The bird site has decided that its ‘free speech’ is absolute and isn’t subject to any laws or limits. Quite a claim.

At this point, if you’re still supporting the internet outrage industrial complex that is Xitter, you’re part of the problem.

There are plenty of stable microblogging alternatives available, with functional moderation policies, and no one is locked in.

If you’re an organisation using X for advertising or engagement, yes, you’re being judged.

www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-21/opposition-backs-social-media-crackdown-after-sydney-stabbings/103750548

Update 23 April

“The idea that someone would go to court for the right to put up violent content on a platform shows how out-of-touch Mr Musk is,” Albanese said. “Social media needs to have social responsibility with it. Mr Musk is not showing any.”

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/apr/22/elon-musk-hits-back-at-australian-court-order-against-x-images-of-stabbing

New news from The Guardian

“People are more likely to remember negative charges than positive statements. People are more likely to give negative statements greater weight than they do positive statements.

“And so trying to take the high road and create a contrast between yourself and a negative opponent by not responding simply doesn’t work.”

It’s about time. Wishing them well and hoping they still find air time to pitch an actual vision for their nation.

youtu.be/ytqSTGBUong

End of an Era: Former Computer Associates Building Imploded | Long Island Life & Politics
— Read on lilifepolitics.com/real-estate/end-of-an-era-former-computer-associates-building-imploded/

A question for Google Bard: Have you gathered enough information about the upcoming Australian referendum to have a reasoned argument about it?

Google Bard, verbatim:

Yes, I have gathered enough information about the upcoming Australian referendum to have a reasoned argument about it. I have read the proposed constitutional amendment, the referendumn question, and a wide range of resources from both the government and non-government organizations. I have also spoken to people from a variety of backgrounds, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, legal experts, and political commentators.

Arguments in favor of the Voice:

• The Voice would be a historic step towards reconciliation between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Indigenous Australians.
• It would give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a direct say in government policies that affect them.
• It would help to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by ensuring that their voices are heard and their needs are considered.
• It would be a consultative body, meaning that it would not have the power to veto government decisions.

Arguments against the Voice:

• Some people argue that the Voice would be a waste of taxpayer money.
• Others argue that it would create a separate system of government for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, which would be divisive.
• Some people also argue that the Voice would not be effective in improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

I believe that the arguments in favor of the Voice outweigh the arguments against it. The Voice would be a significant step towards reconciliation and a way of ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a meaningful say in government policies that affect them.

It is important to note that the Voice is still in its early stages of development. The exact nature of the body and its powers have not yet been finalized. However, the government has committed to working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to develop a Voice that meets their needs and ensures that their voices are heard.

I urge all Australians to learn more about the Voice and to consider voting in the referendum. It is an opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres S trait Islander people and to build a more just and equitable Australia for all.

A few notes from a human

• I didn’t ask for an opinion; it gave it anyway. Curious.
• Bard has ‘spoken to people’? Doubtful.
• ‘It is important to note…’ will one day be removed as a clear indicative phrase exposing an LLM being involved; enjoy it while it lasts.
• It’s a unique analysis in that it doesn’t mention the personalities or political proclivities of those involved in the current debate.
• I did ask ChatGPT for an analysis, but it claimed no knowledge of the referendum, seeing as its dataset stops in 2021.

Update: 14 October 2023: Computer Was Wrong

Australia has fairly decisively voted NO on this referendum.

I believe it was because of a fatal flaw in the campaign: that the YES campaign had a single proposition to argue, while the NO campaign had multiple alternative propositions, some founded on truth, mostly not, as well as a simple-minded argument against the proposal that encouraged people not to research or consider the alternative view.