57
France to sue Australian platform for 'negligence' after livestream death (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to c/australia@aussie.zone
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] shirro@aussie.zone 14 points 5 days ago

Meanwhile the "think of the children" Australian government is hands off on any enterprise run by the gambling industry. So much for the wishes of the Labor rank and file to kick gambling influence out of the party. The parliamentary parties allegiances are clear. Do whatever US intelligence and the tech companies say about age verification. Do whatever the mining industry says. Do whatever the surveillance industry says. Do whatever the gambling industry says. Piss weak for a government with a huge majority.

[-] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 4 points 4 days ago

A government can only go against lobbyist interests (and especially American interests) if they have the opposition on-side. Labor, to this day, has a long history of being couped and they've learned cowardice as a result.

Whitlam, Rudd, Fyles, Palaszczuk.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 4 days ago

Rudd

Rudd did it to himself by being pigheaded and refusing to go far enough.

Palaszczuk never really did anything stand-out brave. Her government lost because of the natural churn that comes with having been in power for 8 years, and because of global trends favouring oppositions.

Whitlam is definitely a good example. So would be Shorten, even though it was a bold platform from opposition that lost him a seemingly-unlosable election, rather than losing Government for bold actually-enacted policy.

I won't comment on Fyles. I'm not nearly familiar enough with NT politics to say anything intelligent.

[-] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Palaszczuk taxed the coal mining companies and balanced the state budget. And keep in mind this was in Queensland, the most conservative state in the country.

Rudd ... there is so much I could say. One of Gillard's first acts after replacing Rudd was to drop the taxes on mining, she then put in a carbon tax that even an idiot could come up with a scare campaign against, said carbon tax only lasted a few years and permanently poisoned the idea of a price on carbon. This is not even mentioning the CIA cables discussing whether they should replace Rudd with Gillard because Rudd didn't want to automatically join America in a war for Taiwan.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 4 days ago

Palaszczuk taxed the coal mining companies

Sure, but it wasn't an especially bold proposal. And it wasn't particularly central to either party's election campaign, compared to things like cost of living, the Olympics, and "youth crime".

she then put in a carbon tax

Not a carbon tax. A fixed-price period leading into a cap and trade scheme.

said carbon tax only lasted a few years

Still not a carbon tax. It lasted only a few years because the Government lost at the next election. Something that was greatly aided by the constant white-anting by Rudd after he lost the leadership.

Gillard's scheme was actually working. It was world-leading legislation that actually reduced emissions while it was in effect. If Rudd had just been willing to compromise and had delivered that exact policy in 2009 instead of trying to act the Big Tough Guy and insisting it was His Way or the Highway (despite the fact that "his way" would not have reduced emissions for another decade from today), turning it into the political football that brought down both his and Gillard's Governments.

[-] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago

Sure, but it wasn’t an especially bold proposal.

Was enough to get her couped with a fake corruption scandal plastered all over the press. What are you expecting exactly, Whitlam levels of boldness?

Not a carbon tax.

Doesn't matter. You can say all you want that it's a lie to call it a "carbon tax" but does anyone in Australia know it by a different name?

It lasted only a few years because the Government lost at the next election. If Rudd had ... instead of ... that brought down both his and Gillard’s Governments.

Gillard was polling abysmally before Rudd took over. She was a terrible prime minster who nobody liked.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago

Gillard was polling abysmally before Rudd took over

Yes. Because of relentless attack ads from the Murdoch media, and because Australians hate internal party division, and Rudd stoked that up every chance he got.

[-] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago

So Gillard got couped too. Let's just leave it at that because I can't really be bothered.

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Not a carbon tax. A fixed-price period leading into a cap and trade scheme.

What do you mean "leading into"?

Cap and trade? Isn't that an emissions trading scheme? She certainly didn't install ETS, she installed a carbon tax (and I don't consider tax a dirty word) aka carbon pricing.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 4 days ago

She certainly didn’t install ETS

Yes, she did.

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago

OK so that's what you meant by "leading into". TIL. Thanks.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 4 days ago

Oh yes, sorry that wasn't clear. I've been talking about it for so long (even before the Gillard Government, I remember a fixed-price introductory period leading to a cap and trade scheme being what was described in my highschool econ classes as the best method for reducing emissions) I may have gotten lazy about explaining the terminology that's become so familiar to me.

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Nah, that's fine. Most people don't want to know the details because they just want to be right about their entrenched view. The few serious ones will politely engage, and you then explained.

