ACMA - New Bill to Stop What They Think Is Misinformation and Disinformation Online

tulip99 on 08/07/2023 - 13:25
Last edited 08/07/2023 - 13:34 by 1 other user

The Australian government is proposing a new bill to stop mis and dis information online. I've read that social media platforms will be asked to give your user info to the government and you can be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for what you've posted online if it's deemed mis or dis information.

It's not just about covid, either. It includes a lot of other topics as well, including the environment.

Please watch this short video about it.

https://informedchoice.substack.com/p/i-am-preemptively-brea…

You can object here:

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-pow…

Internet

Comments

  • JIMB0 on 08/07/2023 - 13:53
    +58

    What will become of Sky?

    • randomusername2017 on 08/07/2023 - 17:38
      +32

      Good faith publication of comedy is excluded.

      • hornbill on 09/07/2023 - 16:32
        +6

        Probably how they will get away with it, didn’t Fox News in USA get out of a lawsuit because they said they were “entertainment” not news?

    • payless69 on 10/07/2023 - 13:41

      Hope they will tame Gerry's dog!!

    • R4 on 10/07/2023 - 21:48

      And The Guardian, ABC etc.

    • Brianqpr on 11/07/2023 - 11:24

      And commercial TV channels, newspapers etc.

    • [Deactivated] on 12/07/2023 - 09:28
      +2

      Sky News will be declared as a religion and receive tax breaks. They get all the info from sky anyway.

  • GordonD on 08/07/2023 - 14:02
    +60

    What will become of the ABC?

    Some people honestly believe things that aren't true. But the people who are most likely to be selecting or distorting the facts are the people who most strongly believe it to be true, and want you to believe it too. That is the case of those who are furthest from the centre at BOTH ends of the political spectrum. The Murdoch and related media on the right, and the ABC on the left.

    A government agency deciding what is misinformation and disinformation is government censorship. Punishing web sites or anyone else will result in self-censorship. We simply won't hear the other side of the story and be able to decided for ourselves whether it might have some truth to it.

    • Benoffie on 08/07/2023 - 16:12
      +38

      I'm really not sure why you were down voted. It ought to be concerning for everyone that the government wants to start controlling the freedom of the press. The Fourth Estate exists for a reason.

      • Motek Benzona on 08/07/2023 - 21:56
        +13

        Downvoted because people literally are too thick to care is my guess. Cant be accused of disinformation talking sbout MAFS at a bbq can you? Therefore not their problem

      • MessyG on 09/07/2023 - 17:56
        +6

        Need a fifth estate these days…fourth was bought and sold.

      • zubzub on 10/07/2023 - 04:45
        +5

        My guess is because he ‘dissed’ the ABC. Same reason Sky jokes got downvoted.

      • sir-screwball on 10/07/2023 - 15:00
        +11

        If you'd been as thoroughly bent over and defiled as the current government has by disinformation and misinformation over the past 15 years you'd be introducing this bill too.

        Some finer examples would be the death tax from the 2019 election campaign, or anything posted on the front page of the Courier Mail ever. The carbon tax, the stimulus package paid during the GFC, and then there's the reverse ones like mediscare (they really did gut medicare), homebuilder stimulus etc.

        The media control in this country is absurd and works against the general wellbeing of the people of this country and the stranglehold needs to be loosened.

        I'm 100% willing to bet that no one that is lodging an objection to this has actually read the act.

        EDIT: Holy f'n hell mate I just read that absolute joke of a website you posted and jesus TF christ it's an absolute conspiracy crackpot's delight! Are you a meme? I feel dirty for having given your ridiculous post any legitimacy by responding to it.

        I wonder why that website is campaigning against the ACMA legislation??? Could it be because the website is run by this clowncar of an organisation?

        "The group has been described by the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) as a provider of “misleading, inaccurate, and deceptive” vaccination information, and has been heavily criticised by doctors and other experts on immunisation."

        • xdigger on 12/07/2023 - 13:44

          Politicians are still protected by parliamentary privileges to be able to spew their nonsense. Remove that first and hold them to account as they should be in a true democracy.

        • Morkai on 13/07/2023 - 09:12

          I love that the video on that blog starts with Rowan Dean… Like, if ever there was an unhinged crackpot distorter of facts on any TV network, it's him.

      • [Deactivated] on 12/07/2023 - 14:07
        +1

        A lot of people that (rightfully) hate sky news and the previous government seem to be fine to hand over control now, but are forgetting they'd be screwed if these laws were passed and on the extremely off chance the LNP were to come back next election with access to these powers… even worse, with Dutton as pm. Pretty sure lord Lord Voldemort has wet dreams about having this level of control considering censorship and surveillance laws he's already been involved with.

