Today is our National Congress (annual general meeting). In the spirit of radical transparency (and to allow for remote participation) we live stream the whole thing!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-Nr...
Read our policy on Civil and Digital Liberties: www.fusionparty.org.au/civil_digita...
#AusPol #FusionParty
Restore the public domain to how it should be. The patent system should be reviewed and reformed with the aim of creating a fairer and more innovative market where creatives can grow without the power imbalances currently holding them back.
We can oppose this monopolistic corporate behaviour and demand our spaces be open, competitive and free markets where innovation and creativity can flourish.
Today, most physical and digital spaces open to the public are owned by corporations. Our freedom to create and express ourselves is confined to this ever-shrinking public space.
It doesn’t have to be like this.
#VoteFusion #CivilAndDigitalLiberties
2005: Australia-USA free trade agreement extends our copyright term by 20 years for the benefit of American mega-corps. 2025: Trump's tariffs tear up the deal. If they don't want it... why should we? Let's shorten copyright.
Twenty years.
That's how long we've had the FTA.
It's also how long we had to extend our copyright term by.
Memo to the Yanks: we have a say too.
Suffice to say, reducing the copyright term is a good idea and we should do it.
We're wishing a very heartfelt Congratulations to all of Australia's newest citizens :)
Yep, freedom of information and expression, including a substantially freer culture (shortened copyright term).
For more info read pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Platform
Pirate ship, at night, with fireworks behind. Text overlap "Happy New Year!" Auth A. Jago, PPAU, Brisbane
Here's to 2025, everybody!
In most countries, copyright works enter the public domain on January 1st, either 50 or 70 years after the year of their authors' death. Since Australia shifted from +50 to (mostly) +70 in the mid 2000s, we're in a 20 year transition period. Just one more year to go!
Vulnerable young people 6 News opposes this Bill on the basis that it will only cause further problems for young people online. In particular, we are deeply concerned about the impact it will have on vulnerable teenagers who may use social media as a necessary escape from their day-to-day lives. Marginalised young people who may feel safe in an online community (including those who may not feel safe at home), teens in remote parts of our nation who have found friends online, and those who have built up important relationships and friendships online all benefit. Speaking to many young people in recent weeks, we have heard how they have been able to get through extremely difficult times in their own lives by using various social media platforms. Although we understand that students may experience bullying online, restricting all teenagers from using social media is not the solution. Stifling creativity 6 News is deeply concerned that this legislation will stifle the creativity of Australia’s young people, instead of allowing them to thrive. Young journalists from across the nation have joined 6 News from age 13, and 6 News has been able to grow through this. Young people have seen 6 News content on social media, and they have been able to get better informed about our nation’s news and current affairs by watching the perspectives of people their own age. 6 News is a unique outlet, and Australia’s teenagers have no other nationwide news channel that is fronted by people their own age.
Leo says it'll cause further problems for marginalised young people and will stifle creativity.
For many LGBTIQ+ young people, social media provides a vital connection to peer networks, community resources, and supportive environments that are not always available in their offline lives. Restricting access to these platforms risks isolating them further. The challenges are compounded in rural, regional and outer metropolitan areas where there is little or no access to in-person support and particularly peer support through LGBTIQ+ community-controlled organisations. For many LGBTIQ+ young people, the perception and reality of stigma, discrimination and abuse prevents them from seeking or obtaining vital support within their home, family or local community. The lack of consideration for the specific needs of marginalised populations, such as LGBTIQ+ young people, reinforces our concern that this Bill is a rushed response rather than one developed through a thorough and inclusive consultation process.
LGBTIQ+ health alliance warns the ban will disproportionally affect LGBTIQ+ young people
![Expert consensus does not support the Bill
Over recent months, there has been significant criticism and widespread opposition among experts both
in Australia and globally in the fields of technology policy, online safety, and youth mental health against
proposals to ban social media for teens:
• More than 100 academics, researchers, and organisations specialising in technology, online
safety, child rights and youth mental health, based in Australia and internationally, have written to
the Prime Minister expressing their opposition to banning teens from social media.
• The Government-established bipartisan Joint Committee on Social Media and Australian Society,
tasked with examining these issues in May, notably excluded any recommendation for teenage
social media bans in their final report, published this week.
• The eSafety Commissioner, Australia's independent online safety regulator, raised significant
concerns about such proposals in their submission to the Joint Committee.
• The Australian Human Rights Commission has also raised concerns with the Government’s
proposed ban.
• These concerns are global in nature: Norway’s Committee on Screen Time recently published an
in-depth report which found that there is “no evidence to suggest that the authorities should
decide … at which age [adolescents] should be allowed to use social media.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:aa245ktw34fkioyycpf4lwnh/bafkreievaooq5aaxarlb45rd5gfphm3ojhlyd5xofkl6wswn4gl2rekedy)
Expert consensus does not support the Bill Over recent months, there has been significant criticism and widespread opposition among experts both in Australia and globally in the fields of technology policy, online safety, and youth mental health against proposals to ban social media for teens: • More than 100 academics, researchers, and organisations specialising in technology, online safety, child rights and youth mental health, based in Australia and internationally, have written to the Prime Minister expressing their opposition to banning teens from social media. • The Government-established bipartisan Joint Committee on Social Media and Australian Society, tasked with examining these issues in May, notably excluded any recommendation for teenage social media bans in their final report, published this week. • The eSafety Commissioner, Australia's independent online safety regulator, raised significant concerns about such proposals in their submission to the Joint Committee. • The Australian Human Rights Commission has also raised concerns with the Government’s proposed ban. • These concerns are global in nature: Norway’s Committee on Screen Time recently published an in-depth report which found that there is “no evidence to suggest that the authorities should decide … at which age [adolescents] should be allowed to use social media.”
Snapchat says the bill isn't backed by expert evidence.
At the outset, however, we would like to record our concern with respect to the unreasonably short timeframe of one day that was given to interested parties to review, digest and collate submissions on this very significant legislative proposal. Correspondingly, our observations as set out in this letter are our initial, high-level, observations only, and should not be construed as a waiver of any of our legal rights or remedies, which are fully and expressly reserved. Further, we have serious concerns as to the lawfulness of the Bill, including its compatibility with other regulations and laws, including international human rights treaties to which Australia is a signatory, as further detailed below. Our mission at X is to promote and protect the public conversation. We believe X users have the right to express their opinions and ideas without fear of censorship. We also believe it is our responsibility to keep users on our platform safe from content that violates our Rules. Violence, harassment, and other similar types of behavior discourage people from expressing themselves, and ultimately diminish the value of global public conversation. X, as a platform, is not widely used by minors, currently has no lines of business that actively target minors, and does not allow advertisers to target minors. In line with our requirement that users must be 13 years of age to access the platform, we are currently examining dierent age assurance options, while carefully considering the legal global implications and privacy by design principles. While X agrees that robust strategies for mitigating the risk of harm to children are fundamental, we advocate for a balanced approach which protects children without compromising user privacy and freedom of expression. Implementing these strategies eectively requires global collaboration between regulators, industry, and child protection experts.
About 73 of the 15,000 social media ban submissions have been published so far. X questions the lawfulness of the bill
Farcical!
Under our proposed 15-year copyright term, these would all be public-domain as of next year.
arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/...
"Whistleblower protection laws failed to protect David McBride. This sentence sends a chilling message to all potential whistleblowers in the country."
- Pirate president Miles Whiticker
Our statement: pirateparty.org.au/2024/05/15/p...
