> People who just started paying attention to Australian authoritarianism during Covid often get the impression that it's entirely about the virus
Sure. And are these lockdowns still in place?
> the actual fundamental problem is that Australia is the only so-called democracy
So-called democracy? So you mean Australia can't change its government through a democratic process? Have they banned elections now or, alternatively, have they recently had an election which changed the government?
These kinds of nonsense claims only serve to undermine any point the article is trying to make.
Right! its like crazy pills. As, yah know, an Australian. It has been a combination of hilarious and revolting watching Americans complain about measures that most Aussies support and use us as an example of depreciating freedoms and declining democracy when we just had a election in which independents and small parties increased their power share significantly.
Quite frankly I think the whining of some 'finfluencer' dickheads about not being able to shill whatever without meeting the legal requirements to provide financial advice in Australia is a dud of an issue that isn't really worth our time and hardly the doomsday of Australian democracy as we know it.
Just actually reading the ASIC infosheet now and the rules are hardly unreasonable,
'The law: Financial product advice is a recommendation or statement of opinion which is intended to influence, or which could reasonably be regarded as being intended to influence, a person making a decision in relation to financial products.
You can share factual information that describes the features or terms and conditions of a financial product (or a class of financial products) without giving financial product advice. However, if you present factual information in a way that conveys a recommendation that someone should (or should not) invest in that product or class of products, you could breach the law by providing unlicensed financial product advice.'
To me it seems quite clear that a reddit post reviewing facts and details without suggestion to buy, or a youtube video of technical analysis could easily be made in such a way as to not breach these terms.
PS: I briefly read the asic page, feel free to double check!
Nothing wrong with freedom of expression. Having an opinion or expressing yourself in uncomfortable terms isn't illegal, and I see no problem with this.
Legality is not the sole determining factor for making an ethical argument and blanket statements like the commenter you are replying to highlighted adequately demonstrate that the article is more some random guys feelings than any actually sound commentary.
I don't think two comments that seem to have originated unfiltered from the heart of the writer necessarily pollute his other arguments in the article. In public discourse it pays not being overly sensitive.
They pollute his arguments by way of inclusion. Do you think these statements reveal nothing about the quality of his logical processing (at least in this article)?
No. If I make a case about poverty and include an overly abrasive comment about some filthy rich person I would hope my argument wouldn't be dismissed for that comment either. And this is the last I'll say about this.
The opposition between the poverty and the wealth would be the connection and make it at least relevant. Briefly diverging from an article about a law to make an unrelated, nonsense, sexist jibe is not the same and absolutely indicates a lower quality article.
Not surprise you refuse to say more because what you're saying isn't very sensible.
Nobody is arguing that the article is or should be illegal, just that the article is stupid. Or at least that it undermines its own argument with bigotry.
Disregarding the capability of half the human population to understand journalism goes beyond 'uncomfortable terms' in my opinion. It's downright moronic and harmful and proponents of that view don't merit exposure in any kind of marketplace of ideas that values integrity, human value, etc.
> Nothing wrong with freedom of expression. Having an opinion or expressing yourself in uncomfortable terms isn't illegal, and I see no problem with this.
Excuse me for saying this, but is that an argument in favor of the article or Hitler? because it works equally well either way.
Just because expressing an opinion is not illegal does not mean it should not be allowed to criticize that expression. And just stating that having opinions is not illegal is in no way a valid defense against any criticism neither in specific or in the general case.
> Agree or disagree and that's that.
what an odd restriction to put on other people speech. No, that’s not all you can do. It’s perfectly ok and expected that some people might agree fully or partially with what has been said by another, yet still not like the manor or quality with which it has been said.
If Twitter were not such an enthusiastic collaborator for censorship, it would share the post, prominently, but it would show up in the feed of every Australian as a big red "This post censored on order of the Australian Securities & Investment Commission, authorized by law XY. List of politicians that voted for this law available at [link]"
Instead, Twitter not only complies with the censorship, but goes the extra mile and helps the Australian government hide the very fact that censorship is even taking place. I wonder if there will be any "democracy dies in darkness" hand-wringing about this..
Sure. And are these lockdowns still in place?
> the actual fundamental problem is that Australia is the only so-called democracy
So-called democracy? So you mean Australia can't change its government through a democratic process? Have they banned elections now or, alternatively, have they recently had an election which changed the government?
These kinds of nonsense claims only serve to undermine any point the article is trying to make.