Anti-Social Media

 

Image courtesy Franchising.com

I have no idea why it's called social media.

That's deeply ironic nomenclature.

A quick glance at the various platforms reveals a combination of ignorance, semi-literate dialogue and pure humdrum grievance.

So why do I use it?

Like most people, I find it useful from time to time. My current project has made use of it to collect memorabilia, connect with prospective participants and explore interesting dry gullies. 

The problem, of course, is that it operates as a money-making machine, rather than as an instrument fostering communication.

That means that it's fair game for every anonymous grifter on the planet. They do pretty well. The global social media bot market is valued at $3.17 billion with projections indicating it will rise sharply to $10.16 billion by 2034, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.80%.

Here's a novel idea - nationalise it!

That would have a number of positive outcomes. The first is that it's a reliable earner, so profits would contribute to the national bottom line.

In addition, control by the elected government, rather than by a collection of unelected offshore billionaires, would result in removal of the sewer-like contents that flow (mostly from East to West across the Pacific). 

The internet, after all, was originally created as a resilient communication network using packet switching so that messages could automatically reroute if a portion of the network was damaged or destroyed.

Using it as a framework for fraud and grifting has destroyed that sunny and optimistic concept.

Euphenisms

Pic courtesy Shutterstock

 The use of euphemisms has always fascinated me, gentle reader.

One on-line dictionary defines the meaning of the word as - "the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt".

That sounds about right. Let's test it by applying it to some well-known, and frequently used expressions.

National service is a clear example. That was what I apparently performed when I was "called up" in 1969-70. I'm still not clear whom I was "serving". It certainly wasn't the nation, if the nation in question was Australia, as nothing I did during that period was in the national interest.

It was intended to be in service of the national government at the time. That government was a Coalition which needed Democratic Labor Party preferences to maintain a majority in the senate.

A more accurate term is "conscription", but that sounds a little blunt, and is a poor fit for the ANZAC mythology. Australian soldiers are supposed to be noble volunteers, after all.

Following the military thread, always a rich vein, there is collateral damage. That term originated in U.S. military jargon during the Vietnam war. Again, a more suitable combination of words would be "unintended or incidental death or damage", but that's also pretty blunt.

I saw an example of collateral damage when the digger a few metres behind me was shot in the face by the platoon following us when his sweat-stained greens looked black. He survived, but needed plastic surgery when his face was slashed by an errant round.

I guess another popular euphemism describing this incident would be friendly fire. It felt anything but friendly at the time.

Other examples include "laid off" instead of "sacked", and "negative cash flow" instead of "broke".

Then there's "not the sharpest tool in the shed", instead of "thick", "light-fingered" for "thieving" and "cook the books" for "fraud".

I could go on, but you get the drift. 

 

Mixie

We said goodbye to our thirteen year-old blue heeler the other day.

She had lost the use of her hind quarters and was living a miserable existence.

so there wasn't a better option, but it was still a difficult decision.

She was actually my son's dog, but after he moved to big city accommodation, she was adopted by my bride and I because we have a big backyard, and time to provide plenty of stimulation.

She chummed up rapidly with our other dog (a Cardigan Coolie) once a clear pecking order had been established.

She was always top dog, and spent her time disciplining the other pup, and making her feelings about his delight in playing "fetch" abundantly clear. She could see no point in his fetching a ball, which would immediately be thrown again. To her it made no sense at all.

She would bark loudly, and if he wanted to play that pointless game, and the dogs had to be separated to maintain any sense of peace.

When a young dog, she showed an amazing capacity to climb. She would climb trees and fences, providing there was a purpose, usually, chasing possums or birds.

She also loved to walk, and after a short period of training became very manageable on a leash.

She also learned a few basic commands, but would ignore them if there was something interesting going on.

Heelers are loyal, but need a purpose, a job to do.

For Mixie, it was always disciplining the other dog, and making sure he wasn't wasting his time in silly games. Having said that, she always enjoyed play fighting, and even in her declining years, would always get the better of him.

She never hurt him, and would tumble him over, stand back until he's regained his feet, and repeat the exercise until one or both dogs would tire of the game.

Thinking about it, she was one of three Heelers we've owned, and those years of happy companionship became decades for our family.

She always needed a job to do, a characteristic of Heelers. 

She was the third Heeler our family has owned.

 

The Stranger's Case

The immigration issue is front and centre in the Australian media, both social and legacy, at the moment.

There's an irony in the historical fact that our original settlers were outcasts, strangers, and people the British deported as criminals, at the same time as some are calling for deportation of "undesirables". Originally, the raison d'etre of our nation began with solving a problem of "undesirables".

Some of the posts on social media expose a deep seated fear of the "other", the "stranger". 

I look back on my lived experience, gentle reader, and remember how the presence of the "other", the stranger, influenced my attitudes and values.

I have an early memory of my mother giving a pair of my shoes to an aboriginal lad of my age when she was his teacher. The school was in central Queensland, and the bitumen road used to burn his feet when he walked to school. I wasn't happy, because they were my "good" shoes, and I was very proud of them, but understood in my child's mind, her motive.

Mum's values of compassion have been passed on to me and my five siblings.

When I was posted to an infantry unit (7 RAR) in 1969, I ended up in a rifle section commanded by a West Indian corporal who was our boss, and many of the platoon members would be regarded by some as "others".

