Sky News Australia has been suspended from YouTube after a review of old videos(skynews.com.au)
skynews.com.au
Sky News Australia has been suspended from YouTube after a review of old videos
https://www.skynews.com.au/business/media/sky-news-australia-has-been-suspended-from-youtube-following-a-review-of-old-videos/news-story/ea8a1cb338fb2a7f236d4cf2a568baa2
114 comments
'Trusted News Initiative' 'which is committed to censor anything that would impede the vaccine rollout, including any early treatments.'
Also including censoring the official CDC.gov guidelines because somehow that is 'False Information' according to Facebook. [0]
I don't know about you but I think this initiative is going to give big tech companies the green light to mass sweep and ban anything that moves or crawls against any criticism of their guidelines.
This is just the beginning, with lots of users getting their accounts banned without reason. Oh dear.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27999720
Also including censoring the official CDC.gov guidelines because somehow that is 'False Information' according to Facebook. [0]
I don't know about you but I think this initiative is going to give big tech companies the green light to mass sweep and ban anything that moves or crawls against any criticism of their guidelines.
This is just the beginning, with lots of users getting their accounts banned without reason. Oh dear.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27999720
Youtube Alternatives :
Centralized : Dailymotion, Bitchute, Rumble, DTube, Vimeo, Vidlii, DLive, Triller
Decentralized : Odysee(LBRY), Peertube
Centralized : Dailymotion, Bitchute, Rumble, DTube, Vimeo, Vidlii, DLive, Triller
Decentralized : Odysee(LBRY), Peertube
In case anyone doesn't know, Sky News Australia is their Fox News (same owner).
But at the same time Fox News [1] is still on Youtube.
I felt there is something missing in context. Is this something to do with Google paying for AUS News content or some other bad blood going on between the two?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/user/FoxNewsChannel
I felt there is something missing in context. Is this something to do with Google paying for AUS News content or some other bad blood going on between the two?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/user/FoxNewsChannel
It will be interesting to see the range of comments here as Europe and the US wakes up. Assuming it doesn't get flagged.
It appears to me that Australian users are very supportive of this (but I could be wrong) but are there any reasons why, culturally?
Edits: we hear and understand the political reasons. I'm wondering about the cultural reasons. In other cultures around the world, people wouldn't be so supportive of a tech platform banning a news broadcaster.
It appears to me that Australian users are very supportive of this (but I could be wrong) but are there any reasons why, culturally?
Edits: we hear and understand the political reasons. I'm wondering about the cultural reasons. In other cultures around the world, people wouldn't be so supportive of a tech platform banning a news broadcaster.
It's the intellectual class that are going to be generally supportive of this. The same people that are currently telling the people that have lost everything in the lockdowns that they're being selfish protesting.
While I was a little irritated that I was constantly getting their content pushed onto me and autoplayed even though I've blocked the channel, it's disgusting that a Yankee company is effectively playing politics here.
While I was a little irritated that I was constantly getting their content pushed onto me and autoplayed even though I've blocked the channel, it's disgusting that a Yankee company is effectively playing politics here.
Australian's somewhat proudly consider themselves apathetic.
They often don't have strong convictions and if they like something they don't think it through.
When someone headbutted a former Australian Prime Minister, people generally thought it funny. To be fair most Australia thought it funny to call that Prime minister a cunt (The official reason given for the headbutt) even if they voted for his party. Jim Jefferies on the incident - https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1759051187728612
Generally a physical attack on a ex-leader of the county would be considered serious and a danger to democracy. Here the Ex-Prime Minister's only media recourse was to say the guy was a bad headbutter, he really said this. (The attacker did eventually get 2 months prison)
Overall if the apathy is good or bad is a hard call, it's somewhat anarchistic, but ironically gives those in power more control.
They often don't have strong convictions and if they like something they don't think it through.