Maybe it is better in this sub but on Reddit it was usually ugly. Yay Lemmy!

[-] Salvo@aussie.zone 2 points 4 days ago

The reason why Labor ended up with such a huge majority was that the Liberal (and National) Party’s platform was all about Green-bashing and Orange Man Idolatry, while the Greens were all about hippy-dippy bullshit.

Greens voters went with Labor because their own parties policies weren’t perceived as realistic enough and LNP voters went with Labor to protest the Trumpian behaviour of the LNP.

[-] ada 6 points 4 days ago

The greens got more votes in the last election than the one prior, and their overall percentage remained unchanged. The greens lost out because the liberals preferenced Labor over them, and so a large amount of the swing away from the liberals ended up in Labor's lap both directly and through preferences

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The greens got more votes in the last election than the one prior, and their overall percentage remained unchanged.

Isn't that a contradiction? Was it increased or was it unchanged? I think you might be talking about first preferences vs 2PP.

[-] ada 1 points 4 days ago

Just loose wording from me. What I was trying to say is that their vote count was actually higher this time around, not lower, but the increase was so small it was a rounding error on their overall percentage. The point being, their voterbase didn't go anywhere, but nor did they attract new folk.

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

Gerrymandering in Melbourne also worked against Greens.

[-] princessnorah 1 points 4 days ago

Are you meaning this in a negative way? The seat was reapportioned and as is the Electoral Commission's guidance on the matter, it was pushed towards as even of a split as possible.

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Maybe it is unfair to call it Gerrymandering but my understand is that it worked against Greens (eg boundary extended across the Yarra into Kew - that is conservative territory).

[-] princessnorah 2 points 4 days ago

I mean, to call it gerrymandering is valid, but people always tend to use it as a dirty word. Any time people are making the choices about electoral boundaries there's gerrymandering at play. We just choose in Australia to generally try to make seats as competitive as possible. On the balance of things, Greens-dominant areas in Fitzroy North and Carlton North were also redistributed away from Melbourne to Wills, which meant that Peter Khalil (Labor) had a huge 7.60% swing against him. Samantha Ratnam (Greens) came within 3k votes of winning the seat. This is all coming from a Greens member by the way.

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Do you think Greens would have won within the old boundaries? Or would the preferences have screwed them anyhow? Speaking of which...

The greens lost out because the liberals preferenced Labor over them

Just to be precise: Greens probably preferenced Labor in the previous election too. The difference this time is that 2PP was between Lab & Grn, whereas previously it was between Lib & Grn so of course the Kab preferences followed mainly to Greens.

You sound savvy enough to know it but your wording was ambiguous so I just want to make sure a fellow Green is armed with the info.

I no longer vote #1 Greens although they get my vote via preferences. A few of my friends have followed suit. Their support of the Digital Identity Bill was a sellout and their lack of criticism of Hamas put me off.

Also Larissa Waters using the hashtag #ibelievewomen. I have been arguing this week with two women friends who embraced it literally to mean that not a single woman would lie about rape. It took me a lot of energy to budge them from that delusional stance. That is why using the hashtag is irresponsible regardless of what Waters means.

[-] princessnorah 1 points 4 days ago

I don't put them first myself, usually I put the Socialists. I also don't make voting choices based off hashtags though...

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Hashtags sometimes are used for indexing. In this instance it was the the only hashtag used and it was at the end of an understandable congratulations Tweet re Higgins win.

The hashtag was used to make a political point and it is an irresponsible one IMO, feeding hysterical views in vulnerable people (as my two friends demonstrated - yet Reddit don't think anyone would interpret the hashtag thus).

There was the other two points I mentioned as well, all within a year.

[-] princessnorah 1 points 4 days ago

People are always going to misinterpret something as shortform as a hashtag. I think there's a larger conversation to be had about their use in spaces like politics, but I'd hardly say that makes one instance of their use irresponsible to the level you're implying. Especially when you consider the fact that "women often make false accusations" is absolutely a red-herring used to try and delegitimise accusers again, and again, and again. The most prominent example from recent memory that comes to my mind, within politics, being the way Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Brett Kavanaugh were treated.

Have a nice night though 💜😊

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

"women often make false accusations"

Up to 10% of the time in court. "often" is not a useful qualifier.

absolutely a red-herring used to try and delegitimise accusers again, and again, and again.

"Absolutely"? So no exceptions? Just like my two friends eh? One of whom implied all accused should be castrated because no woman would ever have a reason to lie.

I am all for presumption of innocence until proven guilty and treating all parties with dignity in the meantime (even though the vast majority of the men in the hearings are guilty).

