Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Media

Tony Abbott’s YouTube suspended after ‘deceptive content’ complaint

The prime minister, Tony Abbott, had his YouTube account mistakenly suspended on the weekend after users complained it had deceptive content.

The video, titled Delivering on our Promises, was posted on Sunday but after user complaints the entire account was suspended.

Instead the message “the video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy against spam, scams and commercially deceptive content” came up when users tried to access the video.

The video featured Abbott, with an Australian flag in the background, talking about how confidence was returning to Australia and how he was implementing a plan for a prosperous Australia.

Most of the video was taken up by the Coalition’s asylum seeker policy with Abbott saying a boat had not reached Australia’s shores for six weeks.

“This progress in stopping the boats is just one of the reasons why I am optimistic about the year ahead,” he said.

“It’s just one of many areas where the policies of the new government are making a difference.”

Abbott has been using YouTube to release a variety of messages since becoming prime minister.

The account was reinstated by Monday morning.

Google released a statement saying the suspension was a mistake.

“Occasionally, a video flagged by users is mistakenly taken down,” it said. “When this is brought to our attention, we quickly review the content and take appropriate action, including restoring videos or channels that had been removed.”

A spokeswoman for the prime minister’s office said the account had been reinstated so there was no comment to make.

View HERE:

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
19 Comments

19 Comments

  1. john hayward

    February 7, 2014 at 11:40 pm

    But why was the deceptive content suspension a mistake? Do pollies have a special exemption?

    John Hayward

  2. Russell

    February 7, 2014 at 2:00 pm

    So “stopping the boats” means instructing the Australian Navy to transfer asylum seekers from their boat into a lifeboat and casting them adrift?

    I think it’s actually called Piracy, and that is illegal and has been for centuries.

    For our Navy to indulge in Piracy, takes Australia to new depths.

    Why isn’t the UN saying anything?

  3. john hayward

    February 7, 2014 at 10:46 am

    It’s quite obvious why the Libs deny anthropogenic climate change. Some of their most munificent patrons are in the fossil fuel industry.

    As for the other deniers, it’s sometimes difficult to tell if they are also pecuniary beneficiaries of the industry, are impenetrably ignorant, or are adherents of some form of fundamentalist Mammon worship.

    It would help debate if they would specify which sort of cognitive fuel they are running on.

    John Hayward

  4. Keith Antonysen

    February 7, 2014 at 10:43 am

    I should have added in my last post that while the 2013 ice sheets in the Arctic were larger in 2013 in comparison to 2012; the 2013 ice sheet was significantly smaller than 20 years prior. Not only had the ice sheet extended much further but the ice was significantly thicker and was stable in the past.

  5. Keith Antonysen

    February 7, 2014 at 10:14 am

    No 3, John, if you are going to make accusations you need to at least get your facts right. The Arctic area is a particular region that is displaying rapid changes as far as climate change is concerned. You say the ice fields have been increasing. Fact, the ice field for 2013 was larger than for 2012; but, the thickness of ice and the stability of the ice field was a matter of concern.
    Fissures in the ice field appeared towards the end of winter 2013, a time when the ice sheet should have been at its most stable. There are satellite photos on the web showing this to be the case. Methane gas, a very strong green house gas is being voided from the Arctic region at alarming levels. The temperature of the Arctic region is increasing at higher rates than pretty well any where else on the planet. These are facts, recorded by satellites and measurements taken by scientists.
    Check for yourself.

  6. Claire Gilmour

    February 5, 2014 at 10:06 pm

    Who owns the planet Earth? Who controls planet Earth? Who shafts planet Earth? Who cares about planet Earth?

    Who is going to dot the ‘i’ cross the ‘t’ on terra firma?

  7. Sue DeNim

    February 5, 2014 at 5:08 pm

    Thanks James. I had not actually heard this latest, but I knew if there was anything to it, there would be a logical explanation that did not refute increased warming.

    Regardless of any pauses, lags or wrong predictions in some areas, the general prediction for many years now has always been steady increased warming overall which has not changed and is still born out by the data and increased extreme weather events which are all aware of.

