Australia Drafts Bill to Fine Social Media Companies for spreading Misinformation

[_Miew]

Summary

Proposed legislation in Australia will require media companies to turn over records relating to "unintentionally false, misleading or deceptive content". If a pending industry code of practice regarding misinformation is breached by any social media company they can be fined up to $2.75 million Australian dollars or 2 per cent of their global turnover if it's higher.

 

Quotes

Quote

"The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) would be armed with the ability to require digital platforms to keep certain records about matters regarding misinformation and disinformation and turn them over when requested." - ABC News

Quote

"Should the code of practice prove insufficient, the ACMA would be able to implement an industry standard which would carry maximum penalties of $6.88m or 5 per cent of global turnover." - news.com.au

Quote

"Unlike the eSafety Commissioner, the regulator would not have the authority to request the removal of posts or content." - news.com.au

Quote

"Industry would be requested to develop a code of practice with violations of the code resulting in penalties of up to $2.75 million dollars or 2 per cent of global turnover" - ABC News

My thoughts

In my opinion, this can help prevent posts containing artificially generated content or clearly falsified information from harming individuals. However, it is also very unclear how content will be determined as misinformation and hence raises major concerns regarding freedom of speech. Given recent controversies and lawsuits regarding the exposure of information by independent Australian journalists like friendlyjordies I can't help but have concerns regarding the potential suppression of whistleblowers and political critics.     

 

Sources

 https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/security/digital-platforms-could-face-68m-fines-over-misinformation/news-story/3a3c800427d86864262d16100682b871

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-25/fines-to-punish-online-misinformation-under-new-draft-bill/102521500

 

 

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, _Miew said:

2 per cent of their global turnover if it's higher

I'm not sure they can do that? Aus revenue sure but I think if they try global it's going to die in court battles.

[whispous]

It's a two-edged sword, always.

 

It hinges entirely upon an impossible factor:

 

What is truth?

 

There's shades of grey, at each end you can clearly identify outright lies and objective truths, but in the middle dwells opinion and assertions about people's motives. Having this part under the control of a government always leads to propaganda, having it under the control of the social media corporation always leads to no-one on either side being happy, and the government will screech at them when it doesn't go their way.

[Arika]

does this count for the shit clickbait thumbnails on yt?

 

[lewdicrous]

5 minutes ago, Arika S said:

does this count for the shit clickbait thumbnails on yt?

*LTT files for bankruptcy*

[jagdtigger]

Censorship rears its ugly head once again........

[Dutch_Master]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

I'm not sure they can do that? Aus revenue sure but I think if they try global it's going to die in court battles.

The EU, and certainly some EU members, have similar fine conditions. Which have been upheld in Court. So it's not w/o precedent. Mind, the EU economy and population are by some margin larger then AUS, so they have more leeway, leverage if you like, to have these companies comply and pay up.

 

2 hours ago, whispous said:

What is truth?

Exactly. Who determines what is misinformation? If that's left to the Gov't of the day, the one thing the corona pandemic has thought us is that Gov'ts have an interest to justify their policies and at times outright lie against their populous.

[Senzelian]

3 hours ago, _Miew said:

unintentionally false, misleading or deceptive content

 

Let's say I read some fake news article about covid vaccines causing people to turn into unicorns and I retweet it, then that's bad, right?

But if I'm the news outlet spreading fake news on Twitter, then that's okay, cause I did it intentionally?

 

And the one that gets punished isn't me, it's the site that I publish this on?

 

I'm confused.

[DuckDodgers]

The only regulated/sanctioned speech in public should be calls for violent acts and personal treats. Everything else is too subjective and should be left to the court of public debate.

[Ydfhlx]

If it is the government who determines what is "misinformation" then this is literally censorship. Change my mind.

 

"A country implements laws requiring companies to not inform people about things it tells them not to". Censorship by definition.

[LAwLz]

The problem with these laws is always, who is the arbiter of truth? Who gets to decide what is and isn't "misinformation", and how are these entities controlled and checked? Is it possible to influence their decisions? I can't think of many times I've heard of a government giving themselves the power to decide what is and isn't allowed to be talked about and what is the "truth" that has ended well.

 

Another issue with these laws is that as soon as you give this type of power to one government, you have to also realize that the next government (which you might despise) can also use it. To make a comparison to US politics, if you want to give a certain power to Biden then you also need to be okay with giving it to Trump. If you don't want Trump to have a certain power, then you should not give it to Biden either, or vice versa.

 

Judging by the other laws and statements that the Australian government has done in recent years, I don't think it is a very good idea to give them this power. Most of their news media are controlled by two companies, and those two companies have close relationships with some political figures. According to Reporters without Borders (which is using an Australian Senate committee as their source), the Australian government has used these relationships to influence which stories get covered in media and also threatened potential whistleblowers.

[rrats]

Yay, another law that will only affect like 4 individuals and will bring pointless changes to stuff. Already seen it with piracy stuff that was the shit back in 90s in USA. I'm glad none of this affects me

[Dominik W]

Sometimes, I am happy that I have the 1st Amendment. 

[Brooksie359]

8 hours ago, Dutch_Master said:

The EU, and certainly some EU members, have similar fine conditions. Which have been upheld in Court. So it's not w/o precedent. Mind, the EU economy and population are by some margin larger then AUS, so they have more leeway, leverage if you like, to have these companies comply and pay up.

 

Exactly. Who determines what is misinformation? If that's left to the Gov't of the day, the one thing the corona pandemic has thought us is that Gov'ts have an interest to justify their policies and at times outright lie against their populous.