When someone headbutted a former Australian Prime Minister, people generally thought it funny. To be fair most Australia thought it funny to call that Prime minister a cunt (The official reason given for the headbutt) even if they voted for his party. Jim Jefferies on the incident - https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1759051187728612
Generally a physical attack on a ex-leader of the county would be considered serious and a danger to democracy. Here the Ex-Prime Minister's only media recourse was to say the guy was a bad headbutter, he really said this. (The attacker did eventually get 2 months prison)
Overall if the apathy is good or bad is a hard call, it's somewhat anarchistic, but ironically gives those in power more control.
alfiedotwtf(2)
Sky News peddles everything from flat earth conspiracy to vaccine FUD. I blame a lot of the US's problems with polarisation and truth losing its meaning to its culture of cable news talking heads which pander to anything and invite anyone just to prop up their ratings. We in Australia have mostly avoided that, and Murdoch, via Sky News, is intent on changing that. As an Australian, I want Sky News to disappear because its success would bring a kind of politics to Australia that causes harm.
Horrible news!
There's nothing wrong with questioning narratives and this is what Sky News is doing. They questioned the effectiveness of lockdowns and why wouldn't they? Sydney and other parts of NSW have been in lockdown since 23/06 and the case numbers have been either steady or increasing. Today over 230 cases.. A few days ago it was around 170. Isn't it reasonable then to question the lockdown?
Well Youtube says no. Google says no. And apparently many here are ok with an unelected private entity dictating what information they can access and how. And frankly, even if they were elected I wouldn't want them to have such control.
Essentially, an American private company led by un-elected individuals are controlling what Australian individuals can see and hear.
Well Youtube says no. Google says no. And apparently many here are ok with an unelected private entity dictating what information they can access and how. And frankly, even if they were elected I wouldn't want them to have such control.
Essentially, an American private company led by un-elected individuals are controlling what Australian individuals can see and hear.
Wow. Ok. A lot to unpack here.
Sydney's current virus problems are due to a slow, reluctant, partial and piecemeal lockdown. Meanwhile, other states doing a rapid, hard, comprehensive lockdown have far fewer cases, with some that had to deal with infections spreading from Sydney already out of hard lockdown and just keeping an eye on things with masks required for a little extra time.
If Sky Australia is, in fact, using Sydney's disaster to question lockdowns (and your post isn't satire), they absolutely should be de-platformed.
Sydney's current virus problems are due to a slow, reluctant, partial and piecemeal lockdown. Meanwhile, other states doing a rapid, hard, comprehensive lockdown have far fewer cases, with some that had to deal with infections spreading from Sydney already out of hard lockdown and just keeping an eye on things with masks required for a little extra time.
If Sky Australia is, in fact, using Sydney's disaster to question lockdowns (and your post isn't satire), they absolutely should be de-platformed.
>Today over 230 cases.
And now let's go to the other side of the world where the "lockdowns don't work" propaganda was shat out as an argument for months:
>29692 new cases for the US on July 31st.
Good job people.
And now let's go to the other side of the world where the "lockdowns don't work" propaganda was shat out as an argument for months:
>29692 new cases for the US on July 31st.
Good job people.
Excellent news! Now every Australian that visits youtube isn't recommended and suggested hateful rhetoric that contributes to right wing extremism.
> ... controlling what Australian individuals can see and hear on YouTube.
FTFY. It's important we remember that Google is exercising its rights to not host certain content and people on its own platform.
This is the Internet. Australians still have access to the Sky News website. There are other third-party video platforms too. This idea that because they're the biggest they have to operate like a public utility is utter nonsense.
FTFY. It's important we remember that Google is exercising its rights to not host certain content and people on its own platform.
This is the Internet. Australians still have access to the Sky News website. There are other third-party video platforms too. This idea that because they're the biggest they have to operate like a public utility is utter nonsense.
Yes, they are exercising this control on their platforms. However, considering how the new generation's source of information is the internet and that google's search engine market share is 92% [1] and YouTube market share is 90% [2]. Isn't it alarming when one entity (google) decides what information 90%+ of the public have access to?
And yes, Sky News still have their website, for now, but do you also expect them to build their own Internet when their ISP bans them, their DNS records get purged, and their hosting provider shuts down their servers?
I'm sorry but it is not utter nonsense to expect an entity that 90% of the public rely on every day to not have such control over the public's access to information.
[1] https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/search-engine-market-share [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/266201/us-market-share-o...
And yes, Sky News still have their website, for now, but do you also expect them to build their own Internet when their ISP bans them, their DNS records get purged, and their hosting provider shuts down their servers?
