Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.

Transnational Thursday for September 12, 2024
- 8
- 4
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Australia
I’ve been too busy to be a post-guy rather than a reply-guy recently, but I’m going to try to at least make a few posts to improve my seed-leech ratio. Anyways…
Since the arrest of Telegram’s founder Pavel Durov there seems to have been an uptick in governments pressuring messaging apps and social media to allow backdoor access.
Australia is no exception with the head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Australia’s Security Service) Mike Burgess recently threatening to force tech companies to provide access to encrypted chats when presented with a warrant.
The article above quotes Burgess as saying:
I find this somewhat lacking and one of the usual government tropes of ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide, you won’t mind if we violate your privacy’. That along with encryption is ‘being employed by terrorists, paedophiles, drug smugglers and human traffickers to conceal illicit activities and facilitate crime.’ so that’s why we need access to it.
Access to live information (say observing a chatroom) when presented with a warrant seems to be a reasonable request, but I suspect the government will go further and continue to attempt to force companies to change their software in order to meet the needs of intelligence and security agencies through creating backdoors and recording communications for later retrieval.
Edit: Inevitable small grammatical corrections
Elon I believe responded to this (the fines) by calling the government fascist: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1834215798858207667
https://www.reuters.com/technology/australia-threatens-fines-social-media-giants-enabling-misinformation-2024-09-12/
The bill hasn't yet passed but I can hardly disagree with Elon. The Australian govt seems dead-set on banning and censoring more and more. The E-safety commissioner wanted to globally censor videos of the stabbing on twitter because Australians could use a VPN to get around the national-level restrictions. After Elon told them to get stuffed they backed down but it sparked a cavalcade of politicians looking to sound tough by promising more banning and restrictions. All we seem to do is ban things - development, mines, pipelines.
And especially the internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia
There's an amusing scene where a senator goes around describing Eromanga Sensei. The man's calling was clearly to be a dodgy real estate developer, just look at the physiognomy. Why does anyone have to listen to him on what manga should or should not be legal: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bDmbo5dxgQg
Anyway, computing is inherently multi-purpose. Terrorists, paedophiles and drug dealers can use open-source software that nobody is in control of. Encrypted text messaging is not that hard! What is the government going to do then, backdoor every CPU? They'll have to get in line behind the US and China.
Likewise, it's unworkable to ban children from porn sites. Are they going to make everyone give their ID to every damn booru and sketchy Russian site? We have a massive surfeit of bureaucrats with too much time and money on their hands. Nobody ever wants to leave things alone, they have to work hard making a mess out of uncomfortable, sometimes unpleasant realities:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jul/02/social-media-porn-site-ban-australia-trial-age-assurance
It's also simply a solved problem: For small children, parents should fully monitor their screen time anway; For older children, it's trivial to set up a device with a whitelist; And for teens who are old/smart enough to get past these filters, just watching porn is the least of a parent's worry. In particular it's preposterous that the west claims it's impossible to keep teens from having physical sex, while simultaneously demanding that they can only access porn with 18.
The children angle is always, always, always BS. Any child old enough to have interest in b00bz and unfiltered access to the internet will find it. Especially in a Western country where internet access is everywhere. Ones with filtered access will likely find it too (they have friends, etc.) Shit I grew up before internet and I had access to porn as a teen too (pretty shitty quality, but still). Nobody will be hurt by it. Parents who are more honest just say they support this shit because they are lazy and want the government to do it so they won't have to educate their children and deal with it (yes, I have had multiple real people tell me that). But again, that's not why it's being done from the top. It's to establish a foothold for censoring any information on the internet. If we already have a setup for censoring porn, why not use it for censoring "vaccine misinformation" or "election misinformation" or "untrustworthy sites spreading foreign propaganda that threatens our democracy"? It's always has been, is and will be about control over information. Children is just a convenient excuse to get the foot in the door.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link