        • frewer on 15/07/2023 - 21:16

          Im sure the government will scrap, aka hand the power back, these legislation once they are done. As many governments has done before in history, amirite ?

    • orangetrain on 08/07/2023 - 21:12
      +8

      Boat has sailed. We already got internet censorship by the government.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Austr…

      • Miami Mall Alien on 10/07/2023 - 13:36
        +8

        That's trivial to bypass and very difficult to enforce legally, as the past 10 or more years of Australians openly flouting IP/copyright laws has shown (we used to have and probably still have some of the highest per capita rates of "illegal" downloading in the world and the worst that happened to the very few Australian pirates that were prosecuted is that they were fined the cost of a Blu-Ray or movie ticket).

        What's being proposed here is collusion between service providers (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc) and the Federal government so that you can be publicly named and shamed for posting something contrary to the officially-sanctioned world view of the Wizards of Oz.

        It differs from metadata retention and the warrantless surveillance dragnet, both of which are passive collection of data to be potentially used against someone if/when they're charged with a crime, in that the government would be actively punishing people for their Internet history, effectively, even if those people have no criminal history nor are under the suspicion of engaging in criminal activity.

        • xdigger on 12/07/2023 - 13:49
          +3

          Unfortunately for Australians a previous bill you probably haven't heard of which legalised spying on everyday Australians written by the then LNP Feds had already been passed without much fanfare in mainstream media.

          Insufficient safeguards in new surveillance law Identify and Disrupt Act 2020
          https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2021/8/25/insufficient-safeguar…

          Identify and Disrupt Laws Put Nail in the Coffin of Democracy
          https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/identify-and-d…

          In asking for one 'feedback' the government is just paying lip service to our last vestiges of democracy as they will pass each bill one at a time to chip away at our freedoms. RIP freedom of speech.

          • Miami Mall Alien on 14/07/2023 - 14:19
            +2

            @xdigger: No, I heard of it.

            I never suggested we actually have any privacy, freedom of expression or basic rights in Australia because we certainly don't but that's a whole other can of worms; I was attempting to stay on-topic.

            Enforcement and the political will to utilise legislation is a different story though. Thus far, federal bodies, ASIO, ASIS, ASD, the AFP and law enforcement have been very quiet about the real-world deployment of things like the Identify and Disrupt Act because it would draw attention and further scrutiny to the ridiculously Orwellian nature of such legislation.

            Remember that since 9/11, the Australian government has technically had the legal right to detain anyone without charge indefinitely thanks to a stack of "anti-terrorism" legislation. However, the amount of instances that such powers have been utilised is close to zero because of the negative publicity and PR nightmare that would result. We're also one of the few countries in the world to indefinitely detain asylum seekers as well.

            Even before this recent spate of Draconian horse sh*t like the Identify and Disrupt Act, anti-protest laws in NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and SA and the Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, the Australian government still had 6 ways from Sunday of effectively silencing personas non grata that they arbitrarily decided they don't approve of.

            All such developments do is draw attention back to the fact that if you look hard enough, Australia hasn't been a free country on paper for a very long time with the caveat that the illusion of freedom has been largely maintained due to a calculated political strategy.

            Thus far, no government of the day has felt the political unanimity existed within their party and the wider political landscape to actually reach into the Pandora's box of dystopian laws and use them indiscriminately. Nowadays, that's rapidly changing as not only are Liberal/Labour becoming incredibly homogenous in their platform/views but the entire country is become a uniparty state thanks to the ALP's unchecked success in recent state and federal elections and with that comes the greater likelihood that they actually start weaponising all of the idle infrastructure of an authoritarian regime that's largely been sitting there, quietly gathering dust for years (though occasionally demonstrated during test-runs like responses to Covid lockdown protests, CHOGM, G7/G20 protests as well as ongoing post-9/11 persecution of Muslims on vague suspicions of terrorism).

            • xdigger on 14/07/2023 - 14:29
              +2

              @Miami Mall Alien: Thanks for clarifying. Mate I concur with your sentiments, all these anti-democratic legal frameworks exists just ripe for the 'right' politician to take charge, and we're back to the days of 1920s-40s Germany when H was elected. It begs the question if the feds aren't genuinely going to use/abuse it, why have it in the first place for it to be misused by a malignant party.

