A government official who created and implemented government censorship regulation is a little bit more than "just engaging in speech". That's like saying Deng Xiaoping was "just directing traffic" when the tanks rolled in to Tiananmen.
They weren't implementing "government censorship regulation". They were trying to ensure the different views on speech in their own countries are respected and conformed to.
This is a clear example of global operators running up against the natural friction of conflicting national customs and laws.
It's a particularly knotty issue in the intuitively borderless and passionate medium of internet speech and won't be helped by regulators or commenters here ignoring that.
> The BBC is British - what about the UK? The rest of Europe? China? Japan? Russia? Australia? Did the entire rest of the world also use leaded petrol? And stopped using it at the same time as the US?
The fact that GA is the quintessential arrogant rich man's hobby makes the environmental and human health externalities of it all the more disgusting. However, looking at it from a glass half full perspective, GA does exist at that sweet avocational intersection of "expensive" and "deadly," often putting a significant dent in the finances of those whom it seduces before killing them.
Hi, I’m closely involved in xCAT cases for my Australian organisation.
We send an in-house lawyer to represent us at every mediation and hearing.
Every complaint that goes to an official body is dealt with by the lawyers at that point. Only if they complain directly to us does our “complaints department” handle it.
I can't speak for CAT's outside NSW, but in NSW, under section 45 of the «Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)», a party (including a company that is the respondent) is not entitled to be represented by any person unless NCAT grants leave (permission) for representation[0], which is a separate step – the company must seek leave first for each case.
Only certain NCAT case types give an automatic right to representation, so a company can have a «lawyer» appear without seeking leave. NCAT’s own guidance[1] lists these as:
Administrative review and regulation
Professional discipline
Retail leases
Then there is also a separate provision in the Consumer and Commercial Division for high value claims (e.g. over AU$30k) – NCAT’s guideline indicates it will usually permit legal representation where the other party has a lawyer, where there are complex issues, or where a party would be disadvantaged without representation.
Since I do not know the nature and specifics of your Australian organisation, I have nothing else of significance to contribute on that particular topic.
To sum it up, the most common dispute scenarios involve the following sequence of events: consumer ↝ complaint department ↝ state/federal level regulator, e.g. Department of Fair Trading (NSW), ACCC (federal) or similar ↝ ombudsman or xCAT or a court. The regulatorory step can sometimes be skipped.
For people in an industry that is _built_ on A/B testing, HN sure expects governments to get everything perfect first go with no edge cases or externalities doesn’t it!
I dont like it when government tests in production. I dont think anyone should be happy with governments testing in production, especially when they have already claimed victory, and are doing a world tour to sell the concept to other countries.
I don’t care that they’re behind on AI, I care that they’ve decided to throw UX out the window so all my devices are just a little bit worse to use than they were 12 months ago.
The thing that made the PC speaker so unbearable for me was the inability to change the volume - 6am family PC gaming was NOT okay if I woke everyone up with beeps and bloops.
reply