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

  • aisling on 10/07/2023 - 07:12

    Hey OP you should put up a poll, for or against this bill, to get closer to the true Ozbargain sentiment.
    One might think that those who perceive themselves to be under attack would be more vocal in the comments.

    Oh BTW to provide a balanced viewpoint - the link you provided is just to gather feedback, positive or negative, on the bill, so the less "mis-informationy" way to phrase it is:
    You can support or object here: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-pow…

    It is quite ironic that the post about the baby-step bill against mis- and dis-information immediately references mis- and dis-information and is partly mis-information itself LOL

  • Willy Beamish on 10/07/2023 - 08:15
    +7

    It's only misinformation when it goes against what the government wants you to know, even if what you are stating is true.

    This is just a step closer to being just like china, just wait for the social credit score implementation.

  • capslock janitor on 10/07/2023 - 09:37
    +1

    Y'all Sign the objection thens

  • mountaineer on 10/07/2023 - 10:27
    +5

    The government can publish / distribute the "right" information in their opinion, or even counter - dis/mis information but they cannot be given the power to remove/supress information they don't like. It is a wrong direction the free and democratic society like ours. There is no guarantee this sort of power won't be abused or misused to suit the government's agenda.

    Government is just another source of information but often times not the correct information provider. They can compete with other information providers and let the audience/community to make their own decision. To filter information by the government is to say adult citizen hasn't got enough intelligence to understand the truth by themselves and has to be baby-sitted and spoon-feed of "right info"??

    To simply entrust the government 100% such power makes us no different to countires under communist rules where the government not only able to remove/supress anything you said agains their likings, they can also compel you to speak things you even don't like, staying slience is not an option anymore. Ask people from HK and you will understand! Most people in countries like Australia has taken for granted for too long to realise a free press is a scarcity commodity.

    • Ughhh on 10/07/2023 - 13:31

      Should stuff like "Jilly juice" be removed/banned?

      • Ughhh on 10/07/2023 - 18:51

        Looks like there's some supporters of the fermented salty cabbage juice that claims to heal cancer and "the gay".

      • brendanm on 11/07/2023 - 07:35

        Had to look up what this was. If people believe garbage like this does what the claim it to do, they are morons who are well beyond help anyway. Teach people to use their brains.

        • Ughhh on 11/07/2023 - 10:05
          +1

          morons who are well beyond help anyway.

          Or desperate people suffering from cancer etc and replace their meds with this crap. Our even worst, feed this stuff to their chidten, cause your know, parents know what's best for their kids.

          • brendanm on 11/07/2023 - 10:45

            @Ughhh: As I've said above, you still need to have a complete lack of critical thinking skills to think that some fermented juice can affect cancer cells.

            cause your know, parents know what's best for their kids.

            Our amazing government tries to keep kids with drug abusing neglectful parents.

            • Ughhh on 11/07/2023 - 14:13

              @brendanm: I don't agree with what you say. But simply saying "oh well, they deserve it" and ignoring these dangerous people/issues is going backwards.

              Our amazing government tries to keep kids with drug abusing neglectful parents.

              I don't know about this soni won't comment. No entity is perfect.

              • brendanm on 11/07/2023 - 15:13

                @Ughhh: The point isn't really "oh well they deserve it", it's more that you can't legislate against stupidity.

                In addition, all this sort of thing does is make it easier to silence whoever is creating "misinformation" at the time. Image people being too scared to report on robodebt for example. Sanctioned by the government, speaking out against it at the time could well have been labelled "misinformation", now we have politicians possibly facing criminal charges over it.

                Anything that potentially limits accountability of the government, or anyone, is a bad thing.

                • Ughhh on 11/07/2023 - 20:02
                  +1

                  @brendanm:

                  it's more that you can't legislate against stupidity.

                  No you can't, but there are other ways to reduce its impact. To think nothing is worth trying unless it's 100% effective is naive in a world of ever changing variables.

                  • brendanm on 11/07/2023 - 20:38

                    @Ughhh: Seems you forgot about this bit-

                    In addition, all this sort of thing does is make it easier to silence whoever is creating "misinformation" at the time. Image people being too scared to report on robodebt for example. Sanctioned by the government, speaking out against it at the time could well have been labelled "misinformation", now we have politicians possibly facing criminal charges over it.

