Censors Celebrated: Misinformation and Disinformation Down Under
The heralded arrival of the Internet caused flutters of enthusiasm, streaks of heart-felt hope. Unregulated, and supposedly all powerful, an information medium never before seen on such scale could be used to liberate mind and spirit. With almost disconcerting reliability, humankind would coddle and fawn over a technology which would, as Langdon Winner writes, “bring universal wealth, enhanced freedom, revitalized politics, satisfying community, and personal fulfilment.”
Such high street techno-utopianism was bound to have its day. The sceptics grumbled, the critiques bubbled and flowed. Evgeny Morozov, in his relentlessly biting study The Net Delusion, warned of the misguided nature of the “excessive optimism and empty McKinsey-speak”, of cyber-utopianism and the ostensibly democratising properties of the Internet. Governments, whatever their ideological mix, gave the same bark of suspicion.
In Australia, we see the tech-utopians being butchered, metaphorically speaking, on our doorstep. Of concern here is the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023. This nasty bit of legislative progeny arises from the 2019 Digital Platforms Inquiry conducted by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The final report notes how consumers accessing news placed on digital platforms “potentially risk exposure to unreliable news through ‘filter bubbles’ and the spread of disinformation, malinformation and misinformation (‘fake news’) online.” And what of television? Radio? Community bulletin boards? The mind shrinks in anticipation.
In this state of knee-jerk control and paternal suspicion, the Commonwealth pressed digital platforms conducting business in Australia to develop a voluntary code of practice to address disinformation and the quality of news. The Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation was launched on February 22, 2021 by the Digital Industry Group Inc. Eight digital platforms adopted the code, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Twitter. The acquiescence from the digital giants did little in terms of satisfying the wishes of the Morrison government. The Minister of Communications at the time, Paul Fletcher, duly announced that new laws would be drafted to arm the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with the means “to combat online misinformation and disinformation.” He noted an ACMA report highlighting that “disinformation and misinformation are significant and ongoing issues.”
The resulting Bill proposes to make various functional amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) as to the way digital platform services work. It also proposes to vest the ACMA with powers to target misinformation and disinformation. Digital platforms not in compliance with the directions of the ACMA risk facing hefty penalties, though the regulator will not have the power to request the removal of specific content from the digital platform services.
In its current form, the proposed instrument defines misinformation as “online content that is false, misleading or deceptive, that is shared or created without an intent to deceive but can cause and contribute to serious harm.” Disinformation is regarded as “misinformation that is intentionally disseminated with the intent to deceive or cause serious harm.”
Of concern regarding the Bill is the scope of the proposed ACMA powers regarding material it designates as “harmful online misinformation and disinformation”. Digital platforms will be required to impose codes of conduct to enforce the interpretations made by the ACMA. The regulator can even “create and enforce an industry standard” (this standard is unworkably opaque, and again begs the question of how that can be defined) and register them. Those in breach will be liable for up to $7.8 million or 5% of global turnover for corporations. Individuals can be liable for fines up to $1.38 million.
A central notion in the proposal is that the information in question must be “reasonably likely […] to cause or contribute serious harm”. Examples of this hopelessly rubbery concept are provided in the Guidance Note to the Bill. These include hatred targeting a group based on ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion or physical or mental disability. It can also include disruption to public order or society. The example provided in the guidance suggests typical government paranoia about how the unruly, irascible populace might be incited: “Misinformation that encouraged or caused people to vandalise critical communications infrastructure.”
The proposed law will potentially enthrone the ACMA as an interventionist overseer of digital content. In doing so, it can decide what and which entity can be exempted from alleged misinformation practices. For instance, “excluded content for misinformation purposes” can be anything touching on entertainment, parody or satire, provided it is done in good faith. Professional news content is also excluded, but any number of news or critical sources may fall foul of the provisions, given the multiple, exacting codes the “news source” must abide by. The sense of that discretion is woefully wide.
