The ingredients for this legislation trace back to an organisation called "Collective Shout"[1], by Melinda Tankard Reist, who readers may be aware of from their previous efforts to pressure Steam to restrict games with adult content

I happen to think there are plenty of valid points regarding harmful content on steam and valid arguments about the harms of social media, but I do not believe Collective Shout is a benevolent actor in combatting those harms or steering the solutions, as their proposals nearly always deliver harmful effects on LGBTQ people - and this fits with Reist's previous work[2], eg under Sen. Harradine

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Shout

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda_Tankard_Reist

▲

Nursie 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

My favourite micro pressure-group in Australia is the Pedestrian Council of Australia.

Whenever there's talk about car safety measures, e-scooters or anything else, the press goes to the official-sounding "Pedestrian Council of Australia" for comment. And obligingly, Harold Scruby who is the CEO, Chairman and entire membership of said council will hold forth.

He's been spectacularly successful at getting himself listened to, as if he represented something.

Collective shout are just as illegitimate.

▲

rgblambda 2 days ago | parent [-]

I thought you were making this up, as it sounds too ridiculous to be true. But no, it's a real thing.

The key to his success seems, at a glance, to be raising his media profile by taking controversial positions (which I suspect he may not sincerely hold) that guarantee news coverage. Similar to how populist politicians in the UK game the BBC's "balance" policy by always taking a contrarian position to any given topic to secure an interview or place on a discussion panel.

	▲	Nursie 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah it reads almost like something Terry Pratchett might have made up :) And I agree, he’s got a way of providing reactionary, contrarian soundbites, which keeps the papers going back to him.

▲

msuniverse2026 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That is just a thought-stopping reference. Why does this literal nobody who nobody has to listen to have the total backing of both major political parties? That is the real question and it obviously goes back to narrative control and the move from democracy to an authoritarian managerial state.

	▲	pryce 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		moral panics are useful for creating authoritarian states. If a moral panic is not presently available, in 2025 it may be easier it's ever been before to cultivate one.