I am tired of being lied to by

politicians and the journalists they pay. It is likely that the vast majority of people would feel this way if they were more aware of what is going on. They are not.

"The room was full..." we were told but we were not told the next three words "of empty seats". No, not all the seats were empty. Not even the most loyal journalist could report our Prime Minister talking to an empty room. They could try to make us believe that there were many more people there. It was apparently important to do that.

The reality is that the biggest international auditorium of them all was not full. There were more empty seats than occupied seats. Some of those seats were occupied by Downunder's own delegation. Almost all the rest were occupied by representatives of the countries who depend on aid from this country. They were there to protect their own interests. 

I have been unable to ascertain whether any leaders of those countries were present. My informant (who was there) did not see any but tells me "there might have been". That person was not in a position to actually look around. 

"It was what we expected but it was embarrassing. I think he genuinely does not realise how little people think of him."

As I pointed out several days ago the only person to meet our PM when he arrived in the United States was our own country's Ambassador. There was no US official there, not one. We did not get informed about this on any news service of course. What we got was the story about him meeting with one of the "big tech" people. I do wonder what that person made of our Prime Minister. I wonder what he made of our present government's attempts to control access to the media and the technology which powers it. How convenient to be able to keep the "hacking" story until such time as it would make the maximum impact - the maximum impact here. All this of course is designed to try and make us believe that the "Digital Duty of Care" legislation is not just desirable but essential to protect us from harm. Really?

I do believe AI is potentially dangerous. Of course it could be. In hands which wish the rest of us harm it could be very dangerous. It would also be dangerous to allow any government so much control over what we see and hear. People are already asking whether it means that discussions about issues like biological sex or climate change would be controlled under the proposed legislation. They are issues about which there are very strong opinions. Are we really in need of being told that only one point of view is acceptable? 

Our Foreign Minister has tried to describe us as a "middle power". If we are one then it is because our official language is English. It is not because of anything we do or say on the world stage. We may have a large land mass but our population is small. The idea that what we do or say can have any sort of major influence on the major powers is nonsense. We have little, if any, influence almost anywhere. It is why we fund football teams in neighbouring countries instead of projects which have actual meaning and value. 

Those "selfies" with the big names at that meeting mean absolutely nothing. If we want to make a difference then we need to start here and do some hard work. How many people really want to do that?