                    Anything that potentially limits accountability of the government, or anyone, is a bad thing.

                    • Ughhh on 12/07/2023 - 18:26

                      @brendanm:

                      Anything that potentially limits accountability of the government, or anyone, is a bad thing.

                      What about the accountability of the wanna be doctors, clout chasers?

                      I can imagine a lot of things that scare me, but they're imaginations.

                      Do you think 'misinformation' does not exist?

                      • brendanm on 12/07/2023 - 19:00

                        @Ughhh:

                        Do you think 'misinformation' does not exist?

                        Of course it does, you see or hear it constantly, through advertising to start with. Then we have politicians and corporations also spouting it constantly. Newspapers, tv news, online news also spreads it constantly.

                        What about the accountability of the wanna be doctors, clout chasers?

                        This is why we have laws around fraud etc.

                • aisling on 11/07/2023 - 21:37

                  @brendanm: No it doesn't silence anyone at all.
                  You go can to the usual outlets like TV, newspapers, A Current Affair etc to run your brainfarts past a real journalist.

                  Why do people keep forgetting the internet is a relatively new thing???!!!!
                  One can have democracy, freedom and revolution without the internet!!
                  Where is my freedom from the endless baseless drivel you find online nowadays, this thread being a prime example?
                  The social web has devolved into a cesspit of misinformation and advertising >_<
                  Wish we could rewind the internet to the 1990s

                  • brendanm on 11/07/2023 - 21:47
                    -1

                    @aisling: 🏅 Here's your award for "missing the point". Congrats 🎆

                    • aisling on 11/07/2023 - 22:07

                      @brendanm: Awww thanks for my award!!
                      For cornering you into a lack of an intelligible response, I gladly accept :)

                      • brendanm on 11/07/2023 - 22:08
                        -1

                        @aisling: Here's your response -https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/14016534/redir

                        Try to read and understand this time.

  • burningrage on 10/07/2023 - 11:22
    +12

    What constitutes "misinformation" or "disinformation" is going to be dependent on the Government of the day.

    If we were to look back at how COVID information was disseminated, many of the matters being said that was censored by Social Media or even ridiculed by the Government as being "disinformation" were eventually proven to be true. An example would be the claim that Astrazeneca could cause death which was previously ridiculed to death by the Government of the day.

    In other words, this ACMA thing can be easily manipulated to suit the Government of the day's agenda and as such, should be opposed.

    • xdigger on 10/07/2023 - 16:57
      +2

      Agreed, the ACMA could become a Department of Propaganda with the 'right' kind of people at the top. Not unlike what happened in 1920s-30s.

    • aisling on 10/07/2023 - 17:38
      -5

      All vaccinations have risks and benefits. All medications have risks and benefits. Heck, living itself has risks and benefits (actually, 100% chance of death).

      I think the difference has to be intention within the context of situation.

      If the information disseminated was what was thought to be true at the time, to the best knowledge of the international scientific community, presented with that caveat, and with the intention of saving lives, I don't think we can be angry that certain things were later proven wrong. NOBODY (except perhaps God) had any idea what was going to happen with COVID. Some actions turned out to be over-reactions, but that can only be diagnosed in hindsight.

    • caitsith01 on 11/07/2023 - 11:01
      +1

      Except that we have this branch of government called courts specifically so that we aren't left with the government of the day randomly deciding how the law works.

  • jedimaster on 10/07/2023 - 11:46
    +2

    Indian government used similar law in India during Covid-19 delta variant spikes to curb anything negative about the government. This included sending journalists to jail, threats of jailtime, fines, arrests, etc.

    • aisling on 10/07/2023 - 17:44
      -2

      Haha with that second line I'm sure it was not at all similar! Thanks for the belly laugh

  • tessel on 10/07/2023 - 12:28
    +4

    This should be a sticky on ozbargain. I know it's Australia but I'm very pro say whatever you want. Of course this is within reason and racist dribble is out but if someone thinks tap water causes covid then let them have at it. I hope everyone provides their feedback.

    • ssfps on 10/07/2023 - 16:45
      +5

      racist dribble is out

      Why?
      I don't want to be called names, but i'm not going to argue it should be illegal.

