nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpqmskl79f363mv2l8ylz97ny7zjmzs7n2c68lh57pj4g3yy75nn0ps4u977y (nprofile…977y) I don’t hold out much hope. My argument is really “they should not be” rather than “they are not” confidential. In the UK, ARN’s letter would be a public document; but then, in the UK, they would have lost their licence about four times already (and in this case the regulator would have issued their licence condition within a fortnight, at most, of getting ARN’s letter) so I guess it’s a moot argument.
The wider question is really whether the ACMA is fulfilling its legal obligation as a regulator. The Broadcasting Act lays down those obligations, and I think the ACMA isn’t meeting them. Certainly, allowing K&J to continue broadcasting for the whole of survey 1 without a licence condition applied upon them is evidence of the ACMA not acting.
(I do wonder why real journalists aren’t doing this work. Oh, wait - Murdoch, Nine and Seven are all… television broadcasters as well, aren’t they? Huh.)
James Cridland
npub1g5…9t5sr
2026-03-05 03:31:21 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…epug
Author Public Key
npub1g5h6rwmps922vx6m3rfj23r9wlkkp9dzrwefuyzfkjktqnfwvxasc9t5srSeen on
wss://relay.ditto.pubPublished at
2026-03-05 03:31:21 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "3e678da009d80c03e41b6ebb5d2356e22ab7591c392989a54f3ccbf007c5ca7e",
"pubkey": "452fa1bb618154a61b5b88d325446577ed6095a21bb29e1049b4acb04d2e61bb",
"created_at": 1772681481,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"dc2dff1531d476c57ce4f88be993c296c50f4d58d1ff7a7832aa22427a939bc3",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub"
],
[
"p",
"5b4467611951611c953722051d0bc3597a1e3c27257771b2aa12ac8342e84bbc",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub"
],
[
"e",
"1418075b63daab4d0abe4893861549cc2b4f4088af7ed9d4ed98457f4bf89ecb",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://bne.social/users/james/statuses/116174453589846062",
"activitypub"
],
[
"client",
"Mostr",
"31990:6be38f8c63df7dbf84db7ec4a6e6fbbd8d19dca3b980efad18585c46f04b26f9:mostr",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub"
]
],
"content": "nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpqmskl79f363mv2l8ylz97ny7zjmzs7n2c68lh57pj4g3yy75nn0ps4u977y I don’t hold out much hope. My argument is really “they should not be” rather than “they are not” confidential. In the UK, ARN’s letter would be a public document; but then, in the UK, they would have lost their licence about four times already (and in this case the regulator would have issued their licence condition within a fortnight, at most, of getting ARN’s letter) so I guess it’s a moot argument.\n\nThe wider question is really whether the ACMA is fulfilling its legal obligation as a regulator. The Broadcasting Act lays down those obligations, and I think the ACMA isn’t meeting them. Certainly, allowing K\u0026J to continue broadcasting for the whole of survey 1 without a licence condition applied upon them is evidence of the ACMA not acting.\n\n(I do wonder why real journalists aren’t doing this work. Oh, wait - Murdoch, Nine and Seven are all… television broadcasters as well, aren’t they? Huh.)",
"sig": "7a34f7f4e83510d5f6ec19908eeb14d283aac237ec1f5b3cbac074fffe4e205345bb1bc44a18c12bd6d3ff416e76bc0d153886877c09352cccc383edb3e94f1a"
}