              I also noticed there is no widespread public consensus for tying our Defence budget up with the long-term fate of the US but the ALP/LNP parties have both signed up and committed $368 billions in AUKUS while immediate healthcare and social/housing needs of everyday Australians goes unmet. Some days I don't feel both parties are actually looking out for us, more for their own and corporate mates interests.

              • Miami Mall Alien on 14/07/2023 - 15:00
                +2

                @xdigger: We're on the same page there.

                The toys of political oppression stay in the government's toybox so long as the children behave themselves and it's politically expedient to continue the pretence of democracy and freedom.

                Our saving grace has been the fact that the average Australian politician is such an unbelievably incompetent, bumbling idiot that they couldn't become a half-decent dictator even if you handed them the keys to a fully-functional dictatorship.

                That and our strategic insignificance and irrelevance on the global stage has somewhat shielded us from the more overt transformations to oppressive dystopias on display in other parts of the Western world.

                But those factors can only save us for so long and I'd argue the political apathy and complacence of the average Australian actually makes things worse in the long-term compared to countries where people will actually violently protest political injustice very readily, like France for example.

                Reminds me of that famous quote from Frank Zappa:

                “The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”

                The trend of extraordinary/emergency legal powers becoming a routine tool used against people they were never supposed to be directed at, is as old as politics itself. It's just a question of when an Australian government decides to set the precedent of routinely throwing people in jail or slapping them with trumped-up charges over a social media post.

                In the same way that law enforcement departments across the US rapidly militarised since 9/11 due to the 1033 program, which has led to these "special" weapons/tactics which were reserved solely for "extraordinary circumstances" now being deployed in 45,000 SWAT raids annually or 124 per day, mainly for possession of marijuana and minor drug charges. Now you have police departments in Hicksville, Wyoming riding around in Lenco Bearcat MRAPs for routine traffic stops.

    • reactor-au on 09/07/2023 - 10:38
      +27

      It's worse because the bill says government propaganda is excluded from censorship, it really works become like the ministry of truth 1984.
      Doesn't appear to be a independent review either, big brother would be judge jury executioner all in one unless I missed something.

      Anything not aligned with the government narrative would become "misinformation" IMO

    • Ryballs on 09/07/2023 - 12:08
      +42

      Always the same thing about ABC left bias despite multiple audits not being able to find it

      • photonbuddy on 09/07/2023 - 16:25
        +38

        Here's the problem. The ABC is not left wing. It just appears to be left wing because all the media is more right wing - some far more than others.

        If you consume mainly commercial media, and then switch to the ABC, there's far more left wing positivity, so it'll appear to be a lefty media group.

        • xylarr on 10/07/2023 - 14:53
          +7

          There is also often a false equivalence.
          I might say "You will die if you jump off that cliff"
          You might say "You are a cliff jumping denier, you won't die"
          And then we have a story on TV talking about the issue and in the guise of hearing "both sides" you give 50% of air time to the cliff jumpers.
          This makes no sense.
          Just because someone has a competing view doesn't mean that competing view should have any weight behind it.
          This goes for climate science.
          It goes for the efficacy of vaccines.
          It goes for any random conspiracy.

          • photonbuddy on 10/07/2023 - 15:40
            +7

            @xylarr:

            This goes for climate science.

            But this is where you fall in a small heap!

            Back when all this started, most people would have been climate deniers. It's only the body of evidence and research that now exists that we can say it's real.

            Asbestos. Same thing. No one would have agreed it was a vile thing that kills people. If you don't let the 'loonies' have their say, so many things we now take as fact would have never got off the ground

      • hornbill on 09/07/2023 - 16:34
        +23

        To some, pointing out the truth = left wing

        • AlexF on 09/07/2023 - 19:27
          -1

          What about alternate truth?

        • mountaineer on 09/07/2023 - 22:21
          +1

          Only when the reality is far from the "truth"

      • ThithLord on 10/07/2023 - 10:19

        No, definitely left-wing. That's why they flew the LNP colours during the 2022 Election lmao

        • Ryballs on 10/07/2023 - 14:28
          +1

          So multiple independent audits vs an out of context photo of some blokes TV.. and you go with the TV? To each their own I guess.

          • ThithLord on 10/07/2023 - 16:29
            -5

            @Ryballs: "Some blokes TV"? are you smoking the good stuff? Literal proof the ABC flew the LNP's promotional material but you wanna go with "It's some blokes TV"? That's the best you got?