I feel like you could argue that Australian doesn't make up enough of their global revenue to justify the fine. I would even go so far as to say that if this goes through social media companies might just pull their websites from Australia or nerf the Australian version specifically. While I do not like misinformation on social media I also acknowledge that trying to censor misinformation generally is more harmful than good for a whole host of reasons. I would probably say that it would be better to just flag misinformation posts with information that refutes the misinformation. I find that alot of people who get sucked up in misinformation simply haven't seen or heard good information that refutes the misinformation well. Once they see information that proves the misinformation as wrong alot change their minds while a small percentage are stubborn and you can't help those people anyways tbh. 

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

I find that alot of people who get sucked up in misinformation simply haven't seen or heard good information that refutes the misinformation well.

I think as well though there is a lot of "misinformation" that is deemed misinformation but also sometimes true but just not enough data is known about it.

 

The trouble I have with this is it all depends who defines what misinformation was...I mean this same law is coming from the country that brought you the wonderful defamation lawsuit that's possible even if the person spoke the truth.

[Beskamir]

10 hours ago, Dutch_Master said:

Exactly. Who determines what is misinformation?

The ministry of truth of course!

[Donut417]

14 hours ago, _Miew said:

regarding misinformation

How are they going to determine miss info? Thats the question. I mean some subjects its cut and dry. Others maybe not so much. Also who's going to decide what info is the correct info? Thats also a thing. 

 

6 hours ago, rrats said:

Already seen it with piracy stuff that was the shit back in 90s in USA. I

The difference is copyright law has its foundations in the US constitution. It literally says congress has the job to protect peoples work. Now I do agree that the DMCA is draconian. 

 

 

13 hours ago, leadeater said:

t's going to die in court battles.

Which court? Courts outside AUS don't have jurisdiction on its laws. Depending on treaties between them an others it most likely could be enforceable. I do see some "free speech" issues but Im not fluent in their constitution or law to know how far free speech can go.

[SolarNova]

A laughable attempt at trying to shore up the defenses of "the message" ...what ever that may be at the time.

As has been pointed out already, the label of 'misinformation' has already been weaponized in the very recent past ..hell even right now it is.

So making a law based on that label is like building a house on the beach. 

Its a daft moving foundation, 'they' may think it in 'their' favor now ..but 'they' wont be in charge forever and when 'they' aren't ..it will turn around and bite 'them' in the arse.

 

In the not so distant past ..it was up to the reader/viewer/listener to determine if some piece of information was trustworthy or not.

People are waaaay to trust worthy of 'news' and 'official' sources these days..... talk about being spoon fed.

[Donut417]

4 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

People are waaaay to trust worthy of 'news' and 'official' sources these days..... talk about being spoon fed.

The problem is we don't have "True" Journalists any more. Most who claim to be one have their own agenda or our bought. I dont trust anyone any more. 

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Which court? Courts outside AUS don't have jurisdiction on its laws. Depending on treaties between them an others it most likely could be enforceable. I do see some "free speech" issues but Im not fluent in their constitution or law to know how far free speech can go.

In Aus court. You really think FB/Twitter etc aren't going to try and block it, it's not like Aus can just decided that they can make punitive calculations for activities not in Australia. The laws there may not actually allow it. Who knows, but I am sure it'll go to court.

[Taf the Ghost]

7 hours ago, Donut417 said:

The problem is we don't have "True" Journalists any more. Most who claim to be one have their own agenda or our bought. I dont trust anyone any more. 

Should read up on the history of journalism in the USA. The Radio Era is what brought about the Fairness Doctrine and the "news reporter that's neutral" myth. It was never neutral. Narrative Framing is centuries, if not millennia, old practice.  There was just a period, at least in US history, where they were very professional about the presentation and generally kept the nuttiness down a lot more.

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

In Aus court. You really think FB/Twitter etc aren't going to try and block it, it's not like Aus can just decided that they can make punitive calculations for activities not in Australia. The laws there may not actually allow it. Who knows, but I am sure it'll go to court.

Claims on global revenue would run into some very interesting treaty issues. What those are, I don't know since I don't know the extent of Australian Treaties, but it's asking for a lot of trouble from other countries.

[r00tb33r]

On 6/25/2023 at 4:34 AM, _Miew said:

Australia Drafts Bill to Fine Social Media Companies for spreading Misinformation

I'm fine with that.

[williamcll]

People will support this if the Australian government immediately goes after reddit and twitter.

[Brooksie359]

14 hours ago, williamcll said:

People will support this if the Australian government immediately goes after reddit and twitter.

I feel like that is a huge assumption with very little evidence to support it. Maybe Australian citizens might and even then it would seem like a partisan issue even in Australia. Sure some might support this but I know alot of people who are very much against limitations of free speech online especially when it comes to misinformation where it becomes very easy to dismiss something as misinformation without actually knowing if it is misinformation. I know for a long time the lab leak theory was totally dismissed as misinformation without anyone really looking into it and I find the idea that anyone that said anything about it on a platform being labeled as misinformation and required to be removed would be insane. Sure the lab leak theory seems like it not super likely after investigation but I feel like how it was easily dismissed was wild to me especially considering it wasn't an unreasonable theory. Also there have been conspiracy theories that have been regarded as misinformation that have later been found out to be true. I just think it's better to fight misinformation with good information and let people come to their own opinion rather than have a goverment entity determine what is true and what is false. 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

I just think it's better to fight misinformation with good information

That unfortunately is too often ineffective and it seems to be a situation getting worse not better all the while access to information is getting better. Belief in information counter to your opinion is difficult and it matters a lot how that information is encountered or imparted. The stronger the belief in the opinion the harder it gets.

 

That's why I don't have too much issue with private platforms having ethical codes of conduct, they just tend to fail under the sheer weight and volume of crap.