It didn’t take long for the federal government’s proposed misinformation and disinformation laws to fall victim to the very problem that they seek to solve.
When Communications Minister Michelle Rowland released the draft legislation that she says will “empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to hold digital platforms to account”, it prompted some extreme reactions.
The Daily Mail wrote that “Aussies who share ‘misinformation’ could face massive fines”. Liberal Democratic NSW MLC John Ruddick claimed the laws would “ban misinformation”. United Australia Party Senator Ralph Babet said the bill makes the government “the arbiters of truth”.
These takes — built around the assumption that ACMA would have some kind of power to censor online content that it deemed incorrect — are misleading or mistaken. Ironically, the government would be completely powerless to do anything about these claims even if these laws are passed and their powers are used to their full extent.
Understanding how these powers might work comes down to one word and one analogy.
What will come under ACMA’s new powers?
The crucial definition in the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 is what is considered “misinformation”. The bill takes a narrow view of what comes under the law’s purview.
The powers only apply to misinformation that “would cause or contribute to serious harm” that comes from digital platform services including search engines, social media platforms, forums and podcasting services but excludes private messaging services. There are carveouts for satire, professional news and government content.
A user of any of these services can’t be penalised or compelled under the law’s powers. Nor would a platform be held responsible for content that may be untrue but not likely to seriously harm someone (like if someone tweeted “Crikey is Australia’s most widely read news publication”).
What will ACMA be able to do?
There are two main parts to the bill.
The first gives ACMA the ability to get information from digital platforms about how they’re dealing with misinformation. This includes being able to compel tech companies to give them Australia-specific information and, if they aren’t keeping this data, force them to do so.
This aspect of the proposal is uncontroversial, at least in part because most big tech companies already publish this information as part of their participation in Australian tech industry group DIGI’s voluntary misinformation code (more on this in a second).
The second part of the proposal is about giving ACMA the power to enforce or create standards for dealing with misinformation. Like the eSafety Commissioner’s online safety industry codes, these powers establish a co-regulatory process where the tech industry can be compelled to come up with its own rules on how it deals with misinformation.
ACMA can then penalise these digital services if they don’t follow their own rules. If ACMA is unhappy with its efforts, it can also come up with its own industry standards that the companies must follow.
The key to understanding this is looking at how ACMA already regulates two separate industries: telecommunications companies like Telstra, and broadcasters like television and radio stations. ACMA made telcos come up with their own rules about how they deal with things like spam calls, but it doesn’t police what people say over the phone. But with broadcasters, ACMA routinely pings broadcast licensees for what they say over the air.
So, is ACMA dealing with online misinformation regulation more like telcos or broadcasters? The answer is the latter. The watchdog will not be able to give “massive fines” to an individual for spreading lies online, no matter how many people those lies would hurt. In fact, it won’t even be able to determine if something is misinformation or not (so much for being the arbiter of truth!). It relies on the information given by the tech platforms — remember those information-gathering powers before? — to figure out whether they are successfully dealing with misinformation on their platform.
These new ACMA powers do not police misinformation. Instead, they police how tech companies are responding to misinformation. And we already know what these responses are, as many of the big tech companies are already part of DIGI’s industry code. Under the reform, ACMA would have the ability to make this code enforceable and to force other digital platforms to join or front up with what they’re doing to combat misinformation, if they’re doing anything at all.
Solving society’s misinformation and disinformation problem is a big ask even with the tech industry’s considerable scale and power. The existing industry code and the proposed legislation are far from perfect, too, and there’s more to be written on this. But any public debate around getting the balance right between freedom of speech and preventing harm requires at least a modicum of attention to detail. It’s not surprising to see a knee-jerk reaction from the usual suspects, and probably goes some way to explaining how we got into this mess in the first place.
It’s always interesting to see who shouts ‘foul’ the loudest and longest when accountability is suggested for our media platforms.
It’s generally those on the right and extreme right.
Mostly because what currently passes for the ‘left’ haven’t had an original idea for the last 20-30yrs and are now the main, & most hysterical, urgers for more & more thought control.
But one man’s “accountability” is another man’s “censorship”.