I'm sorry but it is not utter nonsense to expect an entity that 90% of the public rely on every day to not have such control over the public's access to information.
[1] https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/search-engine-market-share [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/266201/us-market-share-o...
You're talking about hundreds of private companies and utilities all denying them service.
Your slippery slope is a fantasy scenario that even internationally recognised hate and pirate sites avoid. 4Chan thrives, KiwiFarms plods on, ThePirateBay still has its domain a host and is still listed in places without relevant court orders.
Yes, it denies them some access to market but while everyone goes to YouTube and Google, that's Google's market to curate as they see fit. Don't like it, encourage people to use other services, as I'm sure Sky Oz will now.
Your slippery slope is a fantasy scenario that even internationally recognised hate and pirate sites avoid. 4Chan thrives, KiwiFarms plods on, ThePirateBay still has its domain a host and is still listed in places without relevant court orders.
Yes, it denies them some access to market but while everyone goes to YouTube and Google, that's Google's market to curate as they see fit. Don't like it, encourage people to use other services, as I'm sure Sky Oz will now.
...at some point, massive multi-national monopolies (or oligopolies) have a certain responsibility to societal ethics.
This isn't the local pub kicking out a loud-mouth racist.
The danger of these few massive corporation, which control 99.9% of all human communication, dictating what we can say will bite us in the ass.
It's important to remember that YouTube's policy isn't always correct. They defended the WHO - but the WHO hosted a video on Youtube from Feb-2020 to July-2020 telling people that they did not need masks unless they were directly caring for sick patients.
These massive corporations can no only get things wrong, they have an incentive to alter narratives to support their own agendas.
It is their ubiquity and size that necessitates they respect free speech of content creators, unlike a small business that we can easily avoid.
To give a more extreme example of the danger of allowing unfettered corporate censorship: Imagine if mobile phone companies started listening to the content of your calls, and banned your mobile phone from the network if you said something in a private conversation they objected to. Or Skype/Meet/Zoom did the same?
It's one thing to be kicked out of a bar for being an idiot. It's another thing to be kicked out of all bars all over the world, forever.
This isn't the local pub kicking out a loud-mouth racist.
The danger of these few massive corporation, which control 99.9% of all human communication, dictating what we can say will bite us in the ass.
It's important to remember that YouTube's policy isn't always correct. They defended the WHO - but the WHO hosted a video on Youtube from Feb-2020 to July-2020 telling people that they did not need masks unless they were directly caring for sick patients.
These massive corporations can no only get things wrong, they have an incentive to alter narratives to support their own agendas.
It is their ubiquity and size that necessitates they respect free speech of content creators, unlike a small business that we can easily avoid.
To give a more extreme example of the danger of allowing unfettered corporate censorship: Imagine if mobile phone companies started listening to the content of your calls, and banned your mobile phone from the network if you said something in a private conversation they objected to. Or Skype/Meet/Zoom did the same?
It's one thing to be kicked out of a bar for being an idiot. It's another thing to be kicked out of all bars all over the world, forever.
Considering how Google is being strong armed into paying Australian news companies for the “privilege” of being able to index their websites… I am not surprised that Google is leaping on any opportunity to rid themselves of doing business with Australian news. And because of said strong arming, it’s hard for me to see how Google is the one acting from a position of strength here.
>Sydney and other parts of NSW have been in lockdown since 23/06 and the case numbers have been either steady or increasing. Today over 230 cases.. A few days ago it was around 170. Isn't it reasonable then to question the lockdown?
Won't the numbers be way worse without the lockdown?
Won't the numbers be way worse without the lockdown?
The lockdowns have been the least locked down lockdowns I've heard of, and they are weeks too late. Queensland has had 6 cases and entered a 3 day hard lockdown with no messing around, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is extended. Lockdowns do work. They stop people mingling and spreading the virus though the community. The videos that Sky News put out are dangerous to the larger community and cause issues like the completely over the top protests that have been happening, and result is further transmission of the disease.
Well after seeing that Facebook is now censoring links from CDC.gov [0] and now this, it seems that you are going to get banned regardless of whatever the algorithms say about the guidelines. [1][2] You can get banned for no reason other than 'guidelines' and they can edit and alter them ahead of the ban. Good luck trying to appeal this.