    Allow me to say John Groves that I am all for people asking questions, engaging, researching and being sceptical. It is the essence of scientific investigation. But it amazes me that people draw totally different conclusions to the same facts. I can only assume it is because it doesn’t comply with their world view so they wilfully distort the facts until it does.

    You could of course accuse me of the same but why is it that my world view agrees with the majority of climate scientists? Why would they manufacture such a scare?

    Yes IPCC predictions have had many revisions. What of it? They are under immense pressure to be categorical about their findings in the face of paid deniers. But this does not equate to doubt in their findings or unreliability in the organisation.

    On the contrary, their data sources have increased and improved (ice cores, tree ring, foraminifera, ocean buoys, satellite data, climate records, aerial samples etc.) and now if anything they are more sure of their predictions and more alarmed because things have happened far quicker than they projected (barring the odd lag compared to some early models).

    Kindly dazzle us with your climatology credentials so we can instead listen to you rather than the majority of the worlds leading climatologists.

    Unless you can tell where the CO2e goes and how it doesn’t increase warming in the atmosphere you have nothing.

  8. James Crotty

    February 5, 2014 at 3:11 pm

    Sue @ 11 don’t bother to engage in , “but please tell me where it is written that any Arctic/Antarctic Ice sheets are expanding?” because the whole thing is a furphy. There is an increase in antartic sea ice area but that increase is thought to be as a consequence of increased global warming. It’s thought either frozen shelf ice melts in the warmer sea water, and being less dense (because it is fresh, not salt water) rises to the surface and re-freezes. It is also thought increased winds, again as a result of climate change, may spread the ice, which is not as thick, wider.

    The above is what I took out of questions asked after a talk by a former Tasmanian Jan Zika at the Royal Society on Tuesday night. Apologies if I’ve not correctly conveyed his answer.

  9. Sue DeNim

    February 5, 2014 at 12:26 pm

    Also by the way it is not the media that is meant to be sceptical. The media is meant to be impartial and report exactly what was said without bias or spin.

    It is up to scientists and the public to be rationally sceptical based on the data and not media hype or influence from special interests.

    In a perfect world.

  10. Sue DeNim

    February 5, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    Oh here we go with the ole ‘mandate’ diatribe again.

    I love it how John Groves seems to know (above everyone else) what exact policies the Australian majority voted for.

    He clearly neglects the fact that most Australians voted for ‘a change’ because they were fed up with Labor’s leadership antics and the beat up that was made of Julia’s supposed ‘lie’. On top of that, JG conveniently forgets that alot of our bloody minded, bigoted and sexist aging population are dyed in the wool Liberal voters and would have voted for Abbott if he said he wanted to put Australia on the moon, and were additionally put out by a female leader doing ‘deals’ with those extremists (those leftie Greenies) who got their dirty mits into parliament.

    News Flash John. They did that because actual Australian citizens voted for them, and not because of some insidious communist plot.

    I love it how Liberals have become so extreme right wing they think the centre is way left and communist?

    A large majority of the rest of our younger, coke slurping, maccas scoffing, MKR watching intellectual lightweights couldn’t tell you if our capital city was Sydney or Canberra let alone decode the minefield of hubris and misdirection that has become the climate change debate.

    So if you flooded the media (like Murdoch did) with spin about how climate change was rubbish then dangled the promise of reduced power bills, who do you think they would vote for?

    FYI. Climate Change is a result of Global Warming. They are two separate legitimate terms, though Global Warming is less used now, because its too confusing to some numbskulls who can’t figure out how the planet warming can cause extreme cold weather events.

    What it should be called is accelerated, unpredictable climate change because yes the climate does change and always has done, but not this quickly.

    Would you like us to explain it John?

    Of course there is little scepticism remaining in the media because unlike the pitiful few who cling to their ‘all is well’ world view, most of us have got the picture and now want to plan and brace for the rather uncomfortable future that is locked in and coming right at us.

