killerbee256 said:
My question is who is voting for these backwards idiots?
Retirees, mostly retirees that have an entrenched line in the sand that says that their party "knows what it is doing" and the other guy/girl has no idea. retirees that have entrenched confirmation bias, and can't think for themselves.
which is a strange dichotomy for politicians to have to promote and spend effort engaging people who don't passively absorb news through daily or hourly broadcasts.
which is why they find the online world so unenthusiastic and difficult to manipulate. as it was designed to be.
People coming to Australia, won't notice the rambling and corrupting influence of political actions almost anywhere but in the general depression of the citizens. we're quite open about complaining about both sides being completely stuffed, rather than any one person, it's usually someone being extremely stupid that gets knocked down, or it's the rare outlier that stands up and faces that scrutiny.
For Australia, that's Abbot and Palmer for different reasons. And, sadly for the rest of the world, not exactly intelligent or good people.
Also, Unfortunately for Australian Politics, having had a female figurehead might seem to be a sign of being progressive at first, it's really kind of screwed up a lot of things for regular citizens, because the Labour Party has had to 'prove themselves' by being tough on security and nanny state options for PR purposes.
If they didn't have to avoid having a continuing and inevitable series of embarrassing problems pointed out to them in keeping election or party promises, it would have been fine. So, like every political party in existence, they pedal things to try and score cheap points.
And the Liberal Party that came in afterwards, in what could be seen as ironic, from outside, is going about the same kind of defensive bullshit and cutting services, and pushing the idea of monitoring and recording metadata for our version of the NSA, ASIO.
Which is facing some serious horror because if the monitoring comes through, it also introduces most of the infrastructure for ISP's to filter the internet as part of the conditions of having an ISP license. after all, it's a small router and a small bridge to cross from simply monitoring all traffic, to selectively filtering all traffic through a DNS blacklist, as the UK does now. or full firewalls that china has implemented on content. it's just a matter of cost and infrastructure, and applying the metadata restrictions will also make it easier to implement a filter in a few years.
We already have some shitty internet connections and a telecom monopoly to deal with, having the monopoly freeze out ISP's because they can't filter the internet would be pretty trivial at this point.
Justifying this won't be hard. It only takes a desperate politician who's done something wrong, looking to score points to set up their agenda on "thinking of the children in a non pedophile way" in securing the internet from terrorists. and people with political agendas. in the same way that fighting fire requires a steady supply of flamethrowers and gasoline, it's rather inevitable that things will happen by design if the gate is even slightly open.
Having a violent culture of teens playing unrated content, seems patently stupid. just as it did 5 years ago. it's unlikely to be any kind of popular idea in culture since the 1980's, as there's a rising percentage of 40-50 year old gamers who still regularly play games, so it's going to become a cultural identity that the politicians in power, will have actually played or understood the art and culture of media that isn't radio, newspapers, and TV.