• budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Their complaint is the sharing of edited clips and soundbites, especially with editorial text put on them without context to twist peoples words and subject them to abuse online from randos. Ironically, the headline sensationalizes the discussion without context, demonstrating the problem.

    They are OK with full video being available for transparency, they don’t want to be remixed into a 7 second tiktok with some “infuencer” overlaid pointing at them and misleading/abusive text on top.

    Calling for footage of full hearings and transcripts to be made available instead of clips, and for comments to be disabled, the board said its proposal would ensure “that scrutiny remains focused on evidence, administration and accountability rather than becoming personal”.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      They don’t want criticism. This is completely legal in Australia and they already have laws about personal defamation in case it crosses the line. This is non-starter in my book.