Thank goodness for Nostr. https://youtu.be/XKzG2G9qCvE
Notes copied/pasted from beneath Youtube video:
They don't have to ban it. They just make it too risky for Big Tech to show you.
The government says it's about a safer internet. But the new Digital Duty of Care proposal means platforms like Google, Meta, Apple, TikTok and Amazon get a legal reason to quietly hide lawful speech before anyone tells them to. No ban to challenge. No one to blame. You just don't see it.
In this one I break down the exposure draft from 8 September - not law yet, which is why we need to talk about it now. I've enforced laws, I've prosecuted them, and now I beat them in court as a defence lawyer. The risk was never just what's written on the page. It's what companies do because they're scared of the penalty.
Here's what I cover:
→ Why this is so much bigger than social media - search, hosting, app stores and internet providers are all in scope
→ The judgement problem - where's the line between discussing crime and encouraging it?
→ The 60,000 penalty unit math that makes hiding content the rational business decision
→ Why you get no review when a platform quietly suppresses first and never gets told to do anything
This isn't a channel for advice, but it is a channel for clarity. If you want me to keep pulling apart laws before they become laws, you know what to do.
EXPOSURE DRAFT & EMAIL CONTACT https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/publications/exposure-draft-online-safety-amendment-digital-duty-care-bill-2026
OBJECTION: 10 Tools For Thinking Clearly In a World Built To Influence You: https://www.objectionbook.com.au/
I'm James Glissan - ex-police officer, ex-police prosecutor, now criminal defence lawyer. I break down how power actually works in Australia so you understand your rights before you need them.
General information only, not legal advice. Read the exposure draft yourself - start at sections 25A-26A and ask: would you be happy with this if your view was the risky one? Let me know in the comments. I'll see you in the next one.
Forwardsteps / forwardsteps 🧡
npub15t…s67mv
2026-09-12 01:01:52 UTC
Author Public Key
npub15tdn6fh3q7990dtemwdnu3x4kp4r6dcqvntyum63ufg4tshtfnfq0s67mvSeen on
wss://relay.damus.ioPublished at
2026-09-12 01:01:52 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "24bd777f672b1aed937db9e8ee9b0dfdff06e6d74e7b4158ed99a6a6c182357b",
"pubkey": "a2db3d26f1078a57b579db9b3e44d5b06a3d370064d64e6f51e25155c2eb4cd2",
"created_at": 1789174912,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"client",
"Primal iOS"
]
],
"content": "Thank goodness for Nostr. https://youtu.be/XKzG2G9qCvE\n\nNotes copied/pasted from beneath Youtube video:\n\nThey don't have to ban it. They just make it too risky for Big Tech to show you.\n\nThe government says it's about a safer internet. But the new Digital Duty of Care proposal means platforms like Google, Meta, Apple, TikTok and Amazon get a legal reason to quietly hide lawful speech before anyone tells them to. No ban to challenge. No one to blame. You just don't see it.\n\nIn this one I break down the exposure draft from 8 September - not law yet, which is why we need to talk about it now. I've enforced laws, I've prosecuted them, and now I beat them in court as a defence lawyer. The risk was never just what's written on the page. It's what companies do because they're scared of the penalty.\n\nHere's what I cover:\n→ Why this is so much bigger than social media - search, hosting, app stores and internet providers are all in scope\n→ The judgement problem - where's the line between discussing crime and encouraging it?\n→ The 60,000 penalty unit math that makes hiding content the rational business decision\n→ Why you get no review when a platform quietly suppresses first and never gets told to do anything\n\nThis isn't a channel for advice, but it is a channel for clarity. If you want me to keep pulling apart laws before they become laws, you know what to do.\n\nEXPOSURE DRAFT \u0026 EMAIL CONTACT https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/publications/exposure-draft-online-safety-amendment-digital-duty-care-bill-2026\n\nOBJECTION: 10 Tools For Thinking Clearly In a World Built To Influence You: https://www.objectionbook.com.au/ \n\nI'm James Glissan - ex-police officer, ex-police prosecutor, now criminal defence lawyer. I break down how power actually works in Australia so you understand your rights before you need them.\n\nGeneral information only, not legal advice. Read the exposure draft yourself - start at sections 25A-26A and ask: would you be happy with this if your view was the risky one? Let me know in the comments. I'll see you in the next one.",
"sig": "cc65611bbfdc827e215629b84f079ef11d3c48934d0f34c662b83d557a0e1b823799bbde0110317b17256d50ed3db038e050708c2628243d9bfdb946d4a69110"
}