Squiz Shortcuts - Australia's mis- and disinformation bill

Your Shortcut to Australia’s mis- and disinformation bill

New laws for combatting mis/disinformation are being considered in our federal parliament and generating quite a bit of chat on talkback radio and elsewhere… So in this Squiz Shortcut, we’ll take a look at:

• what they’re trying to achieve

• and why the legislation is controversial

Prefer this in your ears?

Listen to our podcast 🎧

Listen time: 9 minutes

Squiz the Shortcut

Umm what’s the difference between misinformation and disinformation?
Fair question… Misinformation is something someone or an entity gets wrong. They might genuinely believe it, or it might be a mistake, but there’s no malice behind it. Disinformation has intent behind it... It’s where someone or something (like a company that uses bots) is deliberately trying to mislead/deceive people.

Got you. So why are we talking about this?
Because there is more stuff coming at us online than ever before, and the proliferation of mid/disinformation is a big problem… Gone are the days of professional content creators like news outlets being the gatekeepers of information. Now anyone with a smartphone, a social media account and a dream can use the tools to communicate with very large audiences.

So how is that handled currently?
There’s a voluntary code of conduct in place for big social media and tech companies. Under that code, they’re meant to keep an eye on their platforms, and if they think content falls under the banner of mis/disinformation, they might choose to place warning labels on it or make it less accessible, and sometimes they remove it altogether… 

And the key word there is voluntary…
It is. That’s why the government wants to make the code of conduct mandatory. 

What does that mean?
It’d give the Australian Communications Media Authority (aka ACMA) the power to impose fines on tech companies of up to 5% of their global revenue if they breach the laws.

What companies are we talking about?
Big companies like Meta - which controls Instagram, Facebook and Threads - Elon Musk’s X, also the Chinese-owned TikTok, as well as Google and Microsoft… 

Sounds like big dollars… What would those companies have to do under the new laws?
They’d have to crack down on cases of mis and disinformation as prescribed. And they’d publish their policies and keep good records.

Why does the government want them to do that?
There was a good example of the government’s frustration with the voluntary code of conduct earlier this year when Australia’s e-safety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant took X to court in a bid to have content related to the Wakely stabbing attack taken down - not just in Australia but also internationally, on the basis that it constituted “extreme violence”. 

What happened?
The Federal Court found that she didn’t have the authority to make that demand - and that it basically amounted to censorship, so the case was dropped. 

How would the new bill help with that?
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland says the new laws aren’t there for ACMA to go after individuals or to take down posts - they’re meant to force the tech companies to tidy up their own backyards, and that they’ll protect Australians from information that is “seriously harmful and verifiably false”...

What’s meant by “seriously harmful”?
For example, erroneous posts that turn people against community health measures like vaccines or that encourage the destruction of infrastructure like phone towers. Rowland also said the new laws would also ward against threats to our democracy, like posts generated by malicious state actors who want to exert political influence….

And the critics of this approach say…
…that the real threat to democracy comes not from rogue states but from these laws.

Why’s that?
Where things come unstuck is in the definition of misinformation - the kind that’s deemed to cause serious harm… Because it isn’t just about content that’s proven to be false - so things like financial scams, false celebrity endorsements or photos that have been digitally altered. It extends to opinions and commentary too.

How will big tech companies work out which opinions or comments are false or seriously harmful?
It’s a tricky area… The Coalition and some crossbenchers in the Senate say that aspect of the bill is far too broad, and it leaves no room for alternate points of view, which they believe adds up to censorship…

What are they saying about it?
The Coalition’s Communications spokesman David Coleman says it’ll give digital platforms “an enormous financial incentive to censor statements made by everyday Australians”. He says digital platforms “don’t care about the free speech of Australians – but they do care about their profits”.

Are there any exclusions or exemptions?
Yes… News, parody, satire, and content for “academic, artistic, scientific or religious purposes” are all exempt. But even so, some academics have been critical of the legislation…

What are academics saying?
Constitutional law expert Anne Twomey says that the chances of a digital platform being able to distinguish that content would be low and that the result would almost certainly be over-censorship.

So what would happen in that case?
The thought is that the platforms would dump anything contentious into the bucket of misinformation to be on the safe side and avoid being fined - meaning we’d see a lot less content as end users.

What’s next for the bill?
It’s before the Senate… Crossbench senators Lidia Thorpe, Fatima Payman and David Pocock are some who won’t support it - that means Team Albanese will need support from the Greens and several other crossbenchers to get it over the line.

What a cliffhanger…
It sure is… The government is aiming to have it done in the coming week, so it’s one to keep an eye on.

Onto our recommendations

Listening: This radio interview 2GB’s Ben Fordham did with Communications Minister Michelle Rowland about the new laws 

Recent Shortcuts