Australia Drafts Bill to Fine Social Media Companies for spreading Misinformation

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

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.

Oh I 100% get that this is an issue and you can't reach everyone but I find that censorship hardly ever works and usually makes conspiracy brains think that it must be true if they censor it. You gotta fight misinformation with good information even if you think it won't be effective because censorship just pushes people to other platforms that have nobody to refute their crazy claims. Also I find the idea of a goverment being able to say what's true and false and censor all ideas that they deem as misinformation really bad. I mean imagine what would happen if this law was coming from a country like China? Everyone would be up in arms about it. It might be fine for now but to put in a law that can be abused and requires people to act in good faith is not good. Sure you might agree with what they deem as misinformation now but what happens when what you believe or you know is true is now deemed misinformation? I just find this law as incredible short sighted and not good for the health of the internet. 

[ewitte]

What THEY say is misinformation.  They already social media in Australia, this just makes it official... Plus they were going to people's houses and arresting people that said things they didn't like...

[ewitte]

55 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Oh I 100% get that this is an issue and you can't reach everyone but I find that censorship hardly ever works and usually makes conspiracy brains think that it must be true if they censor it. Y

There are 100% conspiracies in governments its only "theory" because it's so well hidden and people are trying to figure it out.  Transparency and accountability is the only way to fix this.

[Brooksie359]

10 minutes ago, ewitte said:

There are 100% conspiracies in governments its only "theory" because it's so well hidden and people are trying to figure it out.  Transparency and accountability is the only way to fix this.

I mean that is sorta a given. We have seen many times where conspiracy theories turn out to be true after the info is released to the public after a certain amount of time passed. Probably one of the funniest but sad at the same time is the Canadian goverment trying to develop gaydar to exclude gay people from goverment positions. I mean the that sounds like the most ridiculous idea but it actually happened in the 60s. Some idiot thought they could make a test that would tell you if the person is gay. 

[LAwLz]

53 minutes ago, ewitte said:

There are 100% conspiracies in governments its only "theory" because it's so well hidden and people are trying to figure it out.  Transparency and accountability is the only way to fix this.

According to Reporters Without Borders, an Australian Senate committee has already confirmed that the government has meetings with their media, pressures them to not talk about certain things, and intimidates potential whistleblowers to not report certain things. Those acts are made fairly easy because there are basically only 2 independent news organizations in Australia, and both of them have close relationships with political figures.

 

So some of the proposed conspiracy theories might already be confirmed.

[divito]

Based on the language, everyone's focus on "who decides what is misinformation" is kind of misplaced. 

Ignoring the conspiracy theories, it seems more like the requiring documents enables investigation towards platforms that allow proliferation of certain information, and that can see which of those platforms have done due diligence, or some aspect of moderation in the content, instead of just letting things go wild. Platforms that are idle and allow nonsense to spread should be punished.

[Brooksie359]

8 hours ago, divito said:

Based on the language, everyone's focus on "who decides what is misinformation" is kind of misplaced. 

Ignoring the conspiracy theories, it seems more like the requiring documents enables investigation towards platforms that allow proliferation of certain information, and that can see which of those platforms have done due diligence, or some aspect of moderation in the content, instead of just letting things go wild. Platforms that are idle and allow nonsense to spread should be punished.

This is a stupid take. You are basically saying nobody is the arbitrator because the government is forcing social media companies to censor misinformation in good faith. Ok so how does that social media website decide what is misinformation and what to censor? You still end up with the same fundamental issue. Also I find it weird that the idea that you can simply let people post what they want without censorship is somehow a terrible thing. Sure get rid of illegal things like calls to violence and other issues but after that I don't see a compelling argument for censorship of misinformation because there will always be the issue of someone having to decide what is misinformation wether that be meta or the Australian government doesn't really matter tbh. Also what happens when Australia see what they consider misinformation on meta not being censored? Would they really not go and say that meta is in violation of the law because they failed to address what they deem as "misinformation". Honestly it's crazy how history has shown that censorship has pretty much always resulted in bad outcomes and yet we see people advocating for it because they assume it won't ever be abused which is naive. 

[jagdtigger]

9 hours ago, divito said:

Based on the language, everyone's focus on "who decides what is misinformation" is kind of misplaced. 

I dont think so. If something has the possibility of abuse, there is 0 doubt it definitely will get abused. Effectively censoring what is available is a very bad idea..... Instead of trying to silence sources governments should concentrate on providing better education (and i mean education, not propaganda or brainwashing) so ppl will be less susceptible to actual misinformation.