Am unfamiliar with the Kavanagh case.

Did you see the video example in the Reddit thread showing cops automatically believing the woman and treating the man in an undignified fashion? Spoiler: the man is obviously innocent.

Enjoy your passive-aggressive smugly wugly day.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago

Yup exactly. The Greens' loss was mostly because the earlier Greens wins came on the back of Labor finishing 3rd and preferences going to the Greens. If the LNP finishes 3rd, preferences go to Labor and Labor wins. There was also a redistribution in Melbourne that favoured Labor pretty strongly. It's one of the weird quirks of IRV and exposes a reason proportional systems like MMP (used in Germany and NZ) are better.

[-] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I voted against the Greens because their behavior voting against the HAFF was straight-up psychotic. They were throwing the homeless under the bus for headlines and renters.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 4 days ago

The Greens' behaviour on the HAFF was pretty objectively good policy. HAFF is a long-term project, not a quick win for homeless. The Greens stalled something that won't pay off for years by a couple of months in order to make it better. And make it better they did. Including in the shorter term, by requiring it pay out a minimum amount.

By stalling it a couple of months, the HAFF was made better in both the short and long terms.

[-] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 2 points 4 days ago

Many NGO's were prepared to hit the ground running with the HAFF funding, by blocking the HAFF the Greens screwed up the prepared contracts. They delayed much needed housing for people genuinely in need by years just so they could get brownie points with renters.

On the minimum payout, Labor conceded on that point immediately. The Greens were not voting against it on those grounds.

And before you say Labor should've made concessions, the Greens unlike Labor don't actually face any electoral pressures since they have less than zero chance of forming government and basically zero chance of losing senate seats. The Greens, for good reason, have become politically toxic to deal with because they think acting like whiny children makes them charismatic. If Labor met the Greens $10 billion spending demands, it would've been used as a campaign point in this year's election and Labor would've lost to the LNP who would've then cut the HAFF.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 4 days ago

Labor conceded on that point immediately

They said they did. Then they presented the original version to Parliament again.

[-] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago

Source? Not that I really care. It barely matters.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 4 days ago

I found it out when I was talking to a Greens member and I shared exactly the same viewpoint you expressed in your earlier comment. You can verify it by looking at the timeframe of the bill's passage through Parliament.

[-] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago

I did some digging, looks like Labor offered it in exchange for support but in response ...

Greens housing spokesperson Max Chandler-Mathers said the changes still did not go far enough.

Although I don't know if mandatory disbursements are a good idea anyway. I've just accepted your framing of them as a good idea.

[-] John_Howard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 4 days ago

never knew kick was australian

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 4 days ago

Yeah same. I find it a little weird that none of the talk about it has ever mentioned it's Australian until this incident.

[-] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 1 points 4 days ago

@John_Howard

Of course Kick is Australian. It is arguably INXS' best album.

Wait... what are we talking about??? (Hopefully, it's not a snuff film.)

@Davriellelouna

[-] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

ABN lookup indicates it's registered in Melbourne CBD.

It seems they are at 287 Collins St. I walked past that building today. It's an ANZ bank and I'm not sure how that building can be much else.

[-] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 days ago

Obviously I'm really old and way out of touch on this, but I find this abhorrent.

Why is this a thing? Watching someone be abused hasn't been socially acceptable entertainment for a long time. Suddenly it is again?

"This three-year-old platform is clearly very disconnected with what is really going on," she said, adding that if inquiries showed Kick fell short of online content standards, there would be "sanctions", which she did not specify.

That seems like quite an understatement to me. I'd say they're actively avoiding acknowledging this content.

[-] PDFuego@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

As far as I know (might be wrong) Kick was made for streamers who have been kicked off other platforms. It's another one of these sites with "relaxed moderation" which cater specifically to assholes who aren't welcome elsewhere.

[-] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 6 points 5 days ago

Surely the fellow streamers are mostly responsible

[-] naught101@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago

If platforms are providing affordances for abuse and profiting off it, then they are too.

[-] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago

Everyone seems to be missing the important part which was buried deep in the article.

An autopsy showed Mr Graven did not die from impact trauma and that the probable causes of death appeared to be medical or toxicological in origin.

[-] synapse1278@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

There was already a criminal investigation ongoing and his tragic death happened in the meantime, amplifying the media coverage of this case that was only reported by independent media until now.

this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2025
57 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

4476 readers
155 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
Fluid@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
Nath@aussie.zone