Since the recent election there's a lot of commentary saying the Liberal party needs to reconsider its policies and re-align with its core values which, when enumerated sound very centrist.

I just watched ABC's q&a, there was a few interesting points. There was a strong consensus that Trump style culture wars are toxic in Australian politics, and that it's unlikely future candidates would take that route.

I don't want to gloat infront of the seppos, but I think what's happening during this aftermath is very salient for all of those "both sides are bad" Americans.

In October last year there seemed to be a lot of users saying that they didn't want to reward the dems with their vote, and that the only way to communicate with the party was to withhold their vote.

I think what's happening right now in Australia demonstrates the importance of voting.

Labor might not be left enough for you personally, but each time the libs are defeated they need to move to the left to be viable, and Labor will have to move further left to differentiate themselves. That is to say, the spectrum of acceptable opinions is moving to the left in an observable manner, right now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I am 100% on board with point 3. And not just food, but all products.

I like point 1 in theory, but have concerns. Billboards are easy, do that 100%. You didn't mention TV, but I assume you'd want it banned there as well as social media? The problem is, you ban advertising on TV and we go back to the days where the ABC is the only player around. I'm not going to be upset if Australia’s Next Top Influencer Chef or Farmer Wants a Renovation go away, but a lot of people do obviously get value in them. And the consequences if commercial sport went away would be much more severe, given their role in encouraging young people to get out and be active. I would immediately ban gambling ads, and would be open to the idea of banning alcohol ads and ads for other harmful products. But banning all advertising on TV is a non-starter, unless you can first come up with a serious viable alternative revenue stream. If commercial social media died, I would be much less upset. But do you mean social media, or do you mean all websites? YouTube and the Guardian going away would be a real loss in a way Twitter and Facebook would not.

Point 2 is an absolute no. Military chauvinistic bullshit. We're not a country at severe threat of invasion like Taiwan or South Korea, where national service might be justified. As someone more interested in an anarchist style left than a statist one, I can't even begin to condone this idea.

[–] kudra@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh! Also forgot to say: we already came up with a model to remove, very successfully, advertising from TV:

it was called Netflix.

Unfortunately it got enshittified, and now everything is a giant shit show in that department.

But you make advertising illegal, and companies are still going to have subscribers.

I'm also pretty happy with just ABC iView these days, I rarely even bother with SBS and haven't had Netflix for years.

There's also Beamafilm and other public library initiatives.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

it was called Netflix

As a paid service, Netflix is definitely not equivalent to free-to-air TV. In sport we even have specific anti-siphoning laws to prevent culturally important events being siphoned off so only people who pay for them can watch. It's a bad road to go down. A similar concept can go for game shows, dramas, reality TV, news, and whatever else is on free-to-air TV. The ABC is great, and to be honest outside of sport it's basically the only channel I ever watch. But the ABC can't provide nearly as much stuff as all channels combined do.

[–] kudra@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I cannot remember the last time I watched free to air that wasn't ABC. It's mostly reality tv crap and reruns. And propaganda, given who owns these bloody things. Not much would be lost if advertising supported TV was not allowed.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not much would be lost if advertising supported TV was not allowed.

That's a value judgment that you are making. Lots of people watch and enjoy it, and even though I agree with your value judgment, I think it's pretty abhorrent to try to force that view on others. And it's highly elitist to suggest only those who can pay should have a variety of options for what to watch.

[–] kudra@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

If it's elitist, it's from a perspective that is aware of the incredible damage done by advertising, and the dumbing down and control of what people think is their own opinions that is only exacerbated when people are exposed to it.

See The Hidden Persuaders by Vance Packard and No Logo by Naomi Klein, for starters.

And one of my favourite anti-facebook rants ever:

https://youtu.be/d6e1riShmak

(admittedly that's about the whole package not solely the advertising part tho)

[–] kudra@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sweet on 3. I'm also big on adjusting that as a carbon tax, so for example, your tax if your goods ship via sail/carbon neutral means is way less than carbon intensive transport. But refrigerated long range transport seems super crazy at this point.

1 I am open to persuasion on. I know there's some parts of the world that outlawed billboards, and that's a vast improvement and a public good for a more restful visual environment. We've seen the evil perpetrated on the internet through advertising. It's just the worst way to have monetised everything, and in hindsight was a massive mistake, and has been since long before this (look up the history if deBeers, and advertising in general. I actually studied advertising briefly as one of several streams in graphic design study, and backed out after one semester, I did not have the stomach for it). People of Fedi are largely already convinced advertising for monetisation is evil. Maybe some kind of limitation in advertising regarding company size, dunno, but I really don't like the future of Idiocracy, and smarter people than me have already commented that we're more than halfway there.

And to 2. Allow me to explain further. I first came to this idea of compulsory national service after a conversation at a nightclub over a decade ago where it was mentioned that only 2 nations in the world (at the time) had conscription for all genders: Sweden and Malaysia. This was incorrect as there were several more, as I discovered when I looked it up, and most northern European countries have added conscription for women since. But the person speaking was female and had said it was fantastic, got her opportunities that she might not have had otherwise, allowed her experience in leadership roles that were rare at the time (and often still are in many places), and lifelong friends.

This article just published 3 days ago pretty much gives a bigger overview and I agree with.

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/time-to-consider-mandatory-national-service-in-australia/105257832

I think that we are going to need more social cohesiveness as the world becomes more unstable both geopolitically and physically as climate change really ramps up.

And please note, I do not believe anyone should be required to serve mandatory military service: that's why I stated specifically military OR climate corps.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think that we are going to need more social cohesiveness

I don't disagree, but there are deeper problems here and forcing teenagers into work they're not enthusiastic about isn't the fix. Especially not if that work follows the rigid hierarchy of a military or military-like organisation.

We have problems of alienation caused by capitalism.

We have a lack of community with neighbours caused by car-dependent infrastructure and a lack of third spaces.

And I'm just not going to buy the idea that forcing young people into working under a rigid hierarchy (a very un-Australian concept, if there ever was one!) would work at all, but even in the best case it would just be a bandaid on the wound.

[–] kudra@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

I think a climate corps world not have to be run in a military fashion, and can be doing very peaceful things like planting trees, making bicycle paths, social outreach, or tech if that's what motivates you. Read the article linked for more ideas of what could be included.

I agree about capitalism & lack of space and car depency, 1000 percent. But we've also given people the idea that society of just this given, the structure just exists and you get the benefits of infrastructure (even though it's far from perfect) without being required to give back. I think that concept of valuable and with an aging population, we will have difficult choices to make in future. Kids shouldn't have to shoulder a greater burden, and I also believe the welfare state is going to collapse because of logistics of population decline and degrowth in our future, unless we manage it incredibly carefully. We can't keep going the way we have been, that's certain.