[wanderingfool2]

9 hours ago, divito said:

Based on the language, everyone's focus on "who decides what is misinformation" is kind of misplaced. 

Ignoring the conspiracy theories, it seems more like the requiring documents enables investigation towards platforms that allow proliferation of certain information, and that can see which of those platforms have done due diligence, or some aspect of moderation in the content, instead of just letting things go wild. Platforms that are idle and allow nonsense to spread should be punished.

The last bit is why people are talking about what constitutes as misinformation; and who determines it.

 

It's all well and could to say that platforms that are idle should be punished, but that lacks the whole concept of free speech.  At that point it's effectively telling people to think a certain way.

 

A chief example of this is the start of the pandemic with the mask policies; where the gov't (at least in Canada) worried that masks might run short broadcast out that there wasn't any evidence masks would help.  Despite evidence that showed it was, but just not written in the journals yet.  Under that people who were urging people to wear masks at that time would be classified as misinformation and could have been subject to the social media companies removing their content

 

Or all the flat earther people, should we now shutdown all their stuff.

 

Moderation for the sake of preventing "misinformation" is not the way to go.  If someone wants to claim the sky is green, then so be it the government shouldn't be allowed to prevent the expression of that.

 

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/communications-legislation-amendment-combatting-misinformation-and-disinformation-bill2023-june2023.pdf

That's the proposal.

 

Yes there are limitations in this bill that doesn't make it as bad as it might seem, but there are enough things in it that bring up the concern including the following

Quote

Where there is no registered misinformation code, a registered
5 misinformation code is deficient or there are exceptional and
6 urgent circumstances, the ACMA may determine a standard to
7 provide adequate protection for the community from
8 misinformation or disinformation on digital platform services.
9 Digital platform providers are required to comply with
10 misinformation standards that apply to them.

i.e. the whole thing reads as though they are trying to carve it out so the government gets to choose what they consider misinformation and can force social media companies to comply with the strategy they want with little oversight.

[divito]

8 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

This is a stupid take. You are basically saying nobody is the arbitrator because the government is forcing social media companies to censor misinformation in good faith. Ok so how does that social media website decide what is misinformation and what to censor? You still end up with the same fundamental issue. Also I find it weird that the idea that you can simply let people post what they want without censorship is somehow a terrible thing. Sure get rid of illegal things like calls to violence and other issues but after that I don't see a compelling argument for censorship of misinformation because there will always be the issue of someone having to decide what is misinformation wether that be meta or the Australian government doesn't really matter tbh. Also what happens when Australia see what they consider misinformation on meta not being censored? Would they really not go and say that meta is in violation of the law because they failed to address what they deem as "misinformation". Honestly it's crazy how history has shown that censorship has pretty much always resulted in bad outcomes and yet we see people advocating for it because they assume it won't ever be abused which is naive. 

My post said nothing about censoring misinformation. 

If there is a post that is gaining traction with questionable factual information, the government requiring documents seems to be an attempt at checking whether the social media platform looked into the information being spread on its very platform. Highlighting something as "unproven" or "lacking sources" doesn't mean it has to be taken down. 

 

7 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

I dont think so. If something has the possibility of abuse, there is 0 doubt it definitely will get abused. Effectively censoring what is available is a very bad idea..... Instead of trying to silence sources governments should concentrate on providing better education (and i mean education, not propaganda or brainwashing) so ppl will be less susceptible to actual misinformation.

Again, I never said anything about censoring or removing the information. 
 

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The last bit is why people are talking about what constitutes as misinformation; and who determines it.

 

It's all well and could to say that platforms that are idle should be punished, but that lacks the whole concept of free speech.

I never said people can't hold or share their opinions.

 

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

At that point it's effectively telling people to think a certain way.

So, are you against educational institutions? 
 

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

A chief example of this is the start of the pandemic with the mask policies; where the gov't (at least in Canada) worried that masks might run short broadcast out that there wasn't any evidence masks would help.  Despite evidence that showed it was, but just not written in the journals yet.  Under that people who were urging people to wear masks at that time would be classified as misinformation and could have been subject to the social media companies removing their content

 

Or all the flat earther people, should we now shutdown all their stuff.

 

Moderation for the sake of preventing "misinformation" is not the way to go.  If someone wants to claim the sky is green, then so be it the government shouldn't be allowed to prevent the expression of that.

The difference in those two examples, is that one applies to health and well-being of entire populations. It has a direct effect, whereas a flat earther's opinions have little bearing on someone becoming ill and/or dying.