      • tessel on 10/07/2023 - 17:07
        +2

        You raise a good point. But no matter which way I look at it I can't justify free speech for racist dribble. However, I'm talking about extreme hate racism. I see nothing wrong with people voicing concerns about migrants coming to Australia. Nor do I see anything wrong with people saying multiculturalism doesn't work. I guess for me it comments like "(profanity) those maggots who stink like shit and have no brains" where maggots is replaced with whatever culture/race. Much of what people call racist today I don't. However, I totally get your point and can see where you are coming from. I think many people are very careful with what they say nowadays because everything is labelled as racist when it isn't.

        • ssfps on 10/07/2023 - 17:31
          +3

          If that sort of vitriol is illegal based on race or culture, why not make all vitriolic language illegal?

          Even then, why bother making it illegal at all? People are usually turned off by others being vitriolic. The evil people in the world that do the most damage are the charming/charismatic ones.

          • tessel on 10/07/2023 - 18:15
            -2

            @ssfps: I guess because if you call me a (profanity) idiot that stinks you could be right. It's directed at one person, has nothing to do with things like race etc and isn't a blanket statement. I do understand the holes in this logic though. However, to me it's all pretty simple to be honest. We should be civilised towards others and not be arseholes. Sadly I know this fails in practice and not everyone thinks this way. If I had to pick hard core censorship or total freedom of speech, I definitely pick total freedom.

            • OzBarAnon on 13/07/2023 - 16:17

              @tessel: Your explanation doesn't actually make sense though. You say that vitriol at individuals is acceptable within freedom of speech because it may be true, but what if it's not? What if you're 190cm tall and able-bodied, but I call you a (profanity) 3-foot crippled dwarf? Obviously not defamation, but clearly untrue. Why should groups have greater rights than individuals in this particular regard?

        • Willy Beamish on 11/07/2023 - 14:23
          +2

          You're not for free speech then, stop pretending you are.

        • infinite on 11/07/2023 - 23:11

          You don't appear to understand what free speech is.

  • Aleigh123 on 10/07/2023 - 12:39
    +6

    I'm all for cracking down on disinformation, but how would they classify misinformation? What is effectively classified as a truth one day may also be misinformation the next. For example, a fact about COVID-19 early on may be considered true, but what if someone read outdated COVID-19 facts from the early days? As it is outdated, it is by definition considered to be misinformation. But someone else sees this and reposts it verbatim. Would they then be punished for this?

    I would find this proposal troubling to some degree (to put it mildly)…

    • aisling on 10/07/2023 - 18:01
      +1

      Maybe then the bill would have achieved its purpose then?
      To make people think twice before reposting random b**s*** they see online and giving it the veneer of legitimacy?

      I know everyone is all skeptical about censorship… But did George Orwell, brilliant thinker as he was, ever forsee a monster misinformation machine quite like Facebook?

    • Ughhh on 10/07/2023 - 18:49
      +3

      Some People, mostly those who have 0 knowledge or experience in science industry, tend to say crap like "sCiEnCe has cHanGED" as an insult, don't realise that yes science does change. Evolution is an example. We only know a tiny bit of this universe, and scientist are always researching and discovering more, building on existing knowledge. Variables are always changing.

      As it is outdated, it is by definition considered to be misinformation. But someone else sees this and reposts it verbatim.

      At uni, we were taught how to identify credible sources and how to reference sources. Proper referencing would mention the date.

    • Aneurism on 12/07/2023 - 04:06

      This is a very dangerous situation because the leftists will somehow find a way to hijack this to spout their truth but at the same time classify facts as misinformation

  • Juice-Wa on 10/07/2023 - 15:34
    +2

    If they want to hold accountability towards what's said on social media those baboons need to remove parliamentary privilege. Those idiots go and say whatever unsubstantiated nonsense they want and not face the consequences.

  • ContinuousCustomer on 10/07/2023 - 16:42
    +5

    Does this include mis/disinformation spread by government orgs ? CIA does this a lot, just like others…

    • ssfps on 10/07/2023 - 16:47

      Good one! The CIA couldn't afford the fines if this was applied retroactively to them - even with their black budgets.

      • infinite on 11/07/2023 - 23:13
        +2

        ASIO isn't any better.

