they care about the environment and local issues when that’s literally what you have done for three years.”

    She then tweeted a long list of her local campaign successes.

    Never Again is Now astroturf campaign
    In fact, the actual work of distributing the leaflets is being done by a group spearheaded by none other than Reverend Mark Leach, who spoke at the Inner West Council meeting. Leach is one of the coordinators of the pro-Israel right-wing Christian group Never Again is Now.

    The group is organising rallies around Australia to campaign against anti-semitism.

    Reverend Mark Leach works closely with his daughter Freya Leach, who stood for the Liberal Party for the seat of Balmain in the 2023 state election and is associated with the rightwing Menzies Institute. Mark Leach describes himself as “working to renew the mind and heart of our culture against the backdrop of the radical left, Jihadist Islam and rising authoritarianism.

    Leach’s own Twitter account shows that he embraces a range of rightwing causes. He is anti-trans, supports anti-immigration campaigners in the UK and has posted a jolly video of himself with Warren Mundine at a pro-Israeli rally in Melbourne.

    Mundine was a No campaign spokesperson for the rightwing group Advance Australia during the Voice referendum.

    Leach supports the Christian Lobby and is very critical of Christians who are campaigning for peace.

    Anti-semitism exists. The problem is that Reverend Leach’s version of anti-semitism is what international law and human rights bodies regard as protesting against genocidal war crimes.

    For #NeverAgainisNow, these atrocities are excusable for a state that is pursuing its right of “self-defence”. And if you don’t agree with that, don’t be surprised if you find yourself branded as not just “anti-semitic” but also a bullying extremist.

    As of one week before the local government election, the Never Again is Now was holding a Zoom meeting to organise 400 volunteers to get 50,000 leaflets into the hands of voters at next Saturday’s local election.

    This may well be just a dress rehearsal for a much bigger effort at the Federal election, where Advance Australia has announced it is planning to target the Greens.

    Wendy Bacon is an investigative journalist who was professor of journalism at UTS. She has worked for Fairfax, Channel Nine and SBS and has published in The Guardian, New Matilda, City Hub and Overland. She has a long history in promoting independent and alternative journalism. She is not a member of any political party but is a Greens supporter and long-term supporter of peaceful BDS strategies. Republished from Michael West Media with the author’s permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Govt readies age verification tech trial for social media ban

    New laws banning children under a certain age from social media platforms will be introduced in Australia, with age verification technology to be trialed as a way of limiting access before the end of October. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced nationwide minimum age requirements for social media and other digital platforms on Tuesday to better…

    The post Govt readies age verification tech trial for social media ban appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Mediawatch: Kiingi Tuheitia’s tangihanga – epic broadcast marks new epoch for te ao Māori

    RNZ MEDIAWATCH: By Colin Peacock, RNZ Mediawatch presenter

    “Anticipation is growing. The warriors are ready. They’re preparing themselves. The paddlers are already on their waka,” Scotty Morrison, alongside veteran journalist Tini Molyneux, told viewers from the banks of the Waikato River.

    It was Thursday, and the body of Kiingi Tuheitia was being escorted to the barge to take him to his resting place on Taupiri maunga.

    That prompted Morrison — the presenter of TVNZ’s Te Karere and Marae — to recall that council permission was required in 2006 for Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu to make the same journey.

    RNZ MEDIAWATCH AND READ MORE:

    Times have changed.

    “In 2008 after the Waikato River settlement … a request was put in by Waikato Tainui that they had more control over the river. This time they could say: ‘We’re taking our King on the awa at this particular time,’” Morrison said.

    “That’s mana motuhake for you,” Molyneux replied.

    Times have changed a lot for the media since 2006 too.

    Whakaata Māori now has two TV channels, which both carried live coverage of the ceremonies over five days.

    The Kiingitanga’s own channel also broadcast live throughout on YouTube and Facebook as well.

    The Kiingitanga’s own channel live broadcast.

    Another broadcaster who joined that epic broadcast on Friday, Matai Smith, reminded viewers that the notion of media is not what it was in 2006 either.

    “We know that we live in a world of TikTok and Instagram. [We know] the relevance of the Kiingitanga to Waikato Tainui, but also to us here in Aotearoa — and many of us could be seen as quite ignorant of the significance of this kaupapa,” Smith said.

    After Kuini Nga wai hono i te po became the eighth Māori monarch — and the second youngest ever anointed — Mihingarangi Forbes also made the point about social media on RNZ’s Morning Report.

    Kuini Nga wai hono i te po is crowned
    Kuini Nga wai hono i te po is crowned . . . “it’s going to be interesting to see how she shapes Kiingitanga into this modern age.” Image: Kiingitanga/RNZ

    “I’ve been checking the socials because she is 27 years old, and the average age of Māori is also 27 years old. This is the way that this generation communicates,” Forbes said, noting that her own social feeds filled up with tributes to the new Kuini.

    While the tangihanga itself was a sombre and highly ceremonial occasion, the live coverage also had moments of levity on the paepae — and between broadcasters and their guests.

