Cool newcomer. Rising talent. That’s Greens Senator Scott Ludlam as described by Crikey’s Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane last year. He’s right, too.
Yesterday I explained how Senator Stephen Conroy popped out of his lair, announced (some of) the ISPs in the internet “filtering” trials, and scurried away — leaving everyone’s questions unanswered. Perhaps he hoped the story would be buried by discussions of bushfires and the stimulus package. But no.
In an op-ed piece for ABC News yesterday, Senator Ludlam nailed why. “The interwebs never sleep,” he reminds us.
Within minutes of Conroy’s 5.25pm media release, Twitter was, well, a’twitter with speculation and then analysis. Within hours, without any central control, a consensus emerged about what the choice of ISPs meant. With its focus on small business-oriented ISPs, the trials won’t reflect the realities of home internet usage, and the government can string out the process just a little bit longer.
“Senator Conroy is trapped by something akin to a virtual hydra,” writes Ludlam.
“Every time he ‘responds’ to one piece of criticism, numerous other more refined, more powerful and more targeted arguments arise from all sides.”
To paraphrase The Guardian’s social media strategist Meg Pickard, who spoke in Sydney last week, the audience is now smarter than you are because they have more time and there’s more of them.
Government ministers no longer own the conversation. Nor does anyone else, for that matter. While Senator Conroy may assert that “the Government does not view this debate as an argument about freedom of speech”, no-one actually cares what the government’s view is. The conversation has its own life. And Conroy has bailed out. He’s ceded the field.
“He’s acquiesced his leadership role in this debate, relegating himself to the status of a mere observer, allowing his critics to run the show,” says network engineer Mark Newton, one of Conroy’s most credible and persistent critics.
“I couldn’t care less what Conroy does next, because he’s an irrelevant loser in the wider context of this debate … Every time he’s [made public statements] he’s inevitably been embarrassed by the responses of an army of online correspondents who have fact-checked him into oblivion.”
Conroy, who’s presumably used to getting his own way as a Labor Right head-kicker, has sulked off to his room, slammed shut the door, turned up the music REALLY LOUD AND I HOPE YOU WILL ALL JUST GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY I HATE YOU!
Conroy’s left his poor media advisor (who I’m reliably informed is a nice guy who deserves better) to post the passive-aggressive notes on the fridge — sorry, to answer all questions by copying and pasting boilerplate from the media release.
Not a good look.
Not what you’d call “leadership”.
Not what you’d call “being in control of the issue”.
I’m guessing Senator Conroy is secretly very happy that the Great Imploding Opposition is providing a useful distraction from his own performance. For now.
Meanwhile that Greens senator bloke is making sense, eh?
“We’re all in vociferous agreement about what won’t work. But what will? Can this enormously empowered campaign speak with one cogent voice about what we’re for?” he asks.
“How do we empower parents … and law enforcement agencies…? Is there a way to adequately prepare children to understand other threats such as cyber-bullying, without asphyxiating the greatest information sharing tool in history?”
Any suggestions, Senator Conroy?
You’ll have to come out of there eventually, Senator.
I hope the senator doesn’t have a computer in his room, who knows what he’ll be getting up to.
I fear that the Labor government is pandering to Family First rather than protecting our democratic freedoms which the Labor movement has fought for over a century. Conroy’s duplicity in relation to these matters is an utter disgrace and a reflection of the arrogance of the Rudd government.
The tools that the government is apparently testing are no different from controls use by despotic governments in China, Burma, North Korea, and less repressive but similarly obsessive governments in countries like Malaysia.
If we allow this ISP filtering control to proceed we are potentially facilitating “Big Brother” controls for a despotic future (if not curent) government.
We must preserve a democratic right of access to information, ideas and images no matter how challenging. Internet filtering in the children’s section to libraries and schools where parental supervision is not possible is quite acceptable but mature adults should have the right to see what they want.
This is the most unworthy article Crikey has ever published.
Please pieces that don’t do much more than be rude again.
In the days of old media people knew which books, films etc were banned and why. Today ,however, ACMA refuses to release which websites are banned, there is no appeal mechanism to overturn bans and the whole charade relies on the “trust me I’m from ACMA” school of politics. Since govts appoint ACMA leaders one can only assume they follow their orders re. politically incorrect sites to protect us all. Is this what our troops are fighting overseas to defend?