A lot of disinformation is easily fact checked.
For example a quote attributed to someone or organisation but was never made. Like the AEMO who regularly site that renewables are cheaper than the fossil fuel alternatives but have often been quoted as saying the opposite.
In a situation like that, it doesn’t really matter what someone believes to be fact. There’s only one truth, whether people like it or not.
First ACMA needs to be independent and well funded. Next all political advertising must be subject to truth in advertising legislation. Not ever going to happen. Sigh.
Let’s hope you’re wrong about the political advertising!
South Australia actually HAS legislated “truth in advertising” that applies to Political advertising……………..
……………..so it can be done.
The only thing missing is the political will.
All search parties sent out to find said “political will” have returned, sadly disappointed.
Not because it was not found but because it was and not worth recuing.
The chimera was discovered to be merely venal self interest wearing the disguise of simple incompetence to hide its far uglier true nature.
..”not worth rescuing”.
The problem with misinformation laws is that so many people don’t seem to understand what are “facts” and what are opinions.
There’s only two types of facts:
a) scientific facts as in things that can be scientifically proven (which might even later be disproven); and
b) historic facts as in things that actually happened and when they happened (if this can be proven) not “why” they happened or if they were good or bad.
Everything else is opinion. More so in the absence of a god.
But it seems as we’ve moved away from religion we’ve developed even more moral certainty about stuff. And not just personal morals – which are important – but moralising at others.
Part of the problem is we’ve become overeducated about the wrong things. Too many people study social sciences and then start to believe that whatever made up theories they’ve learned is some kind of gospel.
Take for example people who study economics and treat economic theories like hard science.
If we actually learnt to distinguish between fact and opinion we’d spend more time trying to convince other people of our opinions rather than shouting at them. The remain side in Brexit wouldn’t have relied as much on highly questionable economic projections, and the voice campaign on calling everyone racist.
There is no great truth. It’s all made up. The challenge is getting enough people to accept certain cultural norms and values which are then essential to a civilised society. But we hang onto civilised society by a thread. And this is where misinformation laws are so misconceived.
Good misinformation doesn’t use lies. It acts like a mirror to society. For example the hardest misinformation to respond in the Ukraine war are the (not-so-false) equivalence with the Iraq war.
During the 2016 election in the US the guardian uncovered Russia troll factories operating out of west Africa that were pushing issues like Black Lives Matter. Now why would a fascist, racist regime promote the BLM movement? To split the Clinton vote and get Trump elected.
Fundamentally misinformation, distrust and division thrives in societies that are unequal or disillusioned, and that is the main reason why we are seeing so much misinformation take hold. But politicians, especially Labor, would prefer to focus on the misinformation rather than the conditions which are enabling it to take hold. And the real victim will be free speech.
Your post reminded me of Indiana Jones: Archaeology is the search for fact… not truth. If it’s truth you’re looking for, Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall
There are more gradations of truth vs opinion that that though. There are truths and falsehoods about arbitrary systems of rules or conventions, such as the law of the land, or of a particular set of religious beliefs (in some cases also a law of the land). Or mathematics. Now the made-up rules (as opposed to the discovered and testable ones in some areas of maths) are subject to change over time. Such as “we hold these truths to be self-evident”, etc. That doesn’t mean that at any given time there is a “truth” to the notion that it is illegal to jaywalk, or fail to pay your taxes. And of course, “history is a set of lies that people have agreed upon”.
It is well not to be too prescriptive, I think. Even when dealing with facts…
The whole idea that there is a thing as a ‘social science’ is part of the problem – at best its an oxymoron.
“a) scientific facts as in things that can be scientifically proven (which might even later be disproven)”
Nonsense. What you call’scientific facts’ are actually either hypotheses ( proof not yet developed ) or theories, NOT facts.
They’re what make planes fly. They’re facts by any definition.
“and the voice campaign on calling everyone racist.”
Again, nonsense, and a deliberate untruth. Where are your ‘facts’ to back up that assertion ? Even making that assertion puts your ‘argument’ in the camp of those accused of using deliberate obfuscation ( ie lying ) in trying to advance their NO case.
