Slashdot Mirror
Australia Threatens Social Media Laws That Could Jail Tech Execs (cnet.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: Following the livestreamed New Zealand mosque shooting that left 50 dead in Christchurch, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison is looking to crack down on extremist content on social media. Morrison will on Tuesday meet with Australian executives of Facebook, Twitter and Google to discuss extremist content legislation that would punish these companies' executives with jail time, the Australian Financial Review reports. Local internet service providers will also be present at the meeting.
Details of the proposed legislation aren't yet known. However, Europe's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which applies to any company operating in the continent, showed that tech companies can change their global practices to appease local legislation. News of Morrison's meeting with tech executives comes on the same day that his government announced increased punishment for companies misusing user information. Maximum penalties for misuse of private data was raised from AU$2.1 million to AU$10 million -- or 10 percent of the company's domestic revenue, or three times the value gained from that misuse of data.
Details of the proposed legislation aren't yet known. However, Europe's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which applies to any company operating in the continent, showed that tech companies can change their global practices to appease local legislation. News of Morrison's meeting with tech executives comes on the same day that his government announced increased punishment for companies misusing user information. Maximum penalties for misuse of private data was raised from AU$2.1 million to AU$10 million -- or 10 percent of the company's domestic revenue, or three times the value gained from that misuse of data.
tech will just take an ausexit then
Read up on the East India Tea Company. Was very much an international corporation with a standing army and navy and successfully subjugated empires on its own.
Sort of. Mercantilism is hard to understand in a modern context. The East India Company was far more in bed with the government than any modern corporation, and its only because of that that it was allowed it's own armed forces. The British government saw it as a free British army/navy, and there was enormous overlap between ownership in the EIC and power in the government.
Much economics of the time was of the form "you pay the government for a monopoly (or earn it by supporting the government militarily), you make whatever money you can" and while the EIC was a bit abstracted from that, it wasn't far. While it wasn't "Lord Soandso has the salt monopoly as part of his domain granted by the Queen" it was "the EIC is granted a charter by the Queen, and Lord Soandso owns a big chunk".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You surely understand that terrorism is far more effective when the terrorist himself is able to speak directly, right?
Yeah, price of freedom. Everyone has the right to speak, even assholes. Do not give the government the power to decide who's a terrorist and who's a protestor, or you effectively end legal protest against the government (this is not hypothetical, it's the status quo in China). Would you really be in favor of jailing a journalist who showed a terrorists video?
We have laws against making money from criminal acts, and those are fine. Not that any advertiser would want to be shown along side such content in the first place.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.