I also disagree with your assertion that healthcare professionals and organizations would have been classified as misinformation for saying people should wear masks. There were many studies that showcased mask efficacy well before COVID. The problem, and what is at the heart of misinformation battles, is that the studies didn't involve COVID specifically until afterwards, which is where conservatives and contrarians had field days with it, despite the poor logic involved.

The governments of the world, and certain healthcare institutions were unprepared for the ignorance battle of the general public on social media, and did a poor job combating them. Social platforms that allowed uncited misinformation to spread is primarily how things got as bad as they did.
 

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/communications-legislation-amendment-combatting-misinformation-and-disinformation-bill2023-june2023.pdf

That's the proposal.

 

Yes there are limitations in this bill that doesn't make it as bad as it might seem, but there are enough things in it that bring up the concern including the following

i.e. the whole thing reads as though they are trying to carve it out so the government gets to choose what they consider misinformation and can force social media companies to comply with the strategy they want with little oversight.

Don't have time to go delve deeply, but I didn't notice anything that specifies removal of content. If something is found to be contravening, they will have the power to gather relevant information, give notice to individuals who then have to report to the ACMA. They also reference "preventing or responding to" the codes. 

The simplified outline covers the content quite well:

"The ACMA has a graduated set of powers in relation to misinformation and disinformation on certain kinds of digital platform services. The ACMA may make digital platform rules requiring digital platform providers to keep records and report to the ACMA on matters relating to misinformation and disinformation on digital platform services.

The ACMA may obtain information, documents and evidence from digital platform providers and others relating to those matters. The ACMA may publish information relating to those matters on its website.

Bodies or associations representing sections of the digital platform industry may develop codes in relation to measures to prevent or respond to misinformation and disinformation on digital platform services. If the ACMA registers a misinformation code, digital platform providers in the relevant section of the digital platform industry must comply with the code.

Where there is no registered misinformation code, a registered misinformation code is deficient or there are exceptional and urgent circumstances, the ACMA may determine a standard to provide adequate protection for the community from misinformation or disinformation on digital platform services. Digital platform providers are required to comply with misinformation standards that apply to them."

[wanderingfool2]

4 minutes ago, divito said:

My post said nothing about censoring misinformation. 

If there is a post that is gaining traction with questionable factual information, the government requiring documents seems to be an attempt at checking whether the social media platform looked into the information being spread on its very platform. Highlighting something as "unproven" or "lacking sources" doesn't mean it has to be taken down. 

You can't see the forest for the trees.

 

I had bolded what your comment was, that is in effect censoring; and what you were describing is precisely why people are bringing up the whole "who decides what is misinformation".

 

12 minutes ago, divito said:

Don't have time to go delve deeply, but I didn't notice anything that specifies removal of content. If something is found to be contravening, they will have the power to gather relevant information, give notice to individuals who then have to report to the ACMA. They also reference "preventing or responding to" the codes. 

You literally also quoted the bit that I think everyone is concerned about

11 minutes ago, divito said:

Where there is no registered misinformation code, a registered misinformation code is deficient or there are exceptional and urgent circumstances, the ACMA may determine a standard to provide adequate protection for the community from misinformation or disinformation on digital platform services. Digital platform providers are required to comply with misinformation standards that apply to them."

The ACMA determines what is enforced as misinformation.

 

The ACMA can create the standard that they want, which can include removal of misinformation.

Those standards are required by the companies.

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, divito said:

Again, I never said anything about censoring or removing the information. 

But the bill does.....

[Kisai]

On 6/27/2023 at 8:36 AM, Brooksie359 said:

 Also there have been conspiracy theories that have been regarded as misinformation that have later been found out to be true.

Rarely, is a conspiracy theory found to be true. It's sometimes found that a conspiracy maybe had a thread of truth to it's  origin, but it's layers of fiction after that.

 

A lot of conspiracy stuff is so unhinged that you'd think it was generated by a hallucinating AI, and it tends to be so politically-opaque. 

 

(see the current "aspartame" topic on twitter.)

 

Truth is stuff that can actually be proved scientifically, immediately, and repeatedly. The sky is blue, because of how light reflects off atmospheric gasses. It's sometimes pink or orange when it's at sunrise/sunset but that doesn't mean the sky's atmospheric gasses have changed, it means the amount of gasses  it has to pass through before it reaches your eyes is thicker, and thus blocking more short-wave light. 

 

Yet you will have people who insist the sky isn't blue, and not because they're colorblind.

