TBH, I can see where the lawyers are coming from. I’ve seen plenty of cases that private/limited audience messages were accidentally sent public/broad audience. And it’s also always possible that the receiving parties leak it.
It’s a tricky situation. People should have a right to express their opinions. But how does that play with the ABC’s ideal to be impartial and balanced?
I would argue that if you let people express their opinions, then at least you know where their loyalty and/or bias stands. Whereas if you gag them, you are hiding their true colours.
On that basis, I think letting people speak is the better option.
Social media I can sort of understand, but private messages? F off
TBH, I can see where the lawyers are coming from. I’ve seen plenty of cases that private/limited audience messages were accidentally sent public/broad audience. And it’s also always possible that the receiving parties leak it.
It’s a tricky situation. People should have a right to express their opinions. But how does that play with the ABC’s ideal to be impartial and balanced?
I would argue that if you let people express their opinions, then at least you know where their loyalty and/or bias stands. Whereas if you gag them, you are hiding their true colours.
On that basis, I think letting people speak is the better option.
ffs, then get a second phone for personal use/private messages and still never talk about work using real names and places
That’s why the ‘social media laws for under 16’ are being implemented.
You need a government certified ID to use the internet, and everything will be tracked back to that ID