Stand-Up Australia
Open in Telegram
Stand-Up Australia is about informing, empowering, connecting and activating people. Find information and updates here! https://www.standupnowaustralia.com.au/
Show more1 652
Subscribers
-124 hours
-27 days
-1630 days
Data loading in progress...
Similar Channels
Tags Cloud
Incoming and Outgoing Mentions
---
---
---
---
---
---
Attracting Subscribers
September '26
September '26
+2
in 1 channels
August '26
+4
in 7 channels
Get PRO
July '26
+5
in 11 channels
Get PRO
June '26
+19
in 7 channels
Get PRO
May '26
+6
in 8 channels
Get PRO
April '26
+22
in 12 channels
Get PRO
March '26
+16
in 7 channels
Get PRO
February '26
+3
in 1 channels
Get PRO
January '26
+5
in 3 channels
Get PRO
December '25
+17
in 6 channels
Get PRO
November '25
+9
in 11 channels
Get PRO
October '25
+3
in 6 channels
Get PRO
September '25
+18
in 12 channels
Get PRO
August '25
+19
in 10 channels
Get PRO
July '25
+20
in 16 channels
Get PRO
June '25
+12
in 14 channels
Get PRO
May '25
+9
in 12 channels
Get PRO
April '25
+5
in 2 channels
Get PRO
March '25
+15
in 13 channels
Get PRO
February '25
+13
in 13 channels
Get PRO
January '25
+17
in 20 channels
Get PRO
December '24
+11
in 7 channels
Get PRO
November '24
+68
in 16 channels
Get PRO
October '24
+27
in 21 channels
Get PRO
September '24
+27
in 17 channels
Get PRO
August '24
+37
in 20 channels
Get PRO
July '24
+44
in 28 channels
Get PRO
June '24
+27
in 16 channels
Get PRO
May '24
+50
in 17 channels
Get PRO
April '24
+31
in 17 channels
Get PRO
March '24
+58
in 33 channels
Get PRO
February '24
+31
in 22 channels
Get PRO
January '24
+62
in 34 channels
Get PRO
December '23
+95
in 25 channels
Get PRO
November '23
+210
in 53 channels
Get PRO
October '23
+46
in 19 channels
Get PRO
September '23
+24
in 0 channels
Get PRO
August '23
+39
in 0 channels
Get PRO
July '23
+27
in 0 channels
Get PRO
June '23
+19
in 0 channels
Get PRO
May '23
+30
in 0 channels
Get PRO
April '23
+46
in 0 channels
Get PRO
March '23
+93
in 0 channels
Get PRO
February '23
+78
in 0 channels
Get PRO
January '23
+16
in 0 channels
Get PRO
December '22
+24
in 0 channels
Get PRO
November '22
+34
in 0 channels
Get PRO
October '22
+32
in 0 channels
Get PRO
September '22
+27
in 0 channels
Get PRO
August '22
+27
in 0 channels
Get PRO
July '22
+26
in 0 channels
Get PRO
June '22
+19
in 0 channels
Get PRO
May '22
+30
in 0 channels
Get PRO
April '22
+48
in 0 channels
Get PRO
March '22
+117
in 0 channels
Get PRO
February '22
+79
in 0 channels
Get PRO
January '22
+126
in 0 channels
Get PRO
December '21
+115
in 0 channels
Get PRO
November '21
+50
in 0 channels
Get PRO
October '21
+123
in 0 channels
Get PRO
September '21
+205
in 0 channels
Get PRO
August '21
+560
in 0 channels
Get PRO
July '21
+127
in 0 channels
Get PRO
June '21
+80
in 0 channels
Get PRO
May '21
+492
in 0 channels
| Date | Subscriber Growth | Mentions | Channels | |
| 09 September | 0 | |||
| 08 September | +1 | |||
| 07 September | 0 | |||
| 06 September | 0 | |||
| 05 September | +1 | |||
| 04 September | 0 | |||
| 03 September | 0 | |||
| 02 September | 0 | |||
| 01 September | 0 |
Channel Posts
And now comes the Digital Duty of Care — requiring platforms to anticipate and prevent broadly defined online harms.