This is all fine right?
At this point, it is time to delete your accounts off of these websites.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27999720
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28003635
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28005238
This is all fine right?
At this point, it is time to delete your accounts off of these websites.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27999720
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28003635
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28005238
> Essentially, an American private company led by un-elected individuals are controlling what Australian individuals can see and hear.
No sympathy from over here. Australia brought us the plague that is Fox News, and therefore Trump, etc. If starting a shooting war with the land of Murdoch would somehow repair the damage he has personally done, I’d be all for it.
(Edit: To be clear, I don’t have anything against Australia specifically, but Murdoch has done more economic damage and killed more Americans than any foreign aggressor since WWII. Actually invading Australia would be a pointless, but proportional response, aimed at the wrong people. Kind of like the second Iraq war, which was largely brought to us by Fox News.)
No sympathy from over here. Australia brought us the plague that is Fox News, and therefore Trump, etc. If starting a shooting war with the land of Murdoch would somehow repair the damage he has personally done, I’d be all for it.
(Edit: To be clear, I don’t have anything against Australia specifically, but Murdoch has done more economic damage and killed more Americans than any foreign aggressor since WWII. Actually invading Australia would be a pointless, but proportional response, aimed at the wrong people. Kind of like the second Iraq war, which was largely brought to us by Fox News.)
I'm sorry, are you advocating invading another country over a news channel?
If the lab leak theory of the virus is proven correct, would you be for war against China too?
If a war does happen, would you enlist in the army to go to the front lines and sacrifice your life?
Your comment is just over the top and really has nothing meaningful to add to the discussion here.
Your comment is just over the top and really has nothing meaningful to add to the discussion here.
[deleted]
What is with Australia and it’s authoritarian bend? First soldiers are enforcing their covid curfew and now this?
And nothing but support. Seems like some of the authoritarian culture of SE Asia (Singapore, Indonesia, etc) has rubbed off on them? The UK is far more anti-authoritarian.
No doubt any video about a lab source of Covid would have been banned too.
And nothing but support. Seems like some of the authoritarian culture of SE Asia (Singapore, Indonesia, etc) has rubbed off on them? The UK is far more anti-authoritarian.
No doubt any video about a lab source of Covid would have been banned too.
YouTube is an American company.
You don’t think they had any discussion with the AUS govt
The current Australian Federal Government is a right wing conservative coalition, and the Murdoch media has traditionally been their mouthpiece here.
But current federal govt supports the lockdowns right?
Sort of - in this case they have no choice. They previously held up New South Wales as the "gold standard" in contract tracing and halting the spread of the virus; so if the NSW Government says they have to lock down, the Federal Government pretty much has to go along with it.
But you can be sure that as soon as NSW's case numbers come down enough, the Federal Government will pressure them to start lifting restrictions, as they did towards the end of Victoria's 4 month lockdown last year.
But you can be sure that as soon as NSW's case numbers come down enough, the Federal Government will pressure them to start lifting restrictions, as they did towards the end of Victoria's 4 month lockdown last year.
The federal government is very reluctantly accepting of these lockdowns, having been strongly opposed to lockdowns previously in states governed by the opposing party. They are not so supportive that they would conspire with YouTube to censor Sky News, which is their most friendly media outlet in the country.
Australians, for whatever reason, don't have the same concern for civil liberties that Americans have. I can't explain why, but as a citizen it's a little troubling.
Could be because our (the Australian) government looks after us a bit better than the American government looks after their people? I mean a good, free healthcare system, university fees aren't through the roof, reasonable minimum wages, comfortable standard of living.
That might be right, but do they need to be mutually exclusive? The policy on healthcare, education and minimum wages could be made while maintaining strong civil liberties (I think?).
An interesting difference to highlight - the statement "government looks after us" is something many folks in the US would find strange. The US views government more "of the people, by the people, for the people" - ie the government is us governing ourselves.
An interesting difference to highlight - the statement "government looks after us" is something many folks in the US would find strange. The US views government more "of the people, by the people, for the people" - ie the government is us governing ourselves.
Yeah, but seems Europe gets that without the loss of liberty?