            • Ryballs on 10/07/2023 - 17:03
              +1

              @ThithLord: Keep your pants on mate, it's really not the smoking gun you think it is. You can't just discount everything else coz of one incident on TV. (Well logically you shouldn't, I know you're going to anyways.) Unfortunately I get the feeling they could do 1000 audits on ABC that find no bias and you would still pull some other niche thing out your arse as "literal proof" to the contrary.

              • ThithLord on 11/07/2023 - 08:47
                -3

                @Ryballs: Oh you're referring to the audit of the general voting habits of the staff of ABC? Is that the shyster "audit" you're referring to?

                Not their coverage history of blatantly pushing LNP propaganda, not the majority of the board being ex-Murdoch hacks, not Ita Buttrose being the chairman (another Murdock hack), not the constant events happening in Australia and they go to the Spud for 10 mins then show the PM's opinion for 30 seconds? Lmao.

    • ely on 09/07/2023 - 18:08
      +2

      lol

    • caitsith01 on 11/07/2023 - 10:55
      +3

      Plenty of studies on media bias, care to share some from legitimate sources showing that the ABC is "left wing"?

      Sounds a lot like "reality has a left wing bias" coping to me.

    • Brianqpr on 11/07/2023 - 11:26
      +3

      ABC left? Ever watched David Speers?

      Seriously, there's a whole bunch of people that think the ABC are left and then another bunch who think they are liberals who pandered to the right to try and prevent further funding cuts.

    • mellow on 11/07/2023 - 17:27
      +5

      You're implying that the ABC is famously known for posting misinformation. Got any proof?

      Then you claim that those who are the furthest left and right are most likely to be selecting/distorting facts, and it's only the cleverest centrists that avoid letting their beliefs sway their discourse.
      "We need to hear bOtH sIdeS!"

      This is an ignorant take. Nobody needs to hear both sides on information that's factually wrong. People are welcome to share their opinion as long as it's clearly an opinion - once they start to make false claims about events or false statements in general then we have a problem.

      The issue at hand is that misinformation has been allowed to spread and weaponised and Sky, Murdoch, Facebook et al refuse to do anything about it because it drives clicks and revenue. This legislation is aimed squarely at fixing that issue and it sounds fine to me.

    • Gekov on 14/07/2023 - 12:57

      "A government agency deciding what is misinformation and disinformation is government censorship. Punishing web sites or anyone else will result in self-censorship. We simply won't hear the other side of the story and be able to decided for ourselves whether it might have some truth to it."

      WELL SAID!
      100%
      I couldn't have said it better!

      This is exactly what warmunists pushing globalwarming ® SCAM mis+disinformation are counting on.

      By the way:
      More globalwarming ® please …
      Across 30 countries heatwaves kill 20,000 people in European cities every year
      BUT, BUT, BUT, cold kills 200,000! But never mind.
      Warmunist misanthropic agenda for depopulation in action.

    • trapper on 21/07/2023 - 09:43

      A government agency deciding what is misinformation and disinformation is government censorship.

      Yes. Mindboggling that this could ever be considered in a free country.

  • elgrande on 08/07/2023 - 14:09
    +7

    Is there an exemption for trolls?

    • mbck on 08/07/2023 - 15:17
      +1

      I think we got that from the ozbargain pro offer a few years back?

      • capslock janitor on 10/07/2023 - 09:34
        +1

        Is there exemption for @jv

        • [Deactivated] on 12/07/2023 - 14:13

          Would probably make him stop randomly screeching about Dan Andrews on eneloop deals.

          • capslock janitor on 12/07/2023 - 14:47

            @[Deactivated]: I hear he's a her.

            She's exempted from a lottta things

            • [Deactivated] on 12/07/2023 - 15:01

              @capslock janitor: Might as well be an 'it' / ai bot with the thousands of similarly structured comments in their post history.

    • ChillBro on 09/07/2023 - 00:36
      +2

      Yes, actually. Covered in the fact sheet:

      Would the powers address the targeting of an individual such as racist trolling?
      The proposed powers are designed to encourage digital platform services to be accountable for improving and implementing measures to counter the spread or misinformation and disinformation online (i.e. they have a ‘systems’ focus rather than an individual content focus).
      Widespread, race-based misinformation and disinformation that caused or contributed to serious harm would fall within the scope of the new ACMA powers.
      For cases where a specific individual is subject to race-based harassment, abuse or trolling, this would be a matter for the eSafety Commissioner to consider in the context of the Commissioner’s powers to address adult cyber abuse under the Online Safety Act 2021. In such instances, when platforms have failed to remove abusive content, an individual can report it to the eSafety Commissioner at esafety.gov.au. The eSafety Commissioner has powers to require digital platform services to remove adult cyber abuse content.