They included a bloke who was Polish, born in Berlin of refugee parents, a British migrant who was unlucky enough to be in Australia when he turned twenty, and was thus included in the national service lottery draw, a Sri Lankan with a Scottish name, a Murri from Central Australia, and a Bundjalung man from NSW. 

I remember at Canungra when we were practicing contact drills and shouting orders, that one of the Canungra staff observed "These blokes need an interpreter".

Nevertheless, we worked well as a unit, and were consequential in 5 platoon winning the best platoon competition.

During my working life I taught in special schools, and ran five of them at different stages. I remember a very effective Asian Occupational Therapist, and staff from all over the globe. 

Later, in a regional management position in remote North West Queensland, I was the only non-Aboriginal person on a NATSIEP* committee, and spent hours travelling and working with the committee, many of whom were members of the stolen generation.

So when I hear some of the bile directed at migrants ("others") it makes me wonder what these people fear.

Perhaps we have to go back to the immortal bard to understand where this bile is coming from. Sir Ian McKellen appeared on Stephen Colbert's Late show in February this year, and read a piece written by Shakespeare in 1593.

This 400 year-old piece puts it very clearly. It's worth a watch and a listen. 

*National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders' Education Programme

Kerry O'Brien's Thea Astley Address

 

Image Courtesy The Echo

Kerry O'Brien's Thea Astley address at the Byron Bay's writer's festival on Saturday 15th August is a pretty good diagnosis of what ails our country in 2026.

His address is introduced by Richard Flanagan and is described ain the official programme thus  - "In lessons from history Kerry traces traces the two revolutions that have shaped the perfect storm we now find ourselves in - the digital tsunami and neoliberalism - that have seriously undermined the democracy we've taken for granted since federation". 

He's not wrong.

You can read extracts from the address here published in the Echo, but I'll take a few quotes to give you idea of what he's on about, in case you don't have the time to listen to the whole address which takes about an hour.

He covered both neoliberalism and digitisation, describing the first of these two as "The ideology that has driven and coerced government as we once knew it to make itself smaller, privatise its services, nobble the trade unions - which have been one of humanity's great civilising forces - and cede the dominant role in determining the kind of society we want to be to the free market and the alleged freedom of the individual, rather than the imperative of the common good".

He described the social media phenomenon that has developed on the back of digitisation as "rapid, personalised, global, more accessible, largely ungoverned, and is far more widely opened to toxic manipulation and the perpetration of evil".

He's nailed it; as he always did as a working journalist.

Busting the Net Zero Myth

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Every day, gentle reader, we are bombarded through the media with stories about energy costs, and how they are entirely the fault of the current government.

It's worth looking at the recent history to try to understand the reasons for price increases and to attempt to analyse exactly what has happened.

Australian energy costs began to rise as far back as 2015 when the east coast gas market opened up for large scale international exports which tied local east coast prices to global markets. These global markets price gas much higher internationally, and hence the vast gap between east coast and west coast prices as illustrated below.

In 2022 the prices of electricity and gas spiked dramatically. Some reasons for this were developments in the international situation, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine and global supply chain issues. Locally, wholesale generation costs rose by as much as 140% in early 2022. Outages in aging local coal generators also contributed to costs. When a plant fails without warning, a large block of power can be removed from the grid, and the market reacts by pricing upwards accordingly.

Over 60% of Australia's coal fired generators are more than 40 years old. Metal pipes and turbines crack and wear out after 40 years.

The Coalition's claim that Net Zero is responsible for energy price rises is not substantiated by the facts. 

It has more likely had the opposite effect, as shown by recent CSIRO reports. Wind and solar are the cheapest forms of new power generation. 

But it's worth going back a little further in our history. Much of the energy generation and retailing industry was privatised in two waves, the first in the mid to late 1990s, and the second between 2010 and 2015.

Privatisation was supposed to provide greater efficiency, and the assumption that this would lead to cheaper electricity was made in the process of selling it to the voter. It hasn't. So what was the point of it in the first place?  

It hasn't had that effect in the UK.

The Difference Between Arson and a Barbecue

 

Pic courtesy Holocaust Encyclopedia

No doubt, gentle reader, if you are interested at all in local (Australian) politics, you're across the controversy about Pauline Hanson's appeal against her conviction for a breach of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975. That law makes it unlawful to act in public in a manner that is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person or group based on their race, colour, or national or ethnic origin.

There's no doubt that she is in breach of that law. It's only necessary to read what she posted on X (formerly Twitter) in September 2022 telling Senator Faruqi to "pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan".

That evidence is clear, as is the likelihood that those words were designed to offend, insult or humiliate migrants like Senator Faruqi. No court could find otherwise. Appealing that verdict in the High Court would be either an attempt to keep the issue in the news cycle or to keep lawyers in business.

Hanson's supporters claim that the senator was simply exercising free speech. The term "free speech" can be used to cover a multitude of sins, but it does not include a call to violence or hate. Telling a senator belonging to a religious group hated by a minority that she should leave her country of citizenship is precisely that - hate speech.

It resembles closely the kind of speech directed against minorities throughout the last century which invariably led to episodes of institutional violence towards that minority. That's simply history.

Calling what Hanson wrote in September 2022 "free speech" is the same as calling arson a barbecue.