https://infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/statutory-review-online-safety-act-2021
It looks like they've moved another consultation up (for political reasons, it seems). This time for Australian online control. You can provide feedback there.
Some core things to consider:
One is the ratings type stuff being handled by the other consultation. Some of that crops up here too and it might be useful to refer to my other post on this: https://qoto.org/@olives/112263721995146390 I've also written a new piece on porn science here: https://qoto.org/@olives/112362450620045294 (I'd be wary of any calls to censor any sort of porn)
It mentions a "duty of care". The problem with a duty of care is that any time something goes wrong, that is an invitation for someone to attack a company, and there might not be anything a company could have reasonably done in that situation. Someone might even ask for things which aren't reasonable or particularly effective. There is also a cognitive phenomena where events in the past feel more predictable than they actually are[1].
There are comparisons to "workplace safety" but it is worth considering that matters of speech are not the same as wearing something to protect your head or feet on a construction site. At worst, a company might expend more resources to address a particular hypothetical. It is, however, not the same as someone's rights being violated.
There are words like "reasonable", frankly, someone could argue that something is "reasonable" which you find ridiculous. It is also worth considering the intent of such language, the intent is typically to push for someone to "do more", even if that "do more" might be harmful, sometimes even counter-productive[2].
Removing footage of "murders" could lead to evidence of war crimes being removed[3].
Some of the language is vague and seems to depend a lot on someone interpreting it properly. Like in the ratings consultation post, I would argue for a strong presumption against censorship for fiction in media that is for the purposes of entertainment (i.e. video games, books, and so on).
There is a certain expectation that services in other countries should be following whatever it is that officials in Australia want but that is not really how the Internet works and it could be harmful to expect that it works that way.
And yes, this one covers "age verification" for things like porn. As noted in one of my other posts, there can be privacy implications (including breaches[4]), and it could also lead to content or services becoming unavailable entirely, particularly when you consider the global nature of the Internet.
Update: In light of [4], I've made a new post.
#auspol #FreeSpeech #FreeExpression #anime
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias Hindsight Bias
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism Politician's Syllogism
3 https://theintercept.com/2017/11/02/war-crimes-youtube-facebook-syria-rohingya/ YouTube and Facebook Are Removing Evidence of Atrocities, Jeopardizing Cases Against War Criminals
4 https://www.wired.com/story/outabox-facial-recognition-breach/ The Breach of a Face Recognition Firm Reveals a Hidden Danger of Biometrics