    All this played out at Tuurangawaewae marae less than a fortnight after dignitaries and the media gathered for the annual Koroneihana celebration of the coronation of Kiingi Tuheitia.

    The historic moment in te ao Māori and New Zealand history was covered comprehensively over five days thanks to collaboration between Whakaata Māori and the iwi radio network Te Whakaruruhau. It was probably the longest continuous multimedia coverage of any event in our media’s history.

    So how was all this done?

    Paora Maxwell explains his decision to step down as chief executive of Maori Television to presenter Kawe Roes.
    Kawe Roes hosting Kawe Korero on Whakaata Māori. Image: Maori Television screenshot

    One of those in the media pack at Tuurangawaewae throughout was former Whakaata Māori presenter Kawe Roes, who is now a digital media reporter for Waatea News.

    The Auckland-based Waatea also provides news to Te Whakaruruhau o Ngā Reo Irirangi Māori — the national iwi radio network.

    “Tainui and the Kiingitanga already have systems in place to make it easy for broadcasting. They’ve been doing live streams for nearly 15 years,” Roes told Mediawatch.

    “In my years of broadcasting, I don’t think I’ve ever seen the amount of talent that was put into making sure Kiingi Tuheitia had the best broadcast for his tangihanga for the whole world to watch.

    “Once Tuheitia had taken the throne, he literally became the king of social media. By doing that so early Kiingitanga and Koroneihana events were able to transition from a special broadcast that might have been done in the TVNZ days to a livestream.

    “The hardest part wasn’t getting anyone there. We had so many people to choose from, including journalists like myself who are versed in te reo and English. You also had Māori journalists who were just versed in English and Iwi radio networks were also part of that.”

    The Morning Report team at the tangi for Kiingi Tuheitia Pootatau Te Wherowhero VII and the naming of the new Māori monarch, 5 September 2024.
    The Morning Report team at the tangi for Kiingi Tuheitia Pootatau Te Wherowhero VII and the naming of the new Māori monarch, 5 September 2024. Image: Layla Bailey-McDowell/RNZ

    Roes said it was one big collective effort.

    “The kaupapa was that the broadcast was more important than the brands. Even though we’re in different organisations, we all know each other. We’re a very small family, and I think by having that rapport made the job easier.

    “We shared all our knowledge. I was sharing knowledge of Kiingitanga and Tainui whakapapa with a New Zealand Herald reporter.”

    Just last month, Waatea News cut ties with the New Zealand Herald after it published Hobson’s Pledge adverts opposing iwi applications for customary marine titles.

    “We put that to the side. If I, as a Māori journalist, can’t help him then what am I doing on my job, really?

    “At the end of the day, we’re here to put out an amazing story. And for me, that’s what made it beautiful.”

    Were they broadcasting in the service of Kiingitanga and iwi around the country? Or to be the eyes and ears of people who could not be there? To capture it all for history? Or all of the above?

    “From our Māori broadcasting perspective, it was all about quality … because we knew it was going to be historic. The journalists, they took all the knowledge around them, and they put out some amazing content.”

    Back to the future

    Dr Ruakere Hond speaks to Morning Report at the tangi for Kiingi Tuheitia Pootatau Te Wherowhero VII and the naming of the new Māori monarch.
    Dr Ruakere Hond speaks to Morning Report at the tangi for Kiingi Tuheitia Pootatau Te Wherowhero VII and the naming of the new Māori monarch. Image: RNZ/Layla Bailey-McDowell

    The Kiingitanga evolved to deal with the Crown over urgent matters such as land sales and alienation. Now there is a young queen who is of the digital generation at a time when Māori/Crown relations are again tense and controversial.

    “So it’s going to be interesting to see how she shapes Kiingitanga into this modern age. She is the boss. She is now the queen of Māoridom and how she wants to roll with tikanga, how she wants to roll in a digital space is up to her,” Roes said.

    “From what I can tell, a lot of the status quo will remain. The only thing I would suggest is be careful who you’re talking to, not because of what you’re going to say, but we don’t want to overuse the majesty, and people end up hōhā listening to her.

    “The reality is — in my Tainui perspective — we look at them with a sense of tapu. That means you don’t naturally go up to them and start talking. But we might see her going to Waitangi for instance.

    “With young people, that might be where she thrives a bit more, and she can connect more with rangatahi — and she’s an easy lady to talk to.”

    Māori media have treated the Kuini’s accession in a reverential way. But when seeking the voice of Māoridom on political or controversial things, that will have to change.

    “I think the King changed the media landscape when throwing out support for the Māori Party. We’ve got an example there on how we can critique and how we can ask questions.

    “But you’ll only ever get to the monarch through spokespersons, and that’s why you have people like Rahi Papa and (Kīngitanga’s chief of staff and adviser) Ngira Simmonds, who bring those thoughts to the media. Tainui are across how to deal with media — an iwi who have been dealing with the Crown for 166 years.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.