The submission from the Victorian Bar Association warns that “the Bill’s interference with the self-fulfilment of free expression will occur primarily by the chilling self-censorship it will inevitably bring about in the individual users of the relevant services (who may rationally wish to avoid any risk of being labelled a purveyor of misinformation or disinformation).” The VBA also wonders if such a bill is even warranted, given that the problem has been “effectively responded to by voluntary actions taken by the most important actors in this space.”
Also critical, if less focused, is the stream of industrial rage coming from the Coalition benches and the corridors of Sky News, where Rupert Murdoch ventriloquises. Shadow Communications Minister David Coleman called the draft “a very bad bill” giving the ACMA “extraordinary powers. It would lead to digital companies self-censoring the legitimately held views of Australians to avoid the risk of massive fines.” Sky News has even deigned to use the term “Orwellian”.
Misinformation, squawked Coleman, was defined so broadly as to potentially “capture many statements made by Australians in the context of political debate.” Content from journalists “on their personal digital platforms” risked being removed as crudely mislabelled misinformation. This was fascinating, u-turning stuff, given the enthusiasm the Coalition had shown in 2022 for a similar muzzling of information. Once in opposition, the mind reverses, leaving the mind to breathe.
The proposed bill on assessing, parcelling and dictating information (mis-, dis-, mal-) is a nasty little experiment in censoring communication and discussion. When the state decides, through its agencies, to tell readers what is appropriate to read and what can be accessed, the sirens should be going off.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
16 comments
Login here Register here-
Phil Pryor -
GL -
Terence Mills -
Canguro -
Pete M -
paul walter -
Pete Petrass -
Clakka -
Canguro -
Pete M -
B Sullivan -
leefe -
Terence Mills -
GL -
Pete M -
paul walter
Return to home pageMisinformation, as discussed, described, kicked around, is subject to a huge amount of contrived misinformation automatically. Fox Pox Merde Doge Misfit Media Maggots are paid to conform, create, issue and support any misinformed attitude, as are the Stokes jackbooters and the Costello Clowns. They work to obey and serve. Opinion is the last ditch, and opinioneers, often egotistically ignorant negative active ambitious posers, are keen to earn a living being noticed. What is wanted by the opinioneers is probably a secure world for backers, advertisers, donors, supporters, patrons, followers, the consumer crushing coerced life of the vast majority who should obey automatically. We can all say what we want, but a Merde Dog has money to retain lawyers, shape up law, get the money dogs out, rent public officials probably. There’s a Cameron out here, a failed actor at everything useful and vital, who did what Merde Dog’s apparatus said. Now Cameron tells us and Merde Dog used to tell him what…who runs things?? In fact, one can observe Australia today only with unrelieved sadness.
If Rupert (particularly The Murdoch), Costello and Stokes are against it then their trained parrots and sycophants in the LNP will squawk and flap their pockets, I mean wings, in faux outrage. They thrive on bullshit disguised as news and any changesthat can potentially hit the bank balances and their media stranglehold is anathema.
You have probably heard of the Dorothy Dix question asked by Nigel Farage in his interview with Donald Trump. The question, as Farage explains, came to him from SKY in Australia and was clearly designed to embarrass Rudd who is now our US ambassador.
The question was submitted by head of Sky News Australia, Paul Whittaker who has had many run-ins with Rudd over the years.
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/what-on-earth-was-albanese-thinking-nigel-farage-slams-kevin-rudd-in-first-interview-since-donald-trump-sit-down/news-story/1eac817dca3a7dc5e6c77d0af25f19bc
Is this really journalism ?
Whilst noting the rhetorical nature of your closing question, Terence, I’m assuming that you as well as other contributors have no illusions with respect to the relationship of people like Farage to actual journalism; being a former commodities trader who morphed into a European Parliament member who subsequently started his own party back in Britain does not qualify him for the title of ‘journalist’, unlike Whittaker who has been in the game for years. albeit consistently sucking on the Murdoch teat.