      • quick-dry on 10/07/2023 - 14:36
        +2

        that is "new trolling" which is more like abuse and harrassment, I think they're using the classic idea of trolling, which is more akin to winding someone up for harmless fun.

        One person on here might have the honestkly held opinion that a BMW is a high yield investment vehicle, but when everyone else mentions it, are they having a laugh and trolling, or are they promoting misinformation online? (not the best example, but it sprung to mind as appropriate for here).

        With the way 'journalists' just trawl reddit for stories they can republish, is a deliberately false story posted on r/australia that gets published as truth a deliberate misinformation campaign, or journos failing to fact check?

        (I'd rather we just stick with having defamation to deal with lies and smears on people, and people can figure out facts from fiction - it won't change anything, things will be published with a disclaimer that they're 'opinion' and not stated to be fact, but taken as fact by the people who want to agree with that viewpoint anyway)

  • SBOB on 08/07/2023 - 14:09
    +13

    I've read that

    You read the entire bill?
    I reckon you just watched a video :)

    asked to give your user info to the government and you can be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars

    Got a link to this section of the bill draft you read?

      • SBOB on 08/07/2023 - 17:17
        +27

        Now share the lines were you read that it says social media companies will be asked to give your user info to the government.
        You read it, as you said in your op, should be easy to link to that line or paragraph in the draft?

        • Aureus on 08/07/2023 - 18:43
          +19

          Wonder what kind of fine OP is looking at for this post.

        • Prop Trader on 09/07/2023 - 06:50
          +3

          @SBOB

          I don't disagree, but how else would it be enforced? Can you look at the template whitepaper given to you and extrapolate that into how they want to implement it.

          Otherwise, feel free to pass ineffective laws under the guise of protecting nothing. I am sure you at least agree with that, given what I have read from your past comments on similar issues.

          Clearly some inference of the such as alluded to by the OP is a possibility?

          Furthermore, the ACMA does not need to force people to remove content unwillingly if they already do as they do on ozbargain and gatekeep one of the biggest issues in the past few years behind what is effectively a paywallish type login system. The system of fear will already be put into place, and they can always revise the legislation to give powers to the ACMA to censor if no forum administrator starts complying with what we can already guess is what they want to actually be implemented. That's the biggest problem that is the most obvious.

          Try browse ozbargain without logging in first and you'll figure it out. Click on the health section and randomly click on that first page….

          BTW, I found the actual draft bill here. The other comments seem to be referring to the fact sheet.

          Division 2—Record keeping and reporting
          14 ACMA may make digital platform rules in relation to records
          Records
          (1) The digital platform rules may require a digital platform provider of:
          (a) a digital platform service specified in the rules; or
          (b) a digital platform service in a class of digital platform services specified in the rules;
          to make and retain records relating to the following:
          (c) misinformation or disinformation on the service; 1
          (d) measures implemented by the provider to prevent or respond to misinformation or disinformation on the service, including the effectiveness of the measures;
          (e) the prevalence of content containing false, misleading or deceptive information provided on the service (other than excluded content for misinformation purposes).
          (2) Before the ACMA makes a digital platform rule for the purposes of this clause in relation to a digital platform service, the ACMA must consider:
          (a) the privacy of end-users of the service; and
          (b) whether the rule is required for the performance of the ACMA’s function under paragraph 10(1)(mb), (mc), (md), (me), (mf), (mg) or (q) of the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005.
          (3) Digital platform rules made for the purposes of this clause must not require digital platform providers to make or retain records of the content of private messages.
          (4) Digital platform rules may specify the manner and form in which the records are to be made. Digital platform rules may specify the period for which the records are to be retained.
          Reporting
          (5) Digital platform rules may also require those digital platform providers to prepare reports consisting of information contained in the records.
          (6) Digital platform rules may also require those digital platform providers to give any or all of the reports to the ACMA.
          (7) Digital platform rules may specify the manner and form in which reports are to be prepared.
          (8) Digital platform rules may provide for:
          (a) the preparation of reports as and when required by the ACMA; or
          (b) the preparation of periodic reports relating to such regular intervals as are specified in the rules.
          (9) Digital platform rules may require or permit a report prepared in accordance with the rules to be given to the ACMA, in accordance with specified software requirements and specified authentication requirements:
          (a) on a specified kind of data processing device (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1997); or
          (b) by way of a specified kind of electronic transmission.
          (10) If digital platform rules require a digital platform provider to give a report to the ACMA, the rules must allow the provider to:
          (a) identify to the ACMA any information in the report the publication of which the provider considers could be expected to prejudice materially the commercial interests of a person; and
          (b) provide reasons.
          Relationship with information-gathering powers
          (11) This clause does not limit clause 18 or 19 (which are about the general information-gathering powers of the ACMA).