    I don’t know where you have been JG, under a blanket reading the Examiner by torch light I suspect, but please tell me where it is written that any Arctic/Antarctic Ice sheets are expanding? The supposed 17 year pause in heating was not a pause as such but simply that the temperature didn’t reach the heights that the IPCC first predicted years ago, due to previous modelling that was not as sophisticated as now. This has been put down to increased ice melt and absorption of heat by the oceans.

  11. Steve

    February 5, 2014 at 10:53 am

    #6; I wondered if it was “communism”? With the addition of some careful punctuation, I think that’s the only possibility and it’s inferred, rather than stated, in lines two and three.

    I wondered if John simply had a faulty “,” key but I note it came good for the second last sentence so I can but presume that John has been concentrating his mental efforts on climate research and literacy has taken a back seat.

  12. Doug Nichols

    February 5, 2014 at 10:06 am

    I was expecting to see, at the end of #3, the classic line delivered (with foaming mouth) at the end of every such performance by a caricature of Bruce Ruxton in the ABC’s 1980s satirical show, “Australia, you’re standing in it”: “And that’s another reason why the flag shouldn’t change. Now bugger off!”

  13. Paul Tapp

    February 5, 2014 at 9:18 am

    Standard fare. Someone makes a complaint and YouTube investigates, reviews, removes or reinstates. Has happened to my stuff where I point the finger at slick wholesale State-driven PR, on a 1984 heading. But my material on YouTube thrives. Its just another quality lily-pad for frog-hopping through the mire of advocacy journalism that allows gnats a say on how Australia should be run. The Australian Guardian ran an anti-Abbot story of questionable basis, the old guard of journalists would have regarded as a non-story. John Groves rightfully picked up on it and had his say in this forum and stepped on a jack-jumper’s nest.

    The TT too thrives as it seems the only clear light in a foggy journalism milieu in this State. But it does run the risk of being seen as ‘clubby’ and I would like to see it expand its appeal to a wider demographic…and perhaps to ensure its survival and attract the attention of entrepreneurial direction-finders as Tony Abbot.

    In his courageous foray into iconoclastic criticism of the ABC’s advocacy-coverage of the Navy and refugee-boats, he might consider taking a few bucks from Aunty, SBS and distributing to worthy on-liners as the Tasmanian Times. Amazing how it’s survived given that its contributors are unpaid and its fearless blogging drives it perilously close to the libel-sun oft-times.

    As e-books replace tree-dependent books, a whole new order is coming about and if State-funding is good enough for some news agencies then it should apply to those providing valuable online news and analysis forums as TT.

    Given the billions wasted by the Labor Party on populist-but-failed programs, surely a few million no-strings attached funding to a new order of journalism should be suggested as policy to Tony’s mob.

    Such a paradigm shift in allowing more Australians to have a say in what a neo-something our new leader is, just might get the bastard re-elected…and force our timid politicians to ask a few questions about secrets that have been hidden for far too long on matters integral to democracy and safe-society.

  14. Artemisia

    February 5, 2014 at 12:52 am

    John Groves (#3) – So what’s the new word that you are so keen to introduce to John Hayward and his “leftie green pals” to? (I suppose I’d have to be one of those “leftie green pals”, so I really need to know the new word). I tried to read your rather incomprehensible post twice in order to find it, but I still could not. Please, I need to know what it is.

  15. john hayward

    February 4, 2014 at 10:52 pm

    John Groves, #3, The electoral majority clearly didn’t understand what it was voting for by flying in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. An overwhelming majority of us formerly were convinced the world was flat.

    They also clearly didn’t consider how many of the refugees would be killed as a result of being forced to stay in Afghanistan, or, more likely, didn’t care.

    When you renege on a UN convention you signed to treat refugees humanely, you have embraced contemptibility. Be proud.

    John Hayward

  16. William Boeder

    February 4, 2014 at 7:37 pm

    #3 John Groves what a flash of neo-liberal nonsense you have expressed in your comment, you sound almost or equally as dizzy as your mate Tony Abbott.