The great tragedy of contemporary journalism is its devolution to this stage of continual use of fake news, outright incorrect information promulgated as truth, and the use of commentators’ opinions as opposed to objective reporting.
No wonder the average viewers and readers are little wiser and likely dumber after submitting to the daily blizzard of dog droppings that constitutes ‘the news’.
If Labor stupidly creates a Ministry of Truth, the designed consequence of a Misinfo-Disinfo Bill, the Oz public deserves what it gets for not pushing back on that fascist idea. Our next Liberal PM, Dutton will surely agree. What colour shirts do you prefer – black or brown?
I voice suspicions that the likes of Dreyfus and Marles aren’t peddling it also, since the latest bill seems to come from 2023.
Correct me if I am wrong.
An appropriate definition of what the term misinformation or disinformation actually means can be put in one word – Murdoch.
I was given advice once, that in court, it was best to precondition a response with ‘I believe that …’ or ‘I don’t believe that …’, or ‘It is believed / not believed that …’, leaving a matter open to doubt, rather than making a statement whereby you can be nailed as accepting something as an absolute truth. Trickey.
Seeing that at its fundamental, the design and application of law is based upon common morality, so there seems to be an acceptance that truth is rubbery, and can be left to the jury of 12 peers or an agonized judge. So of course politics and the news / opinion media will reflect that rubberiness.
With the advent of the internet and social media the floodgates of a global battle royal were opened. In the torrent, context was drowned, statements of truth and opinion were blurred, and the language of logic and meaning obliterated until everyone became either obsessed and an expert in their own lunchbox, or distressed and resigned to fate.
It seems that politics and journalism is interchangeable, but in any case it doesn’t pay enough when lawyers create all the devices.
Nevertheless, it’s onward ever onward, now we’re attempting to usurp all that with AI
Pete M, all strength to your fabulous idealism but Dutton as PM? In your dreams, matey. He couldn’t be trusted to act as a responsible tea caddy, let alone gifted the keys to the Lodge or Kirribilli House. And, take note. It was Dutton whose sartorial choice for his chosen-named Border Force was black shirts. Given your Spud for PM fantasy, I take it you have no issue with that?
Canguro, do you believe Libs will always be in Opposition? A Misinfo-Disinfo Bill gives ALL power to the msm-politicians of the day.
The only public opinions will be officially sanctioned, ie. propaganda, like Russia. Labor signs away freedom of speech with this particular bill. Maybe it’s fate, we are meant to bypass democracy on the path to serfdom because the majority couldn’t see the trap.
Pete M,
If Australia was a true functioning democracy the Libs would never win office. They just don’t have the numbers to assert a democratic majority. They rely on a coalition with the Nats who are always guaranteed 10 seats in parliament with just 5 per cent of the electorate supporting them. The Greens have the support of 15 per cent of the voters. Do they have 30 seats in parliament?
You should be worried about the lack of fair democratic representation in Australia. Fix Australia’s democracy and you’ll never have to worry about the Libs winning government again.
Sully:
What’s your solution – proportional representation?
Leefe
A bill of Rights would be a good start !
Terence,
Every time the talk of a bill of Rights is raised pollies run for cover and hide in their bunkers until the thought of something so valuable goes away.
B S, I don’t see how a democracy can exist unless there’s firstly the right to free speech. Russia is said to be a federal, democratic state. Aust is a representative democracy, constitutional monarchy and a federation. And so the word democratic is meaningless without context, free speech is not guaranteed. The direct democracy of Switzerland with its system of regular referenda looks better, but given what happened only a few years ago when Aussies were ruled by the secretive 5 Ministry Morrison of the Great LNP, praise be to our former leader, I have no confidence in politicans carrying out the will of the people when directed. TM and GL, yes to a Bill of Rights, one with the right to free speech foremost.
Always nice to get back to AIM…so sick of being censored on soc media. I don’t usually swear, just offer a viewpoint b ut it sthe swearing that is tolerated rather than pov at some sites.