Misinformation about the Voice to Parliament is rife on TikTok with many popular videos on the platform containing wrong information or outright conspiracy theories about the upcoming referendum.
TikTok said that it plans to take further steps to combat misinformation as it has during elections, but has yet to roll them out. Its parent company, ByteDance, said earlier this month that 8.5 million Australians use the short video service. Australian users reportedly spend an average of nearly 30 hours a month on the platform, more than Facebook (where Voice conspiracy theories are also spreading) or YouTube.
Among videos about the Voice to Parliament referendum, misinformation is common, particularly among opponents.
Some of these false claims are mundane, such as that the Voice will force Australians into a treaty, as made by @GrantWickham2 in a video seen 30,000 times. Others are more extreme and bizarre, such as a video seen more than 74,000 times about a conspiracy theory that the Voice is a United Nations-backed plot to end private property.
Clips of known conspiracy theorists — such as sovereign citizen David Cole claiming the referendum will turn Australia into a corporation — and far-right figures such as Blair Cottrell are also spreading across the platform. (TikTok removed an account featuring Cottrell after Crikey’s inquiries.)
ByteDance pointed towards misinformation measures outlined in its transparency report for 2022 as ways it is combating the problem. Notably it will remove inaccurate, misleading or false content “that may cause significant harm to individuals or society”. This includes dangerous, medical and election misinformation (that is, misinformation about the election process and not electoral issues). They removed a total of 15,702 videos in 2022; just 132 were election misinformation.
It also works with Australian Associated Press and Agence France-Presse fact-checkers. These independent journalists review claims made on the app and, if proved false or not able to be proved, can restrict views of the videos. Despite this, Crikey was able to find multiple videos that contained information that had been reviewed as false by TikTok’s fact-checking partners that still had tens of thousands of videos on the platform.
The company is also set to put in-app information about enrolling and the referendum process in its app, but has yet to do so.
TikTok’s acting director of public policy AUNZ Ella Woods-Joyce said the company strictly enforces its rules: “We know there is no finish line when it comes to the safety of our platform and our community, so in addition to having strict processes and global teams around the world monitoring and enforcing these rules, we also encourage our community to report posts or accounts that they believe to be in breach of our guidelines.”
Pretty well every argument raised against The Voice is a made up construct. The proposal is quite simple and frankly it is difficult to understand why people would go to such lengths to find fault with it.
It seems the No case will win because no-one is taking seriously the need to counteract the conspiracy theories. To me it does not engender confidence in the critical thinking of voters.
‘No’ will win because the ‘Yes’ campaign refuse to engage in the issues and accuse anyone who asks any questions of being racist.
If the ‘Yes’ campaign want to get serious, they’d be better focused on engaging with the issues rather than dealing with outlandish conspiracy theories.
Seems to me, it’s the No side indulging in the conspiracy theories and the make-believe.
Most of the outlandish conspiracy theories are given credence by the gaslighters who posture they’re in favour, but not just yet, and “I’m yet to be convinced” while postulating their own lies and misinformation. I deliberately used postulatig, because they don’t have the courage nor the means to argue, which implies truthfulness.
Hang on a minute. There are a couple of things to consider. (1) The land councils already exists to provide just a voice. Please inform yourself of the land councils role and their achievements. The land councils look like a more practical vehicle. https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination/aboriginal-land-councils?ref=driverlayer.com.
(2) Lets accept the fact that the voice is to correct disadvantage. Does that mean that by putting in the constitution, it will be for future generations. Are you accepting there will be disadvantage in four or five generations time??
1/ There is no aboriginal body that any incumbent government is required to listen to.
2/ Strawman argument. You are arguing that, not I. Putting it in the constitution is not only the expressed wish of the >80% of aborigines that support the Voice, because it’s a safeguard against the 230 years of not listening to them.
Putting it in the constitution means that it will be able to be used ie the blackfellas will have to be listened to when and for as long as needed.
Are you saying that you know better than the blackfellas what they need to happen to achieve the better outcomes we all presumably want ?
The whole exercise reminds me of the Brexit campaign in which support centred on the fears and prejudices of voters and avoided any actual facts. And didnt it turn out well ….
its hard to believe that the Australian electorate are critical thinkers so the Voice will struggle to get up under this onslaught.
I still wonder what the “no” people get out of it if they win.
Can’t understand it.
The vindication of all ignoramuses – that they’ve beaten the experts.
I know Cam, It’s shocking to those YES campaigners go out of their way to spread lies
Just because peolpe have expressed different views, that doesn’t make it misinformation…
and who said the YES campaign isn’t bloated with misinformation as well..