The two main Australian telcos - Optus and Telstra - blocked Voat on 21st March in response to the NZ shooting. Obviously they didn't like us talking about it and got Arderned. Anyway the block is still there despite the fact that facebook - that hosted the video - was never blocked.
So I complained to Optus and didn't get anywhere. So I have put in a complaint to the regulator.
If any other Aussie folk are on here via a VPN, please put in a complaint to the Ombudsman. Feel free to use as a template.
https://www.tioonline.com.au/consumers/new/
Complaint description
On March 21, Optus "temporarily" blocked certain websites following the NZ mosque shooting. The reason given for this is that some of the websites were "hosting" video relating to the shooting. The website which actually hosted the videos - facebook and youtube - were not blocked. One of the websites that was blocked - voat.co - has no hosting facilities. It is merely a forum for ideas, research and news. It cannot host pictures, video or any other type of media. Not only was it blocked on that date but it remains blocked to this day. I raised a complaint about the block of voat some weeks after the shooting, when many of the other websites had been restored (facebook and youtube were never blocked). The demeaning response(s) to my complaint have pushed me into writing this complaint. I tried to resolve this with the provider but was unable to do so. The reason to complain is that this provider is acting outside its scope as a utility. This carries severe risks to the impartiality that is required to keep Australia a free democratic republic.
Your service provider's response
In response to my complaint, Optus sent a statement which was untrue, as it stated that the websites that were blocked hosted content. This was untrue. The response also clearly implied that Optus considered me morally deficient for questioning the block of this website. I therefore escalated the complaint as the reason for the site block specifically contravened Optus's own published policy on blocking websites (which only relates to illegal sites)
Your preferred outcome
Either (1) unblock the site and apologise for the demeaning response, and the fact that the response was a lie or (2) publish a full account on their website as to why they continue a block, why they were prepared to lie to their customers about the reason for the block (with an apology), and declare honestly and openly that they will choose what legal websites they will allow their customers to view based on political ideology (i.e. to admit to censorship outside the scope of a utility)
@puttitout
view the rest of the comments →
19015941? ago
Response from the TIO
The role of the TIO The TIO is a dispute resolution service for small business and residential consumers with complaints about telecommunications services supplied or offered in Australia.
We handle complaints where the consumer is an end-user of the telecommunications service or is directly affected by the telecommunications service.
The types of complaints we handle include complaints about supply of services, faults with services, billing and debt recovery, and breach of privacy.
There are some types of complaints that the TIO does not handle, and some circumstances when the TIO can decide not to continue handling a complaint. This complaint issue Your correspondence is about Telstra blocking particular websites.
The TIO does not handle complaints about a commercial activity of a provider from section 2.10 of Terms of Reference,
Because your complaint is about this issue, we cannot continue handling your complaint and we will not be taking this matter further.
I followed up with a call, and basically they cannot help. Next stop: ACMA
19026701? ago
Same here. ACMA next