Does your "civil liberties" concerns include far left or even Islamist content? No? And before you downvote "I'm just asking questions" as probably your favourite broadcaster says.
Yes, it does.
I'm not sure who my favorite broadcaster is supposed to be, I don't live in Australia. Maybe Alan Jones? He seems controversial but I've never listened to him.
I'm not sure who my favorite broadcaster is supposed to be, I don't live in Australia. Maybe Alan Jones? He seems controversial but I've never listened to him.
Lying to the public to maintain power, keeps their hands on the government purse.
Loss of trust in institutions.
Loss of sense of prestige in the traditional tracks, they make up for it by becoming authoritarian to maintain sense of utility.
This has been apparent in the US. Our govt tells us small lies for the greater good - early in the pandemic masks weren’t needed - better to tell them they didn’t work so there were enough for healthcare workers.
Works great until the situation changes and you need people to wear masks. Not only do people question why things have changed, they start to ask what else you’re lying about for “the greater good”.
Works great until the situation changes and you need people to wear masks. Not only do people question why things have changed, they start to ask what else you’re lying about for “the greater good”.
I'm not sure. I'm not sure it is authoritarian, but there is support for this action. It might be something to do with its general classless style of politics or it could be due to a very recent coronavirus scare in the major city after months of peace. I also suspect that culturally users there don't have the same history of freedom of expression as other places. I'm guessing but it's interesting.
I hope a disinterested and calm australian user can see through what's going on and educate the rest of us.
I hope a disinterested and calm australian user can see through what's going on and educate the rest of us.
I'm Australian, and one thing I've noticed is when people from other countries describe working with us, they say we are some of the loudest biggest wingers on the planet. Perhaps that gets the nuance slightly wrong, but the general complaint is if an Australian thinks something is wrong, he will tell you long and loudly, and most importantly he will do so regardless of his relative rank to you. I gather other cultures are taken by surprise when a Australian worker tells his boss to his face exactly what he is doing wrong.
I suspect he fundamental difference between US citizens is while both cultures aren't authoritarian, unlike the USA Australian's don't hold authority in disdain either. They aren't scared it - they are happy to delegate responsibility and decisions to a central authority where that makes sense. I suspect that is precisely because they are confident in questioning it, and confident they can overturn it if it isn't working out.
The lock down's were far more controversial at the start, when nobody had an idea what the cost of them where compared to the alternative. There were vigorous discussions in the media and elsewhere about the right approach, to the extent that different states took very different approaches, one literally shutting it's borders to all other states.
A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. It is now clear what the right approach both economically and health wise - and that is to stop the disease dead in it's tracks so you can re-open the economy a soon as possible. That's obviously is the best approach health wise, and it turns out it's also the best approach economically. We know that because the state that locked down hardest and returned to growth before everyone else, and Australia is now growing economically faster than it has in years, and this happened before just about every other country on the planet.
Lock down's are highly intrusive on personal liberties of course. You have to stay at home unless you have a reason, you have to wear masks, you have to "check in" at every shop you visit by scanning a bar code. The rules are policed. It is with a light touch you will get several warnings and you will be given a mask if you don't have one, but if you continue refuse to comply the law you will be prosecuted.
Still, it's acknowledged by everyone except nutters it works exceptionally well (and in fact it appears to be the only thing that does work short of full vaccination), and the governments are very careful to lift the restrictions as soon as the threat passes. And as I said, Australian's aren't afraid of authority. It's just a tool - you deploy it when it works.
I suspect he fundamental difference between US citizens is while both cultures aren't authoritarian, unlike the USA Australian's don't hold authority in disdain either. They aren't scared it - they are happy to delegate responsibility and decisions to a central authority where that makes sense. I suspect that is precisely because they are confident in questioning it, and confident they can overturn it if it isn't working out.
The lock down's were far more controversial at the start, when nobody had an idea what the cost of them where compared to the alternative. There were vigorous discussions in the media and elsewhere about the right approach, to the extent that different states took very different approaches, one literally shutting it's borders to all other states.
A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. It is now clear what the right approach both economically and health wise - and that is to stop the disease dead in it's tracks so you can re-open the economy a soon as possible. That's obviously is the best approach health wise, and it turns out it's also the best approach economically. We know that because the state that locked down hardest and returned to growth before everyone else, and Australia is now growing economically faster than it has in years, and this happened before just about every other country on the planet.
