The effectiveness of these groups should be obvious from the referendum, if not the US election. Wealthy people are more than willing to throw shitloads around to spread misinformation and flood people’s feeds.
Comment on Rightwing lobby group Advance says it makes ‘no apology’ for support given to anti-Greens groups
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 5 days ago
Looks all’s fair in love and war, as they say, so I don’t see a problem with these people organising against the Greens, Labors, or anybody else’s policies. Let the best arguments win, which is great cause their arguments rely on lies, fiction, and crimes against humanity. The Greens need to be able to handle themselves against attacks like this.
The real question i have with Advance, and Aust Institute for that matter is, who funds them. I have to accept them, i suppose, but if they’re going to have influence over this country’s politics, the average voter must be able to know who funds them.
Greens Truth
The Truthers schtick is so tiresome. Its like a gold star they put on all their homework to make themselves feel special.
The type of assistance Advance has on offer was revealed by two Jewish advocacy groups in a recent forum hosted by the Australian Jewish Association (AJA).
I suppose this is the real guts of the article, the importance of highlighting a truly sad partnership of the Reactionary Rightwing International. These Jewish groups and their links to Advance is a sad union for them to seek.
According to Piper – who appeared in Advance’s anti-renewables Dollars & Destruction video series – the organisation is a natural ally for groups that feel they are mostly excluded from the conversation taking place in parliament and the media.
“Advance is helping get publicity for the grassroots people who have been shut out of everything,” he said.
The victim complex is unbearably boorish.
They have the the largest private media organisation/conglomerate in their corner. They have not one but four plus parties shouting their propaganda. Libs, Nats, ON, Palmer, SFF?, Sustainable Aus?.
They are dominant in all but reality. It is the realisation that no matter how much shouting at the wind is done, it doesn’t turn it back, it can create a hurricanes though… so that’ll be useful for exactly no one.
spiffmeister@aussie.zone 4 days ago
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 3 days ago
They definitely threw around a lot of money, i believe the way the media counted the funding also probably underestimated the amounts they really had for that campaign.
But the referendum was a complicated beast, misinformation certainly played a part, but there was also simple confusion, lack of goodwill, Australian’s natural propensity to be conservative with our actions. It was always a moon shot.
I know the actual result ended up just about the opposite to the pre/early referendum polls, but i think too much weight is put on those polls as evidence for the undue influence No campaigner’s misinformation had.
I’ll try to explain my reasoning below,
A referendum is nothing like an opinion poll which is a cheap indication at best of a snapshot of sentiment on a subject.
- The question asked by a market research company will be treated by a respondent with far less seriousness than that same question in a referendum. So thats one thing.
Same thing seems to be happening to Dutton and the Liberals now the Federal election has been called.
-
The bar for a referendum is very high, that in itself likely has a tonal effect on the citizenry during the campaign, as the citizenry learn the double majority rules, and the practical finality of constitutional changes.
-
There is widespread misunderstanding, and distrust of the interpretive nature of Australian law as opposed a more codified system. The populous, i believe, thinks our laws are far more codified than they actually are. A fundamental, but often overlooked strength of Australia is our judiciaries, for now, ability to interpret the statutes/Constitution for the uniqueness of the case before them, the more codified a system is the less this nuance can be utilised by the judiciary. No where is this more the case than in Constitutional law.
My point about interpretation of law is fundamental to the wording of the Voice proposal. It was intentionally vague for the protection of the courts ability to apply the real world cases that would inevitably rise.
But by serving the interests of making good law, it made it a confusing proposition to the citizenry, and due to its vague wording allowed a No campaign ample room to attach all kinds of possibilities that the wording couldn’t reject without judicial intervention, ie a High Court case determining the limits.
So the vagueness allowed a wide berth for misinformation to seem plausible, whilst being hard to deny or counter.