  • xdigger on 10/07/2023 - 16:52
    +6

    These sort of bills always looks good to the idealists but fails in its implementation. Who decides what is the truth and what is misinformation? Look at what happened to Julian Assange who gave his freedom to reveal US war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan. Certainly Wikileaks revelation of US war crimes would have been labelled misinformation then by the US and our subservient federal government. This bill will stop future Julian Assanges from ever reaching the masses.

    This bill is the first step towards 1984 in Australia. How are we better than dictatorships if we don't protect freedom of speech?

    • Danstar on 11/07/2023 - 18:36
      +3

      We’re slowly heading towards a dictatorship disguised as socialism

  • jaimex2 on 10/07/2023 - 17:05
    +5

    I was concerned until I realised it's ACMA

    I don't think they've policed a single thing since their creation.

  • Dack Smith on 10/07/2023 - 18:10

    I agree - waiting for the brave keyboard warriors to slice through government propaganda and take the fight to Albo

    Will it be a gun duel or single sword combat?

    Better be to the absolute death, otherwise it’d be boring and they would achieve their goal of defeating the government propaganda

    Either party surviving would be bad for Australia

  • JH100 on 10/07/2023 - 20:58
    +1

    I think it's a good idea, sick of the 'alternate' reality political BS.

    But only as long as it applies to everyone - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/10/voice-… - and is administered responsibly. Oops, I guess there goes my support. :-)

    • mountaineer on 11/07/2023 - 08:32
      +5

      "as long as it applies to everyone" in this context is a just a simple logic fallancy … think about this…the government in this game is a player and the umpire … anything the government said/published cannot be anything but the "truth" in their book… the momoent you start to counter what the government said/published, you can be labelled as producing " dis/mis information" … . In no way on this earth you can expect the government to censor itself…

      This is pure evil!

      • infinite on 11/07/2023 - 23:14
        +2

        Have to agree.

        It's so obvious it's painful.

  • R4 on 10/07/2023 - 21:46
    +4

    This is essentially government censorship dressed up as something entirely different.

    The left/green elites that are increasingly gaining power will be pleased.

  • Killermike on 10/07/2023 - 21:57

    I would like a video for this like this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kecnSHmznic

  • Senatekill on 10/07/2023 - 22:30
    +2

    this is just another tool to silence freedom of speech where one side, who idolise communist china want to spread maoism across our great country by silencing any opposition. There is no misinformation, just information and opinions and the best thing about the free world is the ability to express your opinion and agree or disagree. Unfortunately just like covid, where conspiracy theories were only considered conspiracy theories until they were proven correct and once proven correct they were censored, and that is the objective of this bill - censor the opposition, Say no to communism

    • caitsith01 on 11/07/2023 - 11:08
      +2

      "there is no misinformation"

      So anti-vaxxers are not spreading misinformation by claiming falsely that vaccines kill more people than diseases?

      Climate change deniers are not spreading misinformation by convincing people that climate change isn't real?

      These things cause real harm to everyone. There's a difference between free speech and free speech with no consequences when you cause harm with it.

      • Senatekill on 11/07/2023 - 15:30

        climate change or global warming? is that a far left conspiracy theory given there is no real evidence to support it?

      • infinite on 11/07/2023 - 23:23

        So anti-vaxxers are not spreading misinformation by claiming falsely that vaccines kill more people than diseases?

        That's been happening for 70 years already. Defective vaccines and Pharma companies lying about them have led to the deaths of countless millions of people all around the world for a number of generations.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/

        Only a fool pushing misinformation would claim otherwise.

        Even CNN have covered that fact hundreds of times over:
        https://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/30/swine.flu.1976/ind…
        "In 1976, officials responded with a vaccination that killed more people than the flu"

    • Crow K on 11/07/2023 - 11:19
      +1

      There is no misinformation, just information and opinions

      this sort of loose thinking is why people don't take conspiracy theorists/its-all-freedom-of-speech types seriously. "no way to prove something is willingly been told as a lie, and there's no such thing as the truth either while we're at it, it's all just opinions".

      get on facebook and start accusing people by their name of being pedophiles and see how welcome the court system is to your "oh i just have some opinions" garbage

      • Senatekill on 11/07/2023 - 15:29

        im not on facebook, is epstein a pedophile? who came to his island? why is his list being kept secret? or is it another conspiracy theory?

        • Crow K on 11/07/2023 - 15:47
          +2

          Bit of a weird direction to steer the discussion in.