          (Fixed formatting) That seems to provide a wide scope for what is required.

          • SBOB on 09/07/2023 - 08:33
            +5

            @Prop Trader:

            I don't disagree, but how else would it be enforced

            Because the entire bill is aimed at making social media companies responsible for poor quality misleading content they may be sharing/hosting.

            It's not aimed at targetting random individuals.

            Hence, the op didnt read that in the draft bill.
            Simple.

            You can extrapolate whatever alternate 'facts' you want from whatever distrust of the government you might want to express. Doesn't make them representative of the actual bill being proposed.

            The op can't read a simple draft before believing whatever 'summary' facts they obtained from watching a video, which shows how easily people are manipulated from misinformation.
            Perhaps there should be a bill aimed at trying to assist in preventing that.

            • Prop Trader on 09/07/2023 - 10:18
              +10

              @SBOB: It does target the individual indirectly… That's where we diverge in our beliefs.

              It states the ACMA won't force censorship, but don't you think that the social media operator will get scared and do it voluntarily anyway?

              That's what that fear of fines does. It's indirect enforcement and very sinister in my opinion. I know you probably don't agree though.

            • 900dollaridoos on 10/07/2023 - 14:16
              +1

              @SBOB: Why were you so smug about demanding someone provide the exact part of the bill but when they actually did you just discount it? The lines Prop Trader highlighted support OP's concerns of self-censorship trickling down to users, as well as the data being available for targeting individuals.

              • Tambani on 10/07/2023 - 18:47
                +1

                @900dollaridoos: Because that exact part of the bill doesn't say what OP says it does. OP is extrapolating and from a misreading of the proposed bill.

              • SBOB on 10/07/2023 - 19:26

                @900dollaridoos:

                Why were you so smug about demanding someone provide the exact part of the bill but when they actually did you just discount it?

                because the bill doesnt state what the op claimed.
                Get on the soap box and shout from the roof tops objections to government legislation, its part of our freedom of expression.
                But if you have to make up or believe incorrect facts, assumptions and misinformation about such legislations being proposed, then perhaps you need to get off the soapbox and read a bit more.

                Even in PropTrader's post detailing the legislation they say (when responding to my post asking for clarification about where it says social media is being forced to share your details with the government) -
                I don't disagree, but how else would it be enforced?

                Assumptions aren't included in legislation.
                The bill may persuade or incentivise social media companies to restrict or remove such posts, but thats not the same as screaming from your soap box that your details will be automatically be shared with social media.
                Scream about the actual content and objections with it, after you've read it.

        • trapper on 21/07/2023 - 09:45

          Now share the lines were you read that it says social media companies will be asked to give your user info to the government.

          It's not specific to this particular law. The gov can already request this information when investigating any offense.

      • MessyG on 09/07/2023 - 17:57
        +1

        "The Bill is directed at encouraging digital platform providers to have robust systems and
        measures in place to address misinformation and disinformation on their services, rather than the ACMA directly regulating individual pieces of content..

        ACMA will not have the power to request specific content or posts be removed from digital platform services"

        So did the OP actually read this bill?

  • HardQuiz on 08/07/2023 - 14:16
    +33

    Hello 1984

    • 900dollaridoos on 10/07/2023 - 14:18

      This is exactly like 1984!
      …no, I haven't actually read the book, but if I had I imagine it would be something like this.

      Jokes aside this actually does feel like the first baby step towards 1984.

      • sir-screwball on 10/07/2023 - 15:13
        +4

        Do you understand that the current media and social media climate in this country is pretty much exactly what is depicted in the 2 minutes hate from 1984? The difference is that it's not a 2 minutes hate, it's a 24/7 hate and it's at the discretion of our media overlords who decide what most of Australia gets to see.

        Whatever Rupert and his mates want, they espouse via their massive media monopoly and it's boasted from almost every newspaper, website, youtube recommendation, that news can be found on in this country, unless you are very particular about where you get your news from.

        That's 1984. The current bill is aiming to put a leash on these people and their untold levels of greed, which they service through this exact style of misinformation.