- Lack of community goodwill, i also think, was a key under-rated problem with the Voice Referendum, especially when compared to the Same sex Marriage Plebiscite. A difference between the two is the relative dispersals of the two minority populations within the wider Australian community. LGBT+ persons are distributed relatively more evenly throughout class, race, ethnicity, geography, etc, whereas Indigenous Australians are for more centralised along those demographics. So there was a closeness, and therefore higher rates of familiarity, with LGBT+ Australians, than with Indigenous Australians. I think this played a big role.
Then theres other factors like lack of bipartisanship, which decreased likelihood of rusted on Party line voters to vote in favour, against their general election behaviour.
I don’t that was a big moment for Australia. I don’t think most people have reslly reckoned with the complicated reasons why that fell the way it did.
eureka@aussie.zone 5 days ago
Let the best arguments win, which is great cause their arguments rely on lies, fiction, and crimes against humanity.
How’s that been working out so far?
The “marketplace of ideas” is rigged when most media platforms are either directly owned by ultra-rich shareholders (e.g. most mainstream news outlets, and plenty of minor ones too, and most mainstream social media platforms) or dominated by astroturfed campaigns (troll farms, targeted political advertising e.g. Cambridge Analytica). Why should we expect the quality of an idea to determine its chances of winning?
You’re right that it makes those points easier to dispute and counter, but that won’t happen on its own, especially if the Greens can’t reach the same audience.
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 4 days ago
So, i was speaking in the context of Australia. So thats important when considering how its working out so far. Each Nation’s media is distinct to a greater or lesser degree. And, i think its going pretty well here, not perfect though.
You’re dead right about the media and social media skews. But Australia is, luckily/smartly, dealing with these issues better than most. We actually have a Government whonis willing to put up legislation afainst social media platforms, however flawed that legislation may be, that places known limits in the minds of those platforms owners’ power.
The concentration of traditional media has been diluted from its zenith of power by the ABC, and the introduction of Guardian. One of which will never leave, and the other of which has a great deal of support. And of course those Social media companies whose interests don’t always align.
Basically, i think its going better for us here, which the Greens success as a mainstay Party proves. Along with other minor parties, Nationals not included in that, they have a unique historical context which seems to have frozen them as a share of the electorate and nation.
eureka@aussie.zone 4 days ago
I’m also talking about Australia, I only brought up Cambridge Analytical as a notorious case of a phenomenon we also see here, ABC alleges there were online misinformation bots interfering with the recent referendum.
I completely agree that the ABC and having The Guardian and to some degree Independent Australia and The Chaser media in the mainstream puts us in a better situation than our neighbours. Yes, definitely. However, I also emphasise that this is still a heavily tilted table, with 7, 9, 10 and (depending on your region) Sky on public television and online, plus the usual suspects like The Australian, but also many regional news sites are owned by them too.
Until we (as a general society) shift away from those media platforms, they influence the information we (as a general society) receive and how it’s framed. Yeah, it’s better, but it’s still very uphill. Legislation and our political situation have made it easier, it helps but it can’t solve the problem on its own.
And thanks for replying, it’s made me realise that I should be sharing more news from progressive publications to help make that shift happen.
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 4 days ago
Its why i’m so excited by the idea of Activitypub. It offers the world another chance at a genuine ‘Market of Ideas’. And thats what i’m all about, sharing the idea’s not necessarily from a specific political hue, but they have to be based in the facts for me.
But, i don’t think its a coincidence that theres a large crossover with progressive publications, and ‘factual’ outlets. Progressives afterall have to take the world as they find it otherwise they’d progress from nonsense to chaos. Thats something not all across other parts of the political spectrum feel a strong demand on.
sarahsquirrel@aussie.zone 5 days ago
Unfortunately, it’s very hard for citizens to distinguish lies from truth. E.g. the “Children Overboard” scandal - a well timed lie can win an election. At the very least we need honesty in our election materials. Libellous electioneering is dangerous.
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 5 days ago
Yeah, na, good point.
I suppose i’s thinking of the longer term argument, where hopefully enough people learn the spurious claim that are made.