Lock down's are highly intrusive on personal liberties of course. You have to stay at home unless you have a reason, you have to wear masks, you have to "check in" at every shop you visit by scanning a bar code. The rules are policed. It is with a light touch you will get several warnings and you will be given a mask if you don't have one, but if you continue refuse to comply the law you will be prosecuted.
Still, it's acknowledged by everyone except nutters it works exceptionally well (and in fact it appears to be the only thing that does work short of full vaccination), and the governments are very careful to lift the restrictions as soon as the threat passes. And as I said, Australian's aren't afraid of authority. It's just a tool - you deploy it when it works.
This long Twitter thread from yesterday by Gray Connolly (who is quite libertarian/conservative himself) addresses this question directly:
https://twitter.com/GrayConnolly/status/1421461574389145600
https://twitter.com/GrayConnolly/status/1421461574389145600
Also, "soldiers are enforcing their covid curfew" is not an accurate characterisation of what's going on here. (I'm not in Sydney where the major outbreaks/restrictions are happening now but I'm in Melbourne where they were last year, and the military involvement then was the same).
For a start, there's no "curfew". There is a stay-at-home order, but people are still allowed go out where necessary for shopping, exercise, education and work. The main restriction is on visiting other people's homes.
Military personnel have been deployed to provide logistical support and additional bodies to help police, medical and welfare services. They're helping set up and staff covid testing facilities, and doing checks on infected people quarantining, both for compliance and welfare. And yep there's also some walking around the streets with police, but there's basically no hostile engagement with citizens or anything remotely like martial law. Mostly it's polite reminders to people of what they need to do - i.e., just wear masks and avoid gathering in big groups.
Most people are accepting of it as Australians are not accustomed to or comfortable with a serious disease just tearing through the community causing significant numbers of deaths, so they're accepting of measures to prevent that from happening.
> No doubt any video about a lab source of Covid would have been banned too.
Nothing remotely like this has happened. I've watched plenty of videos about this, as well as many about vaccine concerns, ivermectin, etc. Australia isn't restricting any content like this at all.
The only blocking of content is being done by YouTube in the USA.
For a start, there's no "curfew". There is a stay-at-home order, but people are still allowed go out where necessary for shopping, exercise, education and work. The main restriction is on visiting other people's homes.
Military personnel have been deployed to provide logistical support and additional bodies to help police, medical and welfare services. They're helping set up and staff covid testing facilities, and doing checks on infected people quarantining, both for compliance and welfare. And yep there's also some walking around the streets with police, but there's basically no hostile engagement with citizens or anything remotely like martial law. Mostly it's polite reminders to people of what they need to do - i.e., just wear masks and avoid gathering in big groups.
Most people are accepting of it as Australians are not accustomed to or comfortable with a serious disease just tearing through the community causing significant numbers of deaths, so they're accepting of measures to prevent that from happening.
> No doubt any video about a lab source of Covid would have been banned too.
Nothing remotely like this has happened. I've watched plenty of videos about this, as well as many about vaccine concerns, ivermectin, etc. Australia isn't restricting any content like this at all.
The only blocking of content is being done by YouTube in the USA.
A lot of semantics it seems. “No curfew” just “restrictions on when you can leave your home”. So basically a curfew.
People getting histrionic about this try to portray it as though there are tanks rolling down the streets and weapons shoved in people’s faces.
In reality it’s a few uniformed personnel out with police saying “hey guys if you could just put a mask on that’d be great”. Sure if people refuse they get fined by the police, because, you know, rule of law matters.
The reality of this is not as outrageous as some people want to imagine. Various forms of lockdowns have happened all over the world, with varying degrees of success. Australia has so far kept total covid fatalities under 1000, avoided medical systems being overwhelmed, and kept the economy going quite well.
We can debate the relative merits of masks and lockdowns vs “letting it rip”. I continue to contemplate and research it and waver in my own position. I don’t know how anyone couldn’t, given that no position is without huge costs, whether to short-term liberties and economic wellbeing or to long-term health and survival.
