BETOOTA'S VIEW | Editorial | CONTACT
Overnight there has been extreme backlash across the Australian social media landscape, as the Albanese Government outlays their new 'Digital Duty Of Care' bill.
These proposed laws aim to help prevent Australians having to watch their dim-witted but loving uncle go down an online rabbit hole that turns them into psychopaths that think the Freemasons are using Cancer Council sunscreen to control their thoughts.
The 'digital duty of care' reforms could let Australians opt in or opt out of algorithmically recommended social media content, which tends to be the gateway to the brain-rot schizophrenia that has resulted in the murders of multiple police officers in both rural Queensland and Victoria over the last couple of years.
The draft laws will require online platforms to reduce foreseeable harms or face fines of more than $100 million.
However, it is the latter that appears to upset the far-right pundits on News24, who worry that their bold political messages might be censored if social media platforms are no longer allowed to platform extremism.
The laws have also upset a new generation of online political commentators who worry that, without algorithms promoting the most polarising and divisive content, everyday social media users will not seek out their content organically.
These laws obviously pass the Big Tech 'scream test' - which means that they will obviously set a global precedent by forcing these platforms to take responsibility, and are therefore being shouted down by some of the loudest voices in Silicon Valley.
This has happened well before Labor has even had the chance to consult on the proposal, with the Greens and Coalition pledging to work through the details before finalising a position.
The major news publishers around the country appear to support these reforms, knowing that they will minimise the imported culture wars that see local news updates being drowned out of social media feeds.
However, the Betoota Advocate has chosen to oppose these new laws - with our entire board and news team in 100% agreeance that any attempt to regulate the marketplace of outrage and greivance politics actually constitutes an attack on free speech.
We also believe that the status quo, which of course has it's downsides - like the unprecedented levels of depressed men who've spent so much of their young adulthood staring into an addictive algorithm. never felt the touch of a consenting woman or the satisfying sweat of an honest days work and therefore blame Nepali pub chefs for robbing him of an optimistic and prosperous Australia that he has only ever seen in A.I generated video reels posted by Karl Stefanovic - should not be dismissed as necessarily a bad thing.
In fact, it is a triumph of both free speech and technological advancements.
Keep the algorithm as is.