        • 900dollaridoos on 10/07/2023 - 18:39
          -1

          Not disagreeing with you totally, but I find the Rupert stuff interesting. I lean right and even still most all of the news I get on my google feed is ABC and similar left leaning stuff. Like I'm literally in mining and most non-sport articles I see are about how bad climate change is. Similarly, on the odd occasion I see free to air it seems to not be the Sky news-esque right-wing fear mongering. Other than people that have cable, who is seeing sky news? I should be a prime candidate for it being rammed down my throat since I'm apparently at the entrance to that alt-right pipeline, but the only time it seems to pop up for me is in memes about it.

          Genuine question, is channel 10, 7, 9 etc under Rupert's umbrella? Because stuff like the 7pm project never struck me as right wing.

          I could totally be wrong given my free to air consumption almost entirely in waiting rooms and the add breaks of the cricket haha.

          is pretty much exactly what is depicted in the 2 minutes hate

          Been a couple years since I read it, but wasn't the 2 minutes hate all about drumming up support for endless wars through hate towards the other states? Any time I see mainstream news it's shitting on Aussie soldiers for war crimes and generally portrays the victims of the wars we've been in rather than painting some faceless enemy. To be clear I'm actually all for this, but I genuinely can't remember a pro war news piece since childhood.

          • GrueHunter on 10/07/2023 - 18:51

            @900dollaridoos:

            Like I'm literally in mining and most non-sport articles I see are about how bad climate change is

            So science is just like, your left-leaning political opinion, man?

            ok

            • sakurashu on 11/07/2023 - 12:04
              -3

              @GrueHunter: Imagine thinking "science" can't be manipulated for the masses:

              “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community … I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report." [Seitz F. Major deception on global warning. Wall Street Journal 1996 June 12;section A:16(col 3).]

              Maybe look into the long running campaigns for tobacco as another example?

              • DickTaylor on 12/07/2023 - 19:51
                +1

                @sakurashu: Assuming you're using pro-tobacco campaigns as an example of the manipulation of science, it's worth pointing out that the author of the article you're citing (Frederick Seitz) worked as a tobacco industry consultant before moving on to climate change denial, asserting that second-hand smoke posed no health risks. While he was a respected scientist, he worked in solid-state physics, a field which has almost nothing to do with climate science.

          • Brianqpr on 11/07/2023 - 11:32

            @900dollaridoos: Mainstream TV channels are not Sky level right, but are certainly right of centre and proactively try to control the national narrative. All are owned by very wealthy people who have an interest in maintaining the status quo.

            I rarely watch mainstream channels these days, but on the few occasions I do it strikes me how fake and Stepford Wives it all seems. I cannot believe in this day and age of endless internet choices of what to watch, that the likes of Sunrise, Today etc still have an audience. I can only assume its largely the older generation.

      • cookie2 on 12/07/2023 - 22:02

        To me, it's been feeling like 1984, with a mix of Animal Farm and a generous splash of Oryx and Crake(series). These are strange times.

      • trapper on 21/07/2023 - 09:47

        …no, I haven't actually read the book, but if I had I imagine it would be something like this.

        Read the book. It's not that long.

        • 900dollaridoos on 21/07/2023 - 10:27

          I have haha. The quoted text is a common meme about people over using the "this is like 1984" trope

  • brendanm on 08/07/2023 - 14:33
    +43

    Hard no. What's "information" one day, is "disinformation" another.

    Government should provide courses on critical thinking instead.

    • MrThing on 08/07/2023 - 15:41
      +9

      I believe they just call that "a good education"

      • brendanm on 08/07/2023 - 15:56
        -3

        "a good education" doesn't teach critical thinking.

        • MrThing on 08/07/2023 - 16:26
          +9

          the whole basis of education is to do exactly that - analyse information you may research or receive, interpret what the information or results mean, evaluate if its a load of baloney or actually correct then form a conclusion based on all the above. To not be able to do that means you've probably already failed school and treat sources like Wikipedia as reliable.

          Its even easier if the subject you need to critically think (or analyse w.e), is a stem subject where a grey area may or does not exist.

          the problem is these days misinformation is like McDonalds, its highly palatable, produced in a way that is easy to digest and generally pretty well made and hard to differentiate the real vs the fake - hence why disinformation has exploded in the internet age

          then there's also social and family circles and religious beliefs which are also very powerful influencers in being brainwashed - but a good education still helps

          • brendanm on 08/07/2023 - 16:31
            +8

            @MrThing: Have you been in the real world? People suck at critical thinking, just look at the number of people being scanned constantly.

            Most education is simply "here is a fact, remember it".

            is a stem subject where a grey area may or does not exist.

            Not these days.