          I wonder what would happen if I did a search for the terms "epstein" and "island" and "pedo" in the comment history.

          something not very surprising at all

  • duluxe2000 on 10/07/2023 - 23:07
    +6

    What a joke. The gov can't even combat online scam, I got so many phone calls from NBN and Testra these days…

    • xdigger on 11/07/2023 - 11:38
      +2

      The federal government whether Labor or LNP in name obviously got its priorities right in wanting to control the political narrative first rather than do its job in combating scammers. Similar to spending $368 billions on nuclear submarines while Aussies are battling the worst cost of living crisis in decades.

    • aisling on 11/07/2023 - 23:25

      Just trying to figure out what your point is.

      Is it really the govt's fault your mobile number got leaked to scammers ?
      Why aren't you angry at Medibank, Optus, Latitude etc…

      Also, I guess you are saying you want to give the govt powers to combat online, SMS and mobile scams ?

      So this bill, as it stands, is not tough enough for you ? You want it tougher, and you want it now? If so , kudos! Better let them know ;)

      • OzBarAnon on 13/07/2023 - 16:20
        +1

        The point seems to be that, despite these scams already clearly being illegal, they continue. So why expand their authority and expand the list of prohibitions when they're proven to be incapable of dealing with extant issues? The appropriate response would not be "introduce a new bill to make more things illegal," it'd be to deal with the scams already plaguing us (presumably attempting to leverage international relations to crack down on overseas scam call centres).

        • aisling on 13/07/2023 - 20:23

          If current laws are not effective, why don't you want to change them?
          Only fools repeat the same things over and over, expecting to obtain different results - George Bernard Shaw

          • OzBarAnon on 13/07/2023 - 20:53

            @aisling: Because the lack of effectiveness is not in the law, it's in the enforcement. The scams are already illegal, so how does this new proposal address the fact that they're rampant? The answer is that they don't. If something is a crime, but the police never prosecute anyone for it, how does making another law criminalizing it help?

            • aisling on 14/07/2023 - 01:23

              @OzBarAnon: No that's not true. This is quite off-topic but:
              1. The police do not have carte blanche to do whatever they want to enforce a law. Doing so would be (checks notes) illegal. This bill spells out what can be done, legally, to enforce non-compliance. See page 8 of the fact sheet for details: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/docume…
              2. This new proposal is about online misinformation and disinformation. Even if you broadly classified scams as a form of disinformation, this bill strictly applies to digital platform services only, so telephone calls/ SMS are still out of scope. Because this bill is not designed to address telephone or SMS scams, (pretend) outrage about scams being rampantly under-policed is missing the point. (This could change in future, of course, but you seem to have the nihilistic viewpoint that all change is futile.)
              3. “Leveraging international relations to close scam call centres” is a rather drastic and naive move - much risk for little reward. Why would another country sacrifice their own citizens so Australians receive one less spam call a day? . If you have the diplomacy genius to negotiate such a deal please by all means step up to the plate.
              4. Past performance does not indicate future performance.
              5. What have you got to lose?
              Let's not get all internet-offended over some sensible measures designed to protect everyday Australians.

          • trapper on 21/07/2023 - 10:15
            -1

            @aisling:

            If current laws are not effective, why don't you want to change them?

            The point is that scamming is already illegal. So why does it continue?

            • Ughhh on 21/07/2023 - 18:18
              -1

              @trapper: Do you think there would be more scammers if it wasn't illegal or the laws had huge loop holes?

              • trapper on 21/07/2023 - 18:43

                @Ughhh: Scamming is already illegal. There is no loophole.

                • Ughhh on 21/07/2023 - 19:46
                  -2

                  @trapper:

                  There is no loophole.

                  lol. Yes, all the laws are 100% clear and not vague at all. 🙄

  • klonky on 11/07/2023 - 06:38
    +1

    Hot take, if media just told the truth we probably wouldn't need something like this.

  • caitsith01 on 11/07/2023 - 11:06
    -1

    Ok, so all the people screeching about how this is 1984 and big brother and the end of all of us need to propose actual workable solutions for:

    1. The fact that foreign powers (mostly China and Russia) are abusing the openness of western societies to spread harmful propaganda and encourage us to fight amongst ourselves.

    2. The fact that anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers and similar people who spread lies about issues where there is a scientific consensus cause harm to people who are misled about what is best for them personally or for the community as a whole.