    Tony Abbott had won an election based on the usual tactical Liberal means of promising so much and so many, then of his dumping an enormous amount of scorn and exaggerated claims upon the Australian people via the snot-box of Murdoch’s media empire, all the while as your mate Tony has refused to honour his promises and claims when called upon to action those claims.

    Do understand that Indonesia began this people-smuggling black-money generating industry, not the Labor government of Australia.
    In fairness to Indonesia in those earlier times a few Australian Navy directed HE shells nearby of just over the top of, or even to the extreme right wing of Indonesia’s Presidential Palace, in my mind this would have sent the necessary signal to the appropriate level of authority to halt its murderous illegal scam program approved of by their President Yudhoyono.
    I see that you deny that Australia should benefit from its bountiful resources and just sit back and watch as international mining giants and the former Big Australian Mining and Environment Degrading Giant rips the guts out of Australia’s resources.
    How very Liberal-minded you are John Groves.

    I will admit that a lot of Australians do not want to see our country polluted and pillaged as has happened to those countries that had placed their trust in the hands of foreign mining giants, you obviously would prefer to sit back and do your intellectual best to shit-can the people who have a care to the land upon which we all dwell and hold a respect toward our environment.

    Tell me John, do you live in an old shack on a polluted mining site somewhere in Tasmania, or live comfortably warm in a tumble-down tree-hut?

    As you seem to suggest that you are one of the Nations minority of know-it-alls that choose to argue against the World’s Climate scientists, so tell us what are your credentials that allows you to dispute their findings in your smug demeaning manner?

    Now come along John, in you go back into your hole in the ground and let reality continue its necessary journey into our hopefully still healthy post Abbott futures.

  17. John Groves

    February 4, 2014 at 10:47 am

    John Hayward you seem to not understand that’s exactly what the majority of Australia voted for “stop the boats” “scrap the tax”. I might introduce a new word to your leftie Greens pals democracy it’s a little different communism which the Greens would love to see in place because according to you and your leftie mates we in the majority are too stupid to make our own decisions. As much as you and your leftie mates would like to re write history Tony and his coalition was voted in with a clear majority. I guess by your comments it was ok to let in 50,000 illegals with over one thousand men women and children drowning on their way to Australia all on Labor and the Greens watch. You may also please explain the pause of 17 years in global temperatures growing ice sheets at both poles and the subtle move from global warming to the new buzz word climate change to explain any weather event you may also explain why the IPCC is on its umpteenth revised draft after all of their predictions were found to be grossly exaggerated and why more and more scientists by the day are changing sides. The ABC and the Fairfax media also take pleasure in flogging the dead horse as well, Journalists are supposed to be skeptical about all claims on all matters but that skepticism is usually absent when dealing with climate issues.

    Underwhelming you are.

  18. Claire Gilmour

    February 3, 2014 at 9:24 pm

    So Abbott arrived on the “Assisted Passage Migration Scheme”. Lucky lucky boy! Thank god he wasn’t in charge back then eh, or he could have turned himself back.

    According to Wikipedia, Tony Abbott said … “The Jesuits had helped to instil in me this thought that our calling in life was to be, to use the phrase: ‘a man for others’. And I thought then that the best way in which I could be a ‘man for others’ was to become a priest. I discovered pretty soon that I was a bit of a square peg in a round hole … eventually working out that, I’m afraid, I just didn’t have what it took to be an effective priest.”

    I could suggest not an ‘effective’ ‘man for others’ Prime Minister either!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott

    Apparently there are star fish in America whose limbs are walking away from their own body.

    Perhaps there is something in that for Tony Abbott to consider?

  19. john hayward

    February 3, 2014 at 11:54 am

    Does Tony really believe that Australia’s prosperity depends on funding the imprisonment of refugees in third world countries? In abolishing a tax on the carbon emissions that are already costing the world far more than the tax could ever recover?

    Spectacular, he is.

    John Hayward

Leave a Reply

To Top