            • randomusername2017 on 08/07/2023 - 17:20

              @brendanm:

              scanned constantly

              Which has a bigger impact on the LH side of the brain CRT, MRI or X-ray?

              Discrete OBD port in the rear or ear?

            • MrThing on 08/07/2023 - 17:46
              +2

              @brendanm: Plenty of people getting scammed yes, I'd like to see a demographic breakdown of the people getting scammed?

              Is it mainly the older population who aren't as educated on technology which is facilitating the scams or is it even across all age groups?

              • brendanm on 08/07/2023 - 18:04
                +6

                @MrThing: Plenty of people across all age groups I'd say, probably more at the older end.

                Just look at the number of people asking questions about things they could figure out by themselves, the number of people that can't fix the simplest of things at home. People are taught not to think for themselves.

              • Protractor on 08/07/2023 - 22:30
                -1

                @MrThing: You forgot the 50% of voters who keep voting with their heads up their arses. Or the even dumber demography, who don't vote legitimately (or abstain) and yet still feel the need to have a political opinion.
                Parasitical hypocrites

                • Prop Trader on 09/07/2023 - 07:08

                  @Protractor: Voting does nothing as I already explained below. Jump up and down all you want. Nothing is going to change. Did you really think if Scott Morrison got re-elected we wouldn't have these laws being introduced?

                  Let's go further, did you really think if we had Bill-Shorten in power then everything would be alright? Oh wait, if we still had Kevin Rudd, that's it, oh yes, if we had him in power everything would be different and we would be saved. Oh wait, John Howard, how could we forget him, he gave us free stimulus bonus money when the budget was in a surplus. Oh but no, if we had Kim Beazley everything would be different. Oh, but if we hadn't voted out Paul Keating everything would be fine. Oh, but if we had Bill Hayden instead of Malcolm Fraser everything would be different!!!

                  Oh no, we lost Gough Whitlam and everything changed…

                  Do you see how absurd it is?

                  • Protractor on 09/07/2023 - 09:57
                    +2

                    @Prop Trader: Don't care. Accountability for acts that impact on the greater masses and the greater good are not just fine by me, I'd vote for them. I can see the hate speakers ,liars and nutjobs are livid over this, which helps me sleep at night. It also tells me it's heading the right way.
                    Social media, or moreover the infantile way humans worship it has changed the goal posts. Trump would not exist without the brainwashed masses and the empty voting vessels in his home swamp, all emboldened by social media which has become a direct swap for base humanity.
                    It's all approaching a moot point anyway given the rapidly approaching shit storms created by an overpopulated planet, and one where we are blinded by the bling of capitalism and somehow think some Musk like guru can save us with a brain fart..

              • gromit on 11/07/2023 - 17:41

                @MrThing: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/p… the demographics show it is bad across all age groups, worst seems to be the 45-55 year old bracket and somewhat surprised the over 65 year old bracket performs way better than most other brackets.

            • trapper on 21/07/2023 - 09:49

              @brendanm:

              Have you been in the real world? People suck at critical thinking

              A lot of people are not capable of critical thinking, and never will be.

              Average IQ is 100, no getting around that.

        • Protractor on 08/07/2023 - 18:06
          -3

          how come everyone who uses this term has self anointed themselves with this label as though it's a soothsaying qualification?

          They also seem great talkers, lazy walkers. More tell than show.

        • SBOB on 08/07/2023 - 21:47
          +1

          doesn't teach critical thinking

          As illustrated by the op's "summary" of the actual draft bill details in the link they shared.

      • hornbill on 09/07/2023 - 16:37
        +2

        Certain governments just wants us to get back to the three Rs, wind down the critical thinking.

        • Ughhh on 09/07/2023 - 17:10

          Issues is when certain people think they know what critical thinking is, they have critical thinking skills and are experts in everything. Questioning things is good, but simply going against everything mainstream doesn't mean youre applying the skill.

    • reactor-au on 09/07/2023 - 10:39
      +4

      What's not aligned with the government narrative becomes "misinformation"

    • ymmf on 10/07/2023 - 12:48
      +1

      It would make life too difficult for the decision makers if people can think critically.

      Also, it does not fix the problem of selfishness when it comes to voting time.

    • frewer on 10/07/2023 - 22:05

      It's ok, government want power to combat/be arbitrator of truth. What could goes wrong ? They will be the first government give the power back/abolish it after they done, right ?

  • Malik Nasser on 08/07/2023 - 14:53

    From what I have heard, it only covers blatant disinformation.
    Things that are more nuanced will be harder to enforce.
    The general media would be in breach of this consistently if otherwise.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join