But if you’re going to have restrictions, like so many other countries have done, Australia’s use of the military as a part of managing them has been very restrained and benign. Australians are accustomed to the military helping out during natural disasters - bushfires, floods, etc. They see this involvement no differently.
If you want to continue the discussion, it would be helpful for you to consider and signal whether you actually want to understand the way things are in Australia, vs just heaping scorn on it.
In reality it’s a few uniformed personnel out with police saying “hey guys if you could just put a mask on that’d be great”. Sure if people refuse they get fined by the police, because, you know, rule of law matters.
The reality of this is not as outrageous as some people want to imagine. Various forms of lockdowns have happened all over the world, with varying degrees of success. Australia has so far kept total covid fatalities under 1000, avoided medical systems being overwhelmed, and kept the economy going quite well.
We can debate the relative merits of masks and lockdowns vs “letting it rip”. I continue to contemplate and research it and waver in my own position. I don’t know how anyone couldn’t, given that no position is without huge costs, whether to short-term liberties and economic wellbeing or to long-term health and survival.
But if you’re going to have restrictions, like so many other countries have done, Australia’s use of the military as a part of managing them has been very restrained and benign. Australians are accustomed to the military helping out during natural disasters - bushfires, floods, etc. They see this involvement no differently.
If you want to continue the discussion, it would be helpful for you to consider and signal whether you actually want to understand the way things are in Australia, vs just heaping scorn on it.
Doesn’t seem all that convincing. Canada is a monarchy, they never rebelled, yet there would be considerable resistance to many of the same things.
Plenty of Canadian provinces have had lockdowns, as have many other places in the world. This article details how they were implemented and enforced in Ontario: https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/61192/ontario-strengthens...
Some of those restrictions are stricter than any in Australia have been. And, as per the article, they're being actively enforced by the police, same as Australia. The military isn't doing that kind of enforcement in Australia.
Some of those restrictions are stricter than any in Australia have been. And, as per the article, they're being actively enforced by the police, same as Australia. The military isn't doing that kind of enforcement in Australia.
There are no soldiers nor even police enforcing my COVID curfew.
And YouTube hasn't blocked me access to videos theorising about the lab source.
That's the case now. There was a block for a full year.
aryonoco(1)
Perhaps worth remembering that Sky News is still available to watch through many other avenues within Australia, such as Foxtel [1], subscription streaming, and most notably government controlled [1] free to air broadcasts [2].
[1] https://www.foxtel.com.au/tv-guide/channel/Sky-News-Live-HD/...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_digital_television_cha...
[3] https://www.skynews.com.au/sky-news-regional
[1] https://www.foxtel.com.au/tv-guide/channel/Sky-News-Live-HD/...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_digital_television_cha...
[3] https://www.skynews.com.au/sky-news-regional
Great news.
I had blocked Sky News from my Youtube account as didn't want to see it's content but was still having Sky News content pushed to me in the app. I suspect because of the recent News Media Bargaining Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Media_Bargaining_Code. Now Sky News has gone completely from my feed.
Being Australia and Rupert Murdoch's business, I suspect this won't be the end of it and they'll be some rushed through laws so this never happens again. The News Media Bargaining Code was for propping up Murdoch's businesses after all.
I had blocked Sky News from my Youtube account as didn't want to see it's content but was still having Sky News content pushed to me in the app. I suspect because of the recent News Media Bargaining Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Media_Bargaining_Code. Now Sky News has gone completely from my feed.
Being Australia and Rupert Murdoch's business, I suspect this won't be the end of it and they'll be some rushed through laws so this never happens again. The News Media Bargaining Code was for propping up Murdoch's businesses after all.
Does anyone know why sky news UK seems, at least on the surface, far from a right wing rag compared to the Australian version?
Edit : something to do with UK broadcasting rules?
Edit : something to do with UK broadcasting rules?
Basically it's to do with ownership, Rupert Murdoch/News Corp actually has nothing much to do with Sky News UK (anymore) but completely owns Sky News Australia.
Sky News UK is owned by Sky Group, which also used to own Sky News Australia until a few years ago when it was acquired by News corp. News Corp of course used to own a controlling stake in Sky group and even tried to buy the whole lot at one point but failed and now it's mostly owned by Comcast I think.
