Using the incident against Helen Haines as the reason to tighten rules on ordinary people speaking to each other on social media would be a straightforward move to limit dissent under the guise of safety. The clip already points that way. Threats get blamed on political anger and social media algorithms. Littleproud says social media companies could fix it overnight by changing the algorithms. How exactly does that work? Changing the algorithms does not remove the public’s reaction. It reduces how far and how fast people can see and share what others are saying about it. The practical effect is less open conversation between ordinary people on the topics that produce the perceived anger. Being angry is not a crime. It’s a human reaction to poor governance that directly affects people’s lives. Acting on the anger is different and won’t change because of an algorithm. That is the distinction. There is no evidence that people’s reactions on social media caused the incident in question. Yet reducing that conversation remains the preferred response. The public has never been more able to talk to each other directly. That connectivity seems to be the real problem for them. Politically cashing in on the Helen Haines incident would not be a surprise. We’ve seen it before. Under-16 social media ban The government pointed to a consultation and public submissions as justification. It was not a properly designed representative survey. The process was open and shaped by organised responses, which is why it was described as stacked. Some platforms were treated as the main culprit while others, including Snapchat, received less attention despite being among the higher-risk apps for under-16s. Broader factors received less scrutiny. The move also expanded the eSafety Commissioner’s role. COVID period Lockdowns, mandates and emergency powers were justified by health data. Once the acute phase passed, some of those expanded powers stayed or were quietly repurposed. The selective focus on ‘misinformation’ continued while official messaging and policy failures received less scrutiny. Port Arthur Immediate and lasting gun control changes. The tragedy is still being questioned by the public, even for law-abiding citizens who were treated as if they were the perpetrator. It was also the moment successive governments locked in a national framework that has been defended ever since as not negotiable. No equivalent focus on government messaging, broken promises, or the conditions that produced the public reaction. The scrutiny lands on public speech and the platforms. The people in charge of the policies and the official narrative stay outside that frame. That is the double standard. We all know how they love a double standard. How many times do we reckon Albo blames social media tomorrow?

PREMIERING NOV 5th The debate we’re not supposed to have! whodecidesfilm.com #Auspol #WhoDecidesFilm

🇺🇸Listen and learn something today, great video.🇺🇸

Looks like the revolution will be televised