    3. The fact that social media platforms actively profit from encouraging the above because it stirs up 'controversy' which generates 'engagement' which generates advertising money.

    In other words, why should Facebook or Twitter profit from promoting (a) foreign propaganda designed to harm our society or (b) lies by charlatans designed to undermine faith in science at a time when we need to build trust in science more than ever.

    Democracy doesn't produce good outcomes if half the people voting are misled by false information. Garbage in garbage out - look at Trump to see what happens when truth is no longer a requirement in public discourse. And every time an idiot is sucked in by an anti-vaxxer and then gets sick, we all get to foot the bill.

    So… what are your solutions? Why exactly is it bad to require that platforms propagating information not publish false information which causes harm (which is what the legislation actually targets)?

    • xdigger on 11/07/2023 - 12:04
      +3

      I agree, but at the end of the day I think this thread is moot as the bill will be passed regardless of how much public opposition there is to it. Much like how the $368 billions AUKUS subs deal went ahead to support the US Military Industrial Complex, while Aussies are battling the worst cost of living and housing crises in decades and universal free healthcare is debatable as GPs no longer bulkbill and Emergency Department wait times blowout.

      The federal government whether Labor or LNP in name will push through it as it gives whoever is in power unfettered control over public narrative. We can only speculate why both political parties have not brought fellow Aussie Julian Assange back from US imprisonment for essentially telling the world the truth about US war crimes in Afghanistan. Assange's Wikileaks website would almost certainly be shut down by this new bill for spreading 'misinformation' and the future world we live in with this Bill passed will be none the wiser.

      • caitsith01 on 11/07/2023 - 14:06
        +1

        I think you vastly overestimate our influence in the Australia-US relationship. AUKUS is not because we need submarines, it's because we need US protection (or think we do). Assange is still there because the Americans have decided that's what will happen.

        I don't see how you could possibly think that this gives the government control over "public narrative" at all. It just stops you spreading outright lies via social media.

        And anyway… I asked what your alternative solutions are?

    • xdigger on 11/07/2023 - 12:15
      +1

      To support my view that our discussion is moot and this Bill will most likely be passed, a previous bill which legalised spying on everyday Australians written by the then LNP Feds 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…

      • caitsith01 on 11/07/2023 - 14:06

        This is much more problematic IMHO.

    • MrFunSocks on 11/07/2023 - 15:52
      +5

      The fact that anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers and similar people who spread lies about issues where there is a scientific consensus cause harm to people who are misled about what is best for them personally or for the community as a whole.

      I'm as pro-vaccination as they come, think anti-vaxxers are generally dumb, but this also goes the other way with COVID - people spread misleading information about the vaccine, saying it would prevent transmission and/or prevent infection. It does neither. The president of the united states for example went on tv multiple times stating that if you get the vaccine you will not catch COVID. That's literal misinformation, yet the other side saying that it doesn't stop infection or transmission was the one that was being censored on social media and the news for "misinformation".

      The problem with outlawing "misinformation" is who chooses what is called "misinformation", and what their agenda wants.

      • aisling on 11/07/2023 - 21:59
        -1

        Can you please shut it with your "I'm pro-vaccination but…"
        Reminiscent of the classic "I'm not racist but…"
        You just know that the rest of the sentence will be cringe-worthy.

        So let's break down your points.

        People spread misleading information about the vaccine, saying it would prevent transmission and/or prevent infection. It does neither

        Sure, happy for randoms saying this to be silenced. I only want expert information to be widely disseminated
        The COVID vaccines can theoretically prevent transmission by reducing the rate of symptomatic disease. The real benefit though was in reduction of rates of severe disease and hospitalizations. So even if you flaunted lockdown and masking rules like a tough wittle brave boy, you had a higher chance of surviving your inevitable COVID infection.
        There are multiple COVID vaccines, which one(s) are you talking about? See data here https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/advice-…

        The president of the united states for example went on tv multiple times stating that if you get the vaccine you will not catch COVID.

        Where is the evidence this happened? Trump was the POTUS of the day so I doubt he would say that.

        That's literal misinformation, yet the other side saying that it doesn't stop infection or transmission was the one that was being censored on social media and the news for "misinformation"

        It didn't happen, so moot point, game over

        • MrