Sure, I agree that “tech industry” can refer to individuals. But in this context, it’s referring to corporations. That’s the simplest interpretation of the headline, and if you don’t arrive at that interpretation, it becomes increasingly apparent in the article.

“Nothing to do with tech” – I disagree. The author is speaking to a specific issue of consent in how tech companies handle data and build UX. These are tech industry issues. Immoral data handling may also be an issue with Nestle, but the author isn’t talking about Nestle. They also aren’t purely talking about the general economic system of capitalism, because doing so would dilute their argument.

I don’t know the author, but I don’t think reducing the article to an effort to get “precious clicks” is fair. They’re an established tech blogger, they’ve worked in security for many years, and as far as I know they make no money directly off of their articles. They even strongly encourage you to use an ad blocker when you enter the site.

Nowhere in the article does the author pin blame on individual employees. “Tech industry” obviously refers to corporations, not individual contributors. The title isn’t clickbait.

Racism and lack of bipartisan support were likely huge factors as other commenters said. There was also division between Indigenous people regarding the efficacy of the Voice to Parliament. Some saw it as a great step forward, others saw it as toothless or symbolic, others still believed it would delegitimise their sovereignty over the land. The Opposition latched onto this for their own gains I believe. Together with Fair Australia (conservative lobbying group) they dealed in fear, misinformation and distrust. They absolutely dominated over social media and took control of the narrative very quickly. This became a lot easier for them due to the cost of living crisis. Take a White Australian in the outer suburbs or rural areas, tell them to care about this thing they don’t understand instead of their rising mortgage payments and cost of groceries, when the Opposition is feeding into their latent ignorance and distrust of First Nations people that all Australians have, and you’ve lost them already.

I grieve for you 😭🌭

Races of people exist in our society. Observing that, or mentioning race in any contents, isn’t racism. I totally agree though – all Australians should be treated equally. Unfortunately, since colonisation, Indigenous people have not been treated as equal to the settlers. In fact, they’ve been treated like shit. The system they live under is incentivised to treat them like shit, because it gives other people money and power and land. Crafting special solutions for them, based on their race in a racist system, their culture, their individual needs – that’s the only effective way to help. Every other way is blind. This goes for any group of people. We can give separate, necessary privileges to both Indigenous and Chinese people. It’s not a zero sum game.

I’m guessing you’re not from Aus. Weird to think that democracy snags are a purely Australian thing… If I didn’t eat a sausage after voting I don’t know what I’d do with myself. Our democracy might as well collapse

Sorry man, but that’s not racism. That’s equity. Some kinds of people need certain kinds of privileges, because they’ve been disenfranchised by a racist system for years and years and years. Giving them a leg up is a reasonable and empathetic thing to do.

I agree with other commenters’ definitions of sovereignty. In Australia there are competing sovereignties. An imperial one – “Australia”, conquest, absolute power. And an Indigenous one – spiritual connection, ancestry, sacred ties. In each of these sovereignties, the word “sovereignty” has a different definition and is deployed for a different purpose.

Indigenous sovereignty existed for 60 millennia, and then the British stole the land and denied that sovereignty in place of their own. The Australian state has the means to enforce its own sovereignty through things like laws, police, prison, disenfranchisement, poverty, but Indigenous sovereignty still exists. This is a fact. If I stole something from you and claimed it as my own with a threat of violence, it’d still be yours, even after thousands of years.

Under Australian sovereignty, you’re certainly a citizen. Under Indigenous sovereignty, it’s more complicated, and from what I understand Indigenous people have a variety of perspectives. I haven’t heard anyone use the term ‘guest’, but I have heard ‘invader’. It’s an uncomfortable label, but it’s entirely reasonable given the colonial history of Australia. Others have more inviting perspectives on this conflict between sovereignties.

Here’s an article about it if you’re interested: https://www.smh.com.au/national/what-s-indigenous-sovereignty-and-can-a-voice-extinguish-it-20230113-p5ccdk.html

To be honest, that’s pretty lame. It sounds like just because you feel weird about them calling you a guest, you won’t accept their clear sovereignty in Australia.

Monte Carlo is the devil’s cookie… Praise be to Kingston…

Generally when Indigenous communities go dry, it’s to protect members of the community from abusing alcohol. There’s a greater risk of alcohol abuse in these communities because of a whole history of disenfranchisement, insecure housing, generational trauma, stuff like that. So personally I wouldn’t say an economic argument is right here. There may be demand for alcohol, but if that demand leads to alcohol abuse and all the terrible shit that brings, and many members of the community don’t want alcohol around for those reasons, then it’s better not to build a Dan Murphy.

Wow, that’s fucked up

Yeah, it’s just fear-mongering IMO

True, didn’t know that was a thing. I assume people who are leading the Voice movement don’t find it to be sufficient enough – I wonder why? I suppose because it has no constitutional recognition? But why not use the NIAA as a basis? Would be interesting to learn the reasoning there.

Yeah, sort of agreed on the toothless comment. I was big on the Voice when I first heard about it, and I’m still for it, but I’m a lot more pessimistic about its strength now. Maybe it’ll make more sense when the whole Uluru Statement is established.

Not sure what you mean by that. How would she go about making a Voice on her own?

I think she’s right, it’s a fair and practical move. Not sure if I’d say that all No campaigns for the Uluru Statement use Trump-style politics like she says, but the Fair Australia one is certainly weak and uses the “pointing out racism creates division” thing that anti-CRT Americans like to use so much.