So when the Minister talks about protecting our choice, perhaps we should ask:
Whose choice?
Because choice isn’t government deciding which information environment is safest for us.
Choice isn’t financially entangling government, Big Tech and the media organisations whose job is to scrutinise them.
And choice isn’t blaming algorithms when Australians encounter opinions, information or political views the government would rather they didn’t.
If the government genuinely believes Australians should have choice, then it needs to accept something fundamental:
Choice includes the possibility that Australians will see things the government doesn’t like.
And reach conclusions the government doesn’t like either.
| 2 |  CHOICE? Listen to how many times Anika Wells talks about choice.
Choice over what Australians see.
Choice over what Australians consume.
Choice over the information Australians receive.
We agree.
Australians should have choice.
So why is her government building an information environment that increasingly puts government in the middle?
The Commonwealth is financially supporting Australian media organisations.
It has also legislated to make Big Tech pay Australian news businesses — and is now pursuing a new system specifically designed to financially incentivise those deals.
At the same time, government is expanding regulation of the very platforms through which Australians increasingly access information. | 54 |
| 3 |  We keep hearing big promises about data centres — but the basic questions still aren’t being answered.
Where will the water come from?
Where will the power come from?
Will communities be asked to host desalination plants or see local rivers diverted to support them?
Before governments commit to large-scale data centre expansion, Australians deserve clear answers about the infrastructure, energy and water it will demand — and who will carry the cost.
🎥 @gerardrennick_peoplefirst | 56 |
| 4 |  Senator Alex Antic is standing against it The Digital Duty of Care Bill.
As he explains, the Commissioner would be able to summon people, require them to answer questions under oath and compel information about compliance with the age restrictions.
Refuse to comply? Senator Antic warns the consequences could include significant fines — or even imprisonment.
This is no longer simply about keeping children off social media.
It is about the extraordinary enforcement machinery being built behind that policy — and how much power Australians are prepared to hand to an unelected regulator.
Age assurance. Identity verification. Compelled testimony. Penalties for non-compliance.
👏 Thank you, Senator Alex Antic, for standing with Australians who are demanding limits, accountability and scrutiny — and for standing bold when it matters. | 48 |
| 5 | Algorithms undoubtedly influence what we see.
But blaming the algorithm is awfully convenient if you never stop to ask whether government itself has given people legitimate reasons to stop trusting it.
And that matters enormously as the government develops its Digital Duty of Care and talks increasingly about online “harm”, misinformation and disinformation.
Because government should not get to define legitimate public distrust as a problem for an algorithm to solve.
Trust isn’t restored by controlling what people see.
It’s restored by becoming trustworthy.
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/media/2026/09/05/anika-wells-interview | 47 |
| 6 |  Communications Minister Anika Wells says algorithms are driving outrage, aggression and disinformation — and contributing to a crisis of trust.
But there’s something missing from that analysis.
Why are Australians losing trust in the first place?
Perhaps the algorithm isn’t creating all that distrust.
Perhaps Australians are increasingly distrustful because they’ve watched governments break promises, expand surveillance powers, restrict freedoms, avoid scrutiny and repeatedly tell them one thing — only for reality to look very different.
Social media undoubtedly amplifies anger. | 48 |
| 7 | SUNA believes government power should be scrutinised regardless of which party holds office or which agency exercises it.
We opposed excessive ASIO powers. We’ll apply exactly the same test to eSafety.
Watch the machinery, not just the justification.
This week, we’ll be watching closely. | 133 |
| 8 |  +2No text... | 132 |
| 9 |  +9PARLIAMENT IS BACK — and Australia’s digital future is firmly on the agenda.
This week we’re expecting the Government’s proposed Digital Duty of Care Bill, while another Bill seeks stronger eSafety enforcement powers and age-assurance requirements extend further into Australia’s online environment.
At the same time, the Government has announced IDLock and the next stage of privacy reform.
Every measure comes with its own explanation:
Protect children.
Stop harmful content.