“There is no great truth. It’s all made up.”
That is the case with the vast majority of those pushing the NO case, in this particular instance.
If however, you are speaking metaphysically, then you are also wrong. Because even nihilists cannot deny that the planets revolve around the sun, that Earth has a satellite called the moon, that the cosmos exists, that there can never be any proof of the nonexistence of god. etc, etc.
Your assertions about “misinformation, distrust and division thrives in societies that are unequal or disillusioned” are fundamentally true, but to what category do your assertions belong ? Fact, truth, or hypothesis ?
You push the conspiracy theory about Russia etc. which may well be true, but by doing so, you claim it as a fact, a truth. Which you argue does not exist.
Your last sentence is not based on ‘fact’, which you claim both does and does not exist according to the dictates of the prejudices necessary to your arguments, but is merely an assertion that has yet to be evidenced.
Logic – fail.
Love your nonsense.
If you genuinely are not aware of accusations of racism levelled against the no campaign and the undecideds then I can’t help you.
But I suspect you simply struggle to understand there might be a diff ent point of view. The absolute certainty with which you speak suggests you take your opinions very seriously indeed.
False argument.
There is nothing to indicate that I am not aware of the accusations of racism – “and the voice campaign on calling everyone racist.”
That assertion is made up to try to argue your point. I did not say that there were no accusations of racism, which there have been, but your assertion implies that
1/ the Voice campaign calls the NO campaign racist or that
2/ the individuals campaigning against the NO campaign are collectively and individually making accusations of racism.
Again, nonsense – prove it.
Reading the rest of your post I’m genuinely lost about what you are on about.
Why would you pick the the planet alignment as anything other than a provable scientific fact?
And given my post, would you not assume my post is merely my opinion?
But again the bigger issue is you don’t realise that what you are saying is just your opinion. You take yourself so seriously. And constantly trying to pick apart rather than deal with the argument.
Whatever fills your boots.
So picking wild assertions apart is not dealing with the argument ? You need to look at the sel-evident contradictions which comprise your comments.
What assertions precisely?
Given your inability to focus I’ll do a shorter version of my highly controversial post:
– there is a difference between facts and opinions;
– we need to engage and listen more;
– misinformation is most effective when it acts like a mirror on society like using the Iraq war or the BLM movement;
– misinformation takes hold in more unequal societies;
– politicians should prioritise dealing with inequality.
Hope that helps.
Making excuses for right wing manipulation of media…. while claiming false equivalence between opinions (beliefs, sentiments etc.) and facts…
Am I?
The term “false equivalence” is also becoming another victim of overuse.
When people use these trendy terms* it suggests they’re not thinking for themselves but just jumping on bandwagons. Ironically these are buzzwords which are used to spread misinformation.
* Other words include “gaslighting”, “racist”, “toxic” anything especially “toxic masculinity”, “hypocrite”, “left, “right”, “neo-liberalism”, “socialism”, “virtue signalling” etc
So, instead of making unsupported assertions, why don’t you try actually arguing your case instead of using Trump’s and Morrison’s responses of “I don’t accept the premise of the question” ?
No wonder Sky and the rest of the Murdoch circus are up in arms about this, they are worried the studio will be silent and the pages blank.
Aaaah! The ACMA……………..
………….the go-to regulator for when you want to look like you are doing something but have absolutely zero interest in achieving anything.
I can tell you from personal experience that even when faced with incontrovertible proof of a gross error in their logic delivered in-person to their assembled top management, their only response was “It’s too late now, the decision has already been made”……………..
Resulting in a completely avoidable dead loss of $24 million Australian tax-payer dollars.
Tell us more.
I would but it is still playing out. Not the expenses, they have already been pissed away – but the program, though it will inevitably crash and burn (at even greater expense to the tax-payer) is STILL being pushed by ACMA, despite their being offered something that would actually do the job FOR FREE. Accepting the offer would expose just how grossly inept they are – which is why I don’t expect any movement from them.
I have written to assorted State and Federal Ministers (including the PM) with a detailed expose……………
So far, not a whisper.
When the inevitable happens I’ll let you know.