 

On 6/27/2023 at 8:36 AM, Brooksie359 said:

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. 

 

No, that's definitely the wrong way to do it. People do not argue in good faith on twitter, and they do not argue in good faith here either. It doesn't matter if the information is correct, you will have someone troll and gaslight you to try and make you look like an idiot, regardless if you're correct. A lot of misinformation is a consequence of people not wanting to do the research or show their work, they just want to score points with some fringe group they want to be in good graces of.

 

If someone tells you something, and they can't show a scientific paper, a manual, or even a textbook, you have no grounds to trust them unless you trust THEM implicitly. 

 

A lot of misinformation is grounded in objectively rubbish foundations like, like cults and nationalism. They are purposing arguing in bad faith, with the hope you shut up and disappear. You will never change their mind.

 

The opportunity to change someone's mind is when they are a child. You will not change an adult's mind unless their entire "lifestyle" is upended by something irreversible. Like when people move from one country to another, are rescued from a cult, lose their wealth, etc.

 

That is when people have to reevaluate their core beliefs. That's why corrupt states try to corrupt and excise information they don't like from textbooks and scientific papers.

 

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Rarely, is a conspiracy theory found to be true. It's sometimes found that a conspiracy maybe had a thread of truth to it's  origin, but it's layers of fiction after that.

 

A lot of conspiracy stuff is so unhinged that you'd think it was generated by a hallucinating AI, and it tends to be so politically-opaque. 

 

(see the current "aspartame" topic on twitter.)

 

Truth is stuff that can actually be proved scientifically, immediately, and repeatedly. The sky is blue, because of how light reflects off atmospheric gasses. It's sometimes pink or orange when it's at sunrise/sunset but that doesn't mean the sky's atmospheric gasses have changed, it means the amount of gasses  it has to pass through before it reaches your eyes is thicker, and thus blocking more short-wave light. 

 

Yet you will have people who insist the sky isn't blue, and not because they're colorblind.

 

 

No, that's definitely the wrong way to do it. People do not argue in good faith on twitter, and they do not argue in good faith here either. It doesn't matter if the information is correct, you will have someone troll and gaslight you to try and make you look like an idiot, regardless if you're correct. A lot of misinformation is a consequence of people not wanting to do the research or show their work, they just want to score points with some fringe group they want to be in good graces of.

 

If someone tells you something, and they can't show a scientific paper, a manual, or even a textbook, you have no grounds to trust them unless you trust THEM implicitly. 

 

A lot of misinformation is grounded in objectively rubbish foundations like, like cults and nationalism. They are purposing arguing in bad faith, with the hope you shut up and disappear. You will never change their mind.

 

The opportunity to change someone's mind is when they are a child. You will not change an adult's mind unless their entire "lifestyle" is upended by something irreversible. Like when people move from one country to another, are rescued from a cult, lose their wealth, etc.

 

That is when people have to reevaluate their core beliefs. That's why corrupt states try to corrupt and excise information they don't like from textbooks and scientific papers.

 

Ag yes because just getting rid of everything we "think" is misinformation is a better idea to stop people from believing in conspiracy theories. I have talked to people who believe in them and most of them will concede if you have the facts to back you up especially ones that address the points made by the conspiracy theories. Yes there are ones that won't change their mind but you can't help those people anyways even if you do try and get rid of all the "misinformation". Also there is obviously going to be truth mixed with fiction for conspiracy theories that turn out to br true just by the nature of how information spreads. Anyways I would rather have some misinformation get through than to try and police the internet and have someone tell everyone what is true and what is false. 

[Commodus]

There should be a concern that there are fair, neutral definitions of misinformation, but at the same time... so many slippery-slope arguments here.

 

There's a reasonable threshold: misinformation is any claim that is demonstrably false, serious and likely to mislead or harm others. If it's a science claim, it's something that goes against the broad scientific consensus and isn't supported by credible evidence, like many anti-vax, 5G and climate change denial myths. Political issues can be kept simple: denying the results of a certified election, for instance.

 

I'm not sure how much government intervention I'd actually want on this front, but I do back the right of internet companies to decide what they allow on their platforms as long as they're not violating other laws in the process.

[CarlBar]

5 hours ago, Commodus said:

There should be a concern that there are fair, neutral definitions of misinformation, but at the same time... so many slippery-slope arguments here.

