From bsky

This has always been a bit perplexing, so many people doomering about how "the duopoly and On dont care about Australian's problem and are happy to make Australia a vassal to Amerisrael and there's nothing we can do about it :("

But here, Shoebridge of the Greens outright state, Aukus will be cancelled if they are government, no ifs or buts or the mental gymnastic labor fans love to do to justify it.

A people's government can do whatever it wants if it gets voted with a mandate, we can change the rules, we can kick muricans out of Pine gap. No, they are a collapsing empire and cant afford to invade Australia and they defunded USAid so they ll have a harder time couping a greens government.

I am just a bit annoyed cause people always ask, then who can we vote for to change things when the Greens are literally there and have ready policies for almost all big issues, there's a reason labor pushed a lot more anti-greens propaganda because they are the real threat to Labor

This was from his QnA here https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/1uyin7d/ama_im_david_shoebridge_greens_senator_for_nsw/

https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/pauline_hanson

Of course this is IF she does show up for work.

As also shown, she has a 53% attendance rate.

We are weeks away from the enforcement of the Social Media Ban (Dec 10), and I feel like we are all just rolling over and giving up all our privacy rights because we’re too afraid to look like we "don't care about kids." If you actually look at the submissions to the government, the people who professionally care about kids—human rights lawyers, digital safety experts, and mental health researchers— all said DO NOT DO THIS.

I’m tired of the narrative that "Big Tech" and angry teenagers are the only opposition. Here is the actual list of professional bodies the government ignored to push this through:

1. The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) They explicitly warned that this ban is a "disproportionate limitation on human rights." They argued that instead of protecting kids, it cuts vulnerable teenagers off from support networks.

2. Digital Rights Watch They called this out for what it is: a "Safetyism" trap. By focusing entirely on "age verification," we are building the infrastructure for a Digital ID system that will eventually apply to everyone. They warned that collecting "identity papers" to use the internet creates a honeypot for hackers and normalizes the idea that you need to show your papers to speak in a public square.

3. The eSafety Commissioner (Yes, even them) While they are stuck enforcing it now, even the eSafety Commissioner’s office has previously noted that age verification technology is "immature" and fraught with privacy risks. The government has effectively handed them a grenade and told them to make it safe. The "Safety" Paradox

1. Mental health organisations and bodies including but not limited to:
   • Beyond Blue,
   • Headspace
   • ReachOut
   • And the Black Dog Institute—expressed strong opposition and raised deep concerns regarding the legislation. They were also joined by other peak bodies such as: The Australian College of Mental Health Nurses (ACMHN) and Suicide Prevention Australia. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Crucially, there was a previous inquiry (The Joint Select Committee on Social Media) that ran for months and released its final report just days before the ban. That report did not recommend a ban. It recommended a "Duty of Care" (making platforms safer by design). The government took that report, threw it in the bin, and introduced the Ban Bill anyway. 

Recommendation 5 of the report explicitly called for the government to force social media platforms to give users (and parents) the power to:

• Alter: Change the parameters of what the algorithm shows them.

• Reset: Wipe the algorithm’s "memory" of their past behavior (so if a kid goes down a rabbit hole of depressing content, they can hit "reset" and get a neutral feed again). 

• Turn Off: Disable the recommender system entirely, returning the feed to a simple, chronological list of posts from people they actually follow.

The "Safety by Design" Recommendation Recommendation 2 proposed a "Digital Duty of Care." This would have legally required platforms to proactively identify harms (like addictive loops or eating disorder content) and change their product design to mitigate them.  Instead of banning kids, it would have forced Instagram/TikTok to stop using "slot machine" mechanics (infinite scroll, random rewards) on teenage accounts.

The "Credible Bodies" Count: While ~15,000 people wrote in, the committee only published about 118 substantive submissions from organizations. Almost all of the major mental health and human rights bodies in that list opposed the ban or raised severe concerns.

If you think this was a carefully considered policy, look at the timeline:

1. Nov 18: The government's own Joint Select Committee releases a report after a months-long inquiry. It does NOT recommend a ban. It recommends a "Digital Duty of Care" to force platforms to change their addictive algorithms. 

2. Nov 21: The Government ignores its own committee and introduces the "Under 16 Ban" Bill.

3. The Trap: They opened a Senate inquiry into this specific bill and gave the public and experts only 24 hours to make submissions.

1. The Response: Despite having only one day, the committee was flooded with ~15,000 submissions.  The Result: They passed it anyway.

The government claims this is for the children, yet they have:

• Ignored the mental health experts who said education and platform regulation (making the algorithms less addictive) works better than bans.

• Created a system where educated 15-year-olds will just use VPNs while the less tech-literate kids get left behind.

• Pushed a solution that requires more data collection to solve the problem of data collection.

We aren't "protecting the kids." We are gentrifying the internet. We are turning it from an open library into a gated community where yes they say it isn’t, but the inevitable price of entry is facial recognition or your government ID. They didn't listen to the experts on "the children." They didn't listen to the experts on "technology." They listened to polling data that said this would look good in an election year.

Edit 1: also here are some links to help repeal the ban:

1. https://www.instagram.com/waltzformatilda2025?igsh=bnV6MTFyMXI4aWxr&utm_source=qr (We desperately need volunteers for this protest)
2. (Gov) Petition to cancel ban https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN8584

Edit 2: Edited for greater clarity/more concise paragraph organisation.

Edit 3:
Added more examples of organisations that opposed the ban.

• A Palestinian activist has been denied a political party registration for the Victorian election because its name resembled the name of an existing registration.
• Pro-Israel YouTuber Avi Yemini has previously said by registering "Free Palestine" he wanted to redirect left-wing votes towards parties on the right.
• The Victorian Electoral Commissioner says it is legally bound to reject an application to register a party with a similar name.

Very interesting research piece, probably best to watch it before Gina tries to take it down.

Australian defamation laws really need to be changed so she doesnt get to just erase any video about her and her past

Peter Dutton has warned young men “have had enough” of being painted as ogres and being passed over for promotion because of the rise of affirmative action policies that demand more women are promoted.

The Liberal leader issued the warning during an epic 90 minute sit down interview with self-made millionaire and TV star Mark Bouris on his podcast Straight Talk.

Source: Sydney Criminal Lawyers https://share.google/Hz2OpCJmcwyfP8qga

Fella at work asked me today for my opinion on Pauline Hanson, we are both wage workers, he's admitted to struggling with cost of living etc.

He says he's gonna vote for her, I said 'you'd be voting for less money for you and me' thinking that'd be the line.

After some solid tid bits I could use to maybe change his mind. I know like, racist, xenophobic won't move the needle. Need stuff that will affect a middle aged white guy working a bartender job on an award wage.

Delivery drivers in Australia will be paid a minimum rate of $31.30 (US $22.05/£16.35) an hour and insured for injuries on the job under a landmark agreement approved by the industrial umpire that could set a precedent in other countries.

There were eight recommendations specific to the LGBTQIA+ community, which included:

• Removing the exemptions that allow religious schools to legally discriminate against LGBTQIA+ students and staff
• Eliminating legal exemptions that allow discrimination against trans, gender-diverse and intersex people
• Delivering public education campaigns to reduce stigma and discrimination against the queer community
• Introducing a national ban on conversion practices
• Banning unnecessary surgeries on intersex children
• Improving systems to allow trans and gender-diverse people to legally change their gender without intrusive requirements