Hold Big Tech accountable.
Protect identities.
Protect privacy.
Some are worthy objectives.
But Australians should be asking another question:
What are we building when all these systems are put together?
Digital identity. Document verification. Age assurance. Search engines and app stores. Social-media access. Algorithms. Definitions of online harm. Expanded regulator information-gathering powers. | 138 |
| 10 | The Government says compulsory acquisition will be a last resort, that safeguards remain for landholders and that proponents must first negotiate with owners.
But that doesn’t make the principle behind this any less significant.
Because compulsory acquisition has traditionally been associated with obvious public purposes — roads, hospitals, schools and other public infrastructure.
Now the boundary has shifted.
Your land can potentially be taken by the State to facilitate a project operated by a private proponent because the Government has determined that project is strategically important.
Farmers, landholders, agricultural groups and environmental organisations fought the legislation, raising concerns about property rights, safeguards and the extraordinary concentration of power.
Whatever your politics, Australians should think very carefully about where this precedent leads.
Because once governments are given extraordinary powers, the question isn’t simply how they promise to use them today.
It’s how those powers could be used tomorrow.
SOURCE:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-27/critical-minerals-bill-passes-qld-parliament/107083168 | 108 |
| 11 |  Imagine owning your home, your farm or land your family has worked for generations — only to discover the State now has expanded powers to compulsorily acquire it to facilitate somebody else’s private project.
That is no longer hypothetical in Queensland.
On 26 August, the Queensland Parliament passed controversial new laws expanding the State’s powers over projects it declares “State strategic”.
And buried within those powers is something Australians should pay very close attention to.
For the first time, the Queensland Government can compulsorily acquire land to facilitate certain private projects.
These powers are not unlimited. | 109 |
| 12 |  🚨 HUGE WIN: COLES WILL NOT RENEW ITS CONTRACT WITH PALANTIR! 🚨
👏 PEOPLE SPOKE UP — AND IT WORKED.
Following sustained public pressure, GetUp has announced that Coles will not renew its contract with US data and AI company Palantir beyond 2027.
Australians spoke up, spread the word and shareholders moved to force a resolution at the Coles AGM.
Now Coles has confirmed the contract “will not extend past 2027.”
🎉 THIS MATTERS.
As Australia races ahead with AI, biometrics, digital identity and data centres, we’re often told this transformation is inevitable.
But who owns it, who controls it and what Australians are prepared to accept are still choices.
Public scrutiny matters. Speaking up matters.
👏 Credit to GetUp and everyone who pushed this issue.
THIS is people power in action. | 108 |
| 13 | The Government also has an Office for AI and a Data Centre Strategy, and is actively positioning South Australia to capitalise on the AI boom.
Yet the Premier has made clear that the Royal Commission is not intended to examine the data centres themselves.
That matters.
A genuinely independent Royal Commission could be incredibly valuable. Australians should be having a serious conversation about where AI is taking us.
But when a government is simultaneously courting AI investment, partnering with one of the world’s biggest AI companies and pursuing the infrastructure required to support it, an obvious question arises:
How much of the fundamental direction is actually still open for debate?
Is this genuine scrutiny?
Or reassurance while the AI and data centre strategy continues?
We’re digging deeper into the infrastructure behind Australia’s AI boom — who benefits, what it demands and what Australians are committing to power it.
Explore The Data Grab:
standupnowaustralia.com.au/the-data-grab
SOURCE: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-11/why-is-south-australia-holding-royal-commission-into-ai/107018396 | 95 |
| 14 |  In case you missed this story…
Something about this doesn’t quite add up.
South Australia has announced a Royal Commission into Artificial Intelligence — examining the opportunities, risks and consequences of AI.
Sounds reassuring… until you look closer.
Around $3 million. Three commissioners. Roughly nine months.
It’s a tiny budget compared with other Royal Commissions, for an inquiry spanning jobs, education, health, public services, regulation, skills, national policy, energy and water.
But just days before announcing the Royal Commission, Premier Peter Malinauskas signed a Memorandum of Understanding with OpenAI — aimed at developing AI skills, accelerating research and innovation and attracting global investment to South Australia. | 96 |
| 15 | To access this new “protection” and control the electronic verification of your government-issued identity documents, the interface the Government is building is myGov. And they’re not merely consulting about it. They’re already building it.
Perhaps IDLock will prove to be nothing more than a useful anti-fraud tool.
All the same, Australians are entitled to ask a much bigger question: Is IDLock an independent security measure that simply happens to sit inside myGov — or is it another piece of an increasingly integrated national digital identity infrastructure?
Digital ID.
myGov.
Document Verification Services.
Identity credentials.
Age assurance.
And now IDLock.
Each is presented as making us safer, protecting our privacy or making life more convenient.
But at what point does “protection” become the incentive for everyone to enter the same government-mediated identity ecosystem?
When conformity is marketed as protection, we should pay very close attention to what we’re being asked to conform to. | 108 |
| 16 |  Late last week, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland announced the Albanese Government’s “next steps” to protect Australians’ privacy. Smart glasses got plenty of attention.
The Government will investigate the privacy risks posed by devices capable of discreetly recording people — rather than simply dealing with that problem directly.
But buried behind the headlines was something far more interesting.
IDLock.
The Government says IDLock will allow Australians to “block, unblock and monitor” the use of eligible identity documents through the Commonwealth’s Document Verification Service.
Early access and testing will begin with a small group later this year, before IDLock is rolled out nationally through myGov in 2027.
Read that again. | 113 |
| 17 | To access this new “protection” and control the electronic verification of your government-issued identity documents, the interface the Government is building is myGov. And they’re not merely consulting about it. They’re already building it.
Perhaps IDLock will prove to be nothing more than a useful anti-fraud tool.
All the same, Australians are entitled to ask a much bigger question: Is IDLock an independent security measure that simply happens to sit inside myGov — or is it another piece of an increasingly integrated national digital identity infrastructure?
Digital ID.
myGov.
Document Verification Services.
Identity credentials.
Age assurance.
And now IDLock.
Each is presented as making us safer, protecting our privacy or making life more convenient.
But at what point does “protection” become the incentive for everyone to enter the same government-mediated identity ecosystem?
When conformity is marketed as protection, we should pay very close attention to what we’re being asked to conform to. | 1 |
| 18 | Australians deserve to understand exactly what powers have been handed to our intelligence agencies, what safeguards exist, and how those powers could potentially be used in the future.
This was never about creating fear.
It was about making sure Australians knew what was happening before the laws changed.
We’re glad the conversation is finally reaching a much wider audience.
BUT imagine how different our democracy would look if this level of scrutiny happened before legislation passed — not after. | 212 |
| 19 |  Finally, the mainstream media is talking about it.
For months, we warned Australians about the extraordinary expansion of ASIO’s coercive questioning powers contained in the second tranche of national security legislation.
We held our All Eyes on ASIO webinar.
We encouraged Australians to contact Senators.
We followed the Bill as it was repeatedly rescheduled.
And when the Government moved to guillotine debate, we warned just how significant these changes were.
Now, after the legislation has passed, the mainstream media is beginning to examine what these powers could mean.
And that matters.
Because extraordinary national security powers should never pass quietly — regardless of which government introduces them or who they are intended to target today. | 213 |
| 20 |  What does Australia actually get from hosting data Centres?
“What do we get from this!?”
That’s the question Senator Sarah Hanson-Young is asking about Australia hosting massive, large-scale data centres.
And it’s a question we’ve been raising for months.
If Australians are providing the land, electricity, water and infrastructure needed to support this enormous build-out, what is the return for Australian communities?
Who benefits?
Who carries the cost?
And are we getting a fair deal?
The Greens are now calling for a moratorium on new data centres until regulations are strengthened and communities are getting a fair deal.
Whatever your politics, this is a conversation Australia needs to have.
If this debate is only just reaching you, start with The Data Grab. We’ve already done the digging so Australians can understand what’s at stake.
https://www.standupnowaustralia.com.au/the-data-grab | 180 |