 

There's a reasonable threshold: misinformation is any claim that is demonstrably false, serious and likely to mislead or harm others. If it's a science claim, it's something that goes against the broad scientific consensus and isn't supported by credible evidence, like many anti-vax, 5G and climate change denial myths. Political issues can be kept simple: denying the results of a certified election, for instance.

 

I'm not sure how much government intervention I'd actually want on this front, but I do back the right of internet companies to decide what they allow on their platforms as long as they're not violating other laws in the process.

 

Honestly my take is it comes down to how tightly the law is written and how well it sticks to reasonable interpretations in use.

 

But beyond those concerns i don't see anything to get upset about. It's just explicitly applying the same kind of standards that exist for public speech IRL to social media and similar internet locations. The only surprising thing is that Australia is so far ahead of the curve on this. The EU, Australia and plenty of others were majorly ticked off by the vaccine misinformation on social media. Not to mention to lesser degrees various hot potato US politics issues that have seen a ton of misinformation thrown out there.

 

In light of how annoyed various parties are the only real suprise is how slow everyone's moving on this, not that it's happening. And i'll be glad, (provided it's written right), to see such legislation get into wider use. Actively harmful misinformation needs to stop getting such high exposure, and fast.

[Mark Kaine]

On 6/25/2023 at 10:47 AM, 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.

but why not? they can ask for any fine they want technically,  its the law!!! (seriously i don't see why not , its an arbitrary amount, more or less) 

 

ps: EU does that too, GDPR etc often have fines ala "% of global revenue" 

 

 

[leadeater]

33 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

but why not? they can ask for any fine they want technically,  its the law!!! (seriously i don't see why not , its an arbitrary amount, more or less) 

 

ps: EU does that too, GDPR etc often have fines ala "% of global revenue" 

The better question isn't why not it's why can they. Country's legally only have jurisdiction over themselves, Australia can't prosecute and imprison a person for committing fraud in another country even if done within Australia unless in the act of doing so breaks an Australian law, that's why extradition is necessary.

 

That's why fines for the likes of Steam are for breaking laws in Australia within Australian conducted business and the fines are based on effect Australians.

 

Going outside of these bounds has to actually be allowed within a law of Australia, which it may or may not be but my assumption would be is not until shown it actually is since that's generally how things work.

 

GDPR itself has that within it's law and it's an EU law backed by treaties to allow it and far as I know not successfully been countered in court, which any company could try, win or lose.

 

So while Australia could pass a law that allows it that doesn't prevent that proposed or even passed law being challenged in court and struck down.

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

The better question isn't why not it's why can they. Country's legally only have jurisdiction over themselves, Australia can't prosecute and imprison a person for committing fraud in another country even if done within Australia unless in the act of doing so breaks an Australian law, that's why extradition is necessary.

 

That's why fines for the likes of Steam are for breaking laws in Australia within Australian conducted business and the fines are based on effect Australians.

 

Going outside of these bounds has to actually be allowed within a law of Australia, which it may or may not be but my assumption would be is not until shown it actually is since that's generally how things work.

 

GDPR itself has that within it's law and it's an EU law backed by treaties to allow it and far as I know not successfully been countered in court, which any company could try, win or lose.

 

So while Australia could pass a law that allows it that doesn't prevent that proposed or even passed law being challenged in court and struck down.

You're definitely right about the last part, of course it can be challenged (for any reason)  but i think you're missing my point,  they can use *any* arbitrary amount and condition,  they could make it dependent on moonphases but just happen to make it depending on global revenue, it doesn't matter  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[leadeater]

57 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

You're definitely right about the last part, of course it can be challenged (for any reason)  but i think you're missing my point,  they can use *any* arbitrary amount and condition,  they could make it dependent on moonphases but just happen to make it depending on global revenue, it doesn't matter  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

It does matter because judicial systems are independent of executive for any country like this so it doesn't really matter what law anyone wants to pass if it gets shot down. They cannot use ant arbitrary condition, not at all. If you can't make a good case for why global revenue can be used and it goes against any existing laws or Australian constitution then it's a dead duck. Contrary to what you are saying they cannot actually just do anything, that was my point and what I am saying.

 

They could try and pass a law to ban the colour blue, doesn't mean it's actually legal to do so which is what matters.

[Mark Kaine]

41 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Contrary to what you are saying they cannot actually just do anything, that was my point and what I am saying.

But, they're (planning to) do it just like EU does, right? 

 

i mean we'll just have to agree to disagree on this, because I can't see this successfully being challenged (politicians might be stupid,  but not *that* stupid, surely?  uh..)

 

Unless im not aware of specific Australian laws, which is possible.