It's also worth nothing that Sky News Australia also runs a relatively 'normal', fairly respectable news network during the day but then in the evening they switch over to start broadcasting much more right wing conspiracy laden content and pushing this onto digital channels such as Youtube where it then gets picked up and used by more fringe right wingers in the US to legitimise their views (kind of look this 'mainstream' australian news channel is broadcasting this clip, it must be true and the US mainstream media just is covering it up). This is commonly known as 'Sky after dark'.
This article from the guardian probably gives a better overview of what they are doing these days and why it is so insidious. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/24/sky-n...
Sky News UK is owned by Sky Group, which also used to own Sky News Australia until a few years ago when it was acquired by News corp. News Corp of course used to own a controlling stake in Sky group and even tried to buy the whole lot at one point but failed and now it's mostly owned by Comcast I think.
It's also worth nothing that Sky News Australia also runs a relatively 'normal', fairly respectable news network during the day but then in the evening they switch over to start broadcasting much more right wing conspiracy laden content and pushing this onto digital channels such as Youtube where it then gets picked up and used by more fringe right wingers in the US to legitimise their views (kind of look this 'mainstream' australian news channel is broadcasting this clip, it must be true and the US mainstream media just is covering it up). This is commonly known as 'Sky after dark'.
This article from the guardian probably gives a better overview of what they are doing these days and why it is so insidious. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/24/sky-n...
They are a competitor, after all
0xy(2)
patchtopic(3)
They had it coming.
Or is it a punishment for accurate reporting?
Joe Biden 'has to be taken out of circulation' after 'rambling about men on the moon' and aliens
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/joe-biden-has-to-be-tak...
Second video
Or is this fake? There is no shame in admitting your president is a loony
Joe Biden 'has to be taken out of circulation' after 'rambling about men on the moon' and aliens
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/joe-biden-has-to-be-tak...
Second video
Or is this fake? There is no shame in admitting your president is a loony
Full context: he was talking about how children get their news: if they wanted to find out about if there are men on the moon, etc., would they go to tik tok or newspaper?
So, in other words, the Sky propoganda piece was not accurate reporting.
So, in other words, the Sky propoganda piece was not accurate reporting.
Thanks for translating that. But anyone that watches this video, or others, can see the difficulty in articulating answers. And that is what Sky News is pointing out
Well there’s the Streisand effect so this will actually help them more than it hurts. Everybody already hates YouTube, now skynews will get a bump from those who seek out censored books and media. Such people exist. Deplatforming works as well as book burning. It doesn’t.
Deplatforming can work. r/fatpeoplehate and other right wing hate subreddits pretty much fizzled out after they went to Voat and couldn't be on the front page of Reddit anymore.
Well, I guess that's what you get for constantly airing misinformation.
That is what you get for airing neutral opinions.
In neutral journalism, all sides are interviewed and given grounds to discuss the matter fairly. You don't for example just interview Arabs when it comes to Israel, you interview all sides. But with Youtube's Covid censorship policy in place, each time a so to speak "Jew" was interviewed, the journalist would receive a strike for it and just be banned after 3 strikes.
That people didn't go out and instantly boycott Youtube for this anti-democratic experiment is ridiculous.
In neutral journalism, all sides are interviewed and given grounds to discuss the matter fairly. You don't for example just interview Arabs when it comes to Israel, you interview all sides. But with Youtube's Covid censorship policy in place, each time a so to speak "Jew" was interviewed, the journalist would receive a strike for it and just be banned after 3 strikes.
That people didn't go out and instantly boycott Youtube for this anti-democratic experiment is ridiculous.
This would be true for [anyone except Sky]. There is absolutely nothing neutral about their reporting.
hahaha Sky News Australia.... neutral.... hahahaha.... good joke mate....
I'm sorry, did you just unironically call a Murdoch media company "neutral" in opinion? The rest of your comment I don't disagree with.
They all do.
WaPo called out NYT for fake news twice yesterday. This supports your argument - they both can't be right! They both can be wrong, of course.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/aug/01/sky-news-austr...
YouTube is part of the Trusted News Initiative (TNI), which is commited to censor anything that would impede the vaccine rollout, including any early treatments.
https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative...