h/t observa; “… the online watchdog “considered this option (abandoning legal action) likely to achieve the most positive outcome for the online safety of all Australians, especially children”. …”
‘Dog whistle’: Regulator accuses Musk
Story by Nathan Schmidt
Australia’s eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant says she was subjected to death threats after taking up the fight against social media platform X and its owner Elon Musk.
“He issued a dog whistle to 181 million users around the globe which resulted in death threats directly to me and which resulted in doxxing of my family members, including my three children,” Ms Inman Grant told the ABC.
“With great power comes great responsibility and exercising that restraint in terms of targeting a regulator who is here to protect the citizens of Australia is really beyond the pale.
“But it is not surprising. This is his modus operandi. I will not be cowered but those threats.”
Earlier on Wednesday, Ms Inman Grant announced she had dropped the legal fight against X over its refusal to remove videos depicting a stabbing attack against a Sydney bishop.
The eSafety Commission was attempting to force X to remove videos of footage of an alleged terror attack in which Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel was stabbed during a live-streamed sermon.
…
Ms Grant said the online watchdog “considered this option (abandoning legal action) likely to achieve the most positive outcome for the online safety of all Australians, especially children”.
Thank you again Elon Musk for standing up to this outrageous attack on global freedom of speech.
And just to show there are no hard feelings Aussie eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant, if you ever publish a whacky Mary Poppins disinformation singalong like former US Disinformation Governance Board head Nina Jankowicz, you can be assured WUWT will publish it.
My point is, it is funny to laugh at the serial frustrations of wannabe online censors, but watching them fail and complain is only funny so long as they keep failing to curtail our freedoms. Even the USA isn’t immune from these attacks on freedom – in my opinion, the significant US academic participation in the online censorship push, as personified by Ardern’s dual Harvard fellowships, is a warning of the scale of the attack.
If online content is captured by vested interests to the extent I believe establishment media has been captured, the age of free speech will be at an end, regardless of constitutional guarantees of free speech. As President Obama said in 2022, “The first amendment does not apply to … facebook and twitter”. A voluntary cartel of internet service providers, engineered by putting the “right” people in charge of all these organisations, would be just as effective at curtailing our freedom as tearing up the First Amendment, without the embarrassment of an obvious violation of the US Constitution.
A horrifying pivot towards Communist Chinese style censorship and tyranny is in progress in Australia, as Aussie politicians threaten Elon Musk with prosecution and jail, for refusing to remove truthful content which politicians deem socially unacceptable from the internet.
Utter contempt’: Elon Musk goes to war with Australian government over violent content
Elon Musk has stepped up his war of words with the Australian government, reacting to one Senator’s call for him to be “jailed”.
Elon Musk has stepped up his war of words with the Australian government over demands the X social media platform remove videos of the stabbing of a Sydney bishop, as the controversy around violent content spirals into a wider free speech debate.
The eccentric billionaire has been publicly feuding Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant for the past week over what he has characterised as an “attempt to censor the entire world”.
“The Australian people want the truth,” Musk wrote on Tuesday, sharing a post stating that X had become the most downloaded news app in Australia. “X is the only one standing up for their rights.”
Mr Albanese had earlier blasted the Tesla chief executive as “arrogant” and someone who “thinks he’s above Australian law”, while Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie — prior to shutting down her X account — suggested he was a “friggin’ disgrace” who “should be in jail”.
“This woman has utter contempt for the Australian people,” Musk responded.
…
“Australia has made clear they believe in stripping away human rights (freedom of expression) in order to satisfy what they deem appropriate for your eyes and ears,” Mr Pavlovski wrote on Tuesday.
The following is an Aussie federal senator demanding Musk be jailed for ignoring Australia’s demands for censorship;
Pro-censorship Aussie news outlets are attempting to use appeals to Nationalism to whip up opposition to Musk’s attempts to defend Australia’s freedom to view uncensored news.
Big victim or big mouth? Time for Australia to put Elon Musk in his place
Elon Musk’s legal team revealed a curious problem for the billionaire when they told an Australian court on Monday night that they could not get legal instructions because it was 2am on Sunday at their client’s American headquarters.
The remark was revealing because Musk’s social media platform, X, has been operating in Australia for more than a decade, collecting whatever revenue it can make, but now lacks a local office to make the big calls on urgent requests to take down violent posts.
…
Federal Court judge Geoffrey Kennett ruled against X on Monday night, but another hearing is due soon and a final decision is yet to be made. So far, federal eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has gained the injunction she wanted to force the company to act.
…
The legal argument is full of technical questions, such as the way virtual private networks allow people to dig under the barbed wire that countries try to install at their online borders. The VPN is a wonderful invention for dissidents evading dictators in some countries, just as it helps drug-runners dodge police in others. It blurs the idea of national borders.
Watch out, however, for any argument that says Australia should not dictate terms to the social media giants because that’s what China does. That is classic false equivalence. The eSafety Commissioner is acting with the authority of a federal law passed by a parliament that reflects the will of a free people in a democracy.
I’m not sure why “acting with the authority of a federal law passed by … a democracy” makes censorship OK. If every act of a democratically elected parliament is acceptable, would it also be acceptable for an elected parliament to pass a law abolishing all future elections? Would establishment journalists like David Crowe then write an article explaining that the abolition of elections was legitimate, because the politicians who abolished future elections were elected by the people?
You have to draw the line somewhere. A free press, unfettered access to news, is as much a pillar of democracy as holding elections. Would voters choosing politicians based on biased and heavily censored access to news, having their decisions fed to them by one sided media content, with opposition silenced by a government managed news cartel, be any less of a tyranny than a state which completely abolished elections?
What can Australians do about this Orwellian nightmare? Voting for politicians who oppose this kind of censorship is the obvious solution, but most Aussies simply aren’t aware of the danger. With the exception of courageous conscientious objectors, all the mainstream political parties in Australia appear to support a significant increase in censorship. Political parties like One Nation, which consistently oppose prosecuting people for telling the truth, are routinely vilified by the establishment press.
Did I mention the establishment press also has some protection against these new disinformation laws, providing they behave? Of course, if the Aussie government no longer recognises a news outlet as a professional news organisation, they might struggle to remain protected under the misinformation laws.
One option which is not currently illegal to my knowledge is downloading tools which allow circumvention of any censorship. One such tool is the TOR Browser.
TOR makes it very clear where they stand on internet censorship – from the TOR about page: “all of the people who have been involved in Tor are united by a common belief: internet users should have private access to an uncensored web.“
The TOR project was created to allow mainland Chinese and other oppressed peoples circumvent harsh national censorship policies, by disguising the internet route to censored site, using relay stations provided by volunteers.
TOR takes advantage of the fact that it is impossible to conduct commerce on the internet without encrypted communications. But that encryption which makes e-commerce possible also makes it possible to disguise which website you are visiting, with the help of relay stations outside the national firewall, provided by volunteers who support the TOR network.
Obviously use at your own risk – no system is 100% safe. And when it becomes clear that corporate VPNs and tools like TOR have turned the Aussie Government’s attempt to crack down on internet freedom into an embarrassing political failure, they may double down, and make a serious effort to outlaw attempts to circumvent their censorship laws.
Until today, I thought of TOR as a tool only people living under Communist tyrannies need, not as a tool myself or other Aussies might need to use, to gain uncensored access to the Internet. But I guess that is the risk you run living in a nation which does not provide a constitutional guarantee of free speech. What is not guaranteed might one day be taken away from you. And even that which is guaranteed must be defended, by electing politicians who regard upholding and defending the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution as a sacred trust.
Elon Musk said Sunday that he’d give Wikipedia $1 billion if the organization changed its name to “Dickipedia.”
It feels like it’s been a hot minute since Musk stepped out from behind … I have literally no idea where he lives, or what he does in his work time … anyway, Musk is finally back in action with an amazing troll of Wikipedia. It seemed to all start with Musk asking why the Wikimedia Foundation wants so much money. “It certainly isn’t needed to operate Wikipedia. You can literally fit a copy of the entire text on your phone!” Musk wrote on Twitter.
He then shared a screenshot of Wikipedia’s endless cringe claw for cash, which presents itself as a desperate message from the site’s founder, Jimmy Wales. Musk accompanied the post with a sleepy-face emoji, which seemed to be about how boring this plea is (even though some really, really intelligent people fall for Wales’ bullshit and donate to this uselessly biased website).
I will give them a billion dollars if they change their name to Dickipedia https://t.co/wxoHQdRICy
About 30 minutes after this tweet, Musk offered to give the organization $1 billion dollars. That amount of money should theoretically be enough to fund the site until the artificially intelligent robots and lizard people finally decide to kill us all and live in the wealth we created for them.
There’s just one catch: Wales would have to change the name of his site to “Dickipedia” in order to get the cash. “(Please add that to the [bullshit] on my wiki page),” Musk stated, seemingly pissed off at whatever Wales has allowed to spew all over his site.
Unhinged Musk is basically the only thing I like to see on the internet other than videos of kittens, puppies, other animals, and those military reunion videos. It would be great if he kept coming out with this stuff because then I’d have more fun… so… yeah.
Everything is hate and bots with these weak kneed crybullies.
Researchers have documented an explosion of hate and misinformation on Twitter since the Tesla billionaire took over in October 2022 — and now experts say communicating about climate science on the social network on which many of them rely is getting harder.
Policies aimed at curbing the deadly effects of climate change are accelerating, prompting a rise in what experts identify as organised resistance by opponents of climate reform.
Peter Gleick, a climate and water specialist with nearly 99,000 followers, announced on May 21 he would no longer post on the platform because it was amplifying racism and sexism.
Now that Twitter content moderators and healthy conversation enforcers are not amplifying climate activists nor suppressing dissenting voices it’s disheartening for those that believed everyone agrees with them.
Robert Rohde, a physicist and lead scientist at the non-profit environmental data analysis group Berkeley Earth, analysed activity on hundreds of accounts of widely followed specialists posting about climate science before and after the takeover.
He found climate scientists’ tweets were losing impact. The average number of likes they received was down 38 percent and average retweets fell 40 percent.
Deer in the headlights – Dessler is taking his ball and going home.
Andrew Dessler, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said he was moving most of his climate communication to Substack, a newsletter platform.
“Climate communications on Twitter are less useful (now) given that I can see that my tweets are getting less engagement,” he said.
“In response to almost any tweet concerning climate change, I find my notifications inundated with replies from verified accounts making misleading or misguided claims.”
The time record holder for cry-bullying, Katherine Hayhoe, is discussed in the article as well. Last time we interacted she called me a white supremacist or something.
Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe said replies from apparent trolls or bots had shot up
And of course Mann’s always complaining about organized conspiracies.
Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania and a regular target for abuse by deniers of climate change, said he believed the rise in misinformation was “organised and orchestrated” by opponents of climate reforms.
CCDH said Morano and Milloy’s rapid social media growth resulted from Twitter’s new paid-for “Twitter Blue” subscription.
By “giving users blue verified badges for $8 a month,” CCDH told The Times, “Musk is giving climate ‘deniers’ a veneer of credibility they just couldn’t get before… it helps them look legitimate, like a comparable source of authority to all the scientists and experts.”
It seems when all the “scientists and experts” agree that a natural weather event should be attributed to climate change, it is a sin to publish clear historical scientific data which contradicts climate computer models.
How about letting people judge for themselves?
Even better, London Times, how about doing your job, asking the tough questions and actually vetting the alarming claims of the climate-Left?
Author
Craig RuckerCraig Rucker is a co-founder of CFACT and currently serves as its president.
This BBC interview with Elon Musk has already been covered elsewhere, but Jesse Watters cleverly picks up on the BBC guy using the “Strategic Dialogue Institute” as an example of an organisation who says that hate speech is on the rise on Twitter.
As Jesse notes, the ISD (Institute for Strategic Dialogue), which laughingly calls itself independent, is funded by Bill Gates, George Soros, the UN and a host of western governments. According to their website:
The Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) is an independent, non-profit organisation dedicated to safeguarding human rights and reversing the rising tide of polarisation, extremism and disinformation worldwide.
And its Annual Accounts even list its principal object is “to educate the public”:
It is so closely aligned to the Great Reset agenda that it might just as well be part of the WEF.
In other words, it is yet another of those shadowy organisation set up to brainwash the public.
Share this:
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Wer wir sind
Textvorschlag: Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://climate-science.press.
Kommentare
Textvorschlag: Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des Besuchers und den User-Agent-String (damit wird der Browser identifiziert), um die Erkennung von Spam zu unterstützen.
Aus deiner E-Mail-Adresse kann eine anonymisierte Zeichenfolge erstellt (auch Hash genannt) und dem Gravatar-Dienst übergeben werden, um zu prüfen, ob du diesen benutzt. Die Datenschutzerklärung des Gravatar-Dienstes findest du hier: https://automattic.com/privacy/. Nachdem dein Kommentar freigegeben wurde, ist dein Profilbild öffentlich im Kontext deines Kommentars sichtbar.
Medien
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein registrierter Benutzer bist und Fotos auf diese Website lädst, solltest du vermeiden, Fotos mit einem EXIF-GPS-Standort hochzuladen. Besucher dieser Website könnten Fotos, die auf dieser Website gespeichert sind, herunterladen und deren Standort-Informationen extrahieren.
Cookies
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar auf unserer Website schreibst, kann das eine Einwilligung sein, deinen Namen, E-Mail-Adresse und Website in Cookies zu speichern. Dies ist eine Komfortfunktion, damit du nicht, wenn du einen weiteren Kommentar schreibst, all diese Daten erneut eingeben musst. Diese Cookies werden ein Jahr lang gespeichert.
Falls du ein Konto hast und dich auf dieser Website anmeldest, werden wir ein temporäres Cookie setzen, um festzustellen, ob dein Browser Cookies akzeptiert. Dieses Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und wird verworfen, wenn du deinen Browser schließt.
Wenn du dich anmeldest, werden wir einige Cookies einrichten, um deine Anmeldeinformationen und Anzeigeoptionen zu speichern. Anmelde-Cookies verfallen nach zwei Tagen und Cookies für die Anzeigeoptionen nach einem Jahr. Falls du bei der Anmeldung „Angemeldet bleiben“ auswählst, wird deine Anmeldung zwei Wochen lang aufrechterhalten. Mit der Abmeldung aus deinem Konto werden die Anmelde-Cookies gelöscht.
Wenn du einen Artikel bearbeitest oder veröffentlichst, wird ein zusätzlicher Cookie in deinem Browser gespeichert. Dieser Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und verweist nur auf die Beitrags-ID des Artikels, den du gerade bearbeitet hast. Der Cookie verfällt nach einem Tag.
Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites
Textvorschlag: Beiträge auf dieser Website können eingebettete Inhalte beinhalten (z. B. Videos, Bilder, Beiträge etc.). Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites verhalten sich exakt so, als ob der Besucher die andere Website besucht hätte.
Diese Websites können Daten über dich sammeln, Cookies benutzen, zusätzliche Tracking-Dienste von Dritten einbetten und deine Interaktion mit diesem eingebetteten Inhalt aufzeichnen, inklusive deiner Interaktion mit dem eingebetteten Inhalt, falls du ein Konto hast und auf dieser Website angemeldet bist.
Mit wem wir deine Daten teilen
Textvorschlag: Wenn du eine Zurücksetzung des Passworts beantragst, wird deine IP-Adresse in der E-Mail zur Zurücksetzung enthalten sein.
Wie lange wir deine Daten speichern
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar schreibst, wird dieser inklusive Metadaten zeitlich unbegrenzt gespeichert. Auf diese Art können wir Folgekommentare automatisch erkennen und freigeben, anstatt sie in einer Moderations-Warteschlange festzuhalten.
Für Benutzer, die sich auf unserer Website registrieren, speichern wir zusätzlich die persönlichen Informationen, die sie in ihren Benutzerprofilen angeben. Alle Benutzer können jederzeit ihre persönlichen Informationen einsehen, verändern oder löschen (der Benutzername kann nicht verändert werden). Administratoren der Website können diese Informationen ebenfalls einsehen und verändern.
Welche Rechte du an deinen Daten hast
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein Konto auf dieser Website besitzt oder Kommentare geschrieben hast, kannst du einen Export deiner personenbezogenen Daten bei uns anfordern, inklusive aller Daten, die du uns mitgeteilt hast. Darüber hinaus kannst du die Löschung aller personenbezogenen Daten, die wir von dir gespeichert haben, anfordern. Dies umfasst nicht die Daten, die wir aufgrund administrativer, rechtlicher oder sicherheitsrelevanter Notwendigkeiten aufbewahren müssen.
Wohin deine Daten gesendet werden
Textvorschlag: Besucher-Kommentare könnten von einem automatisierten Dienst zur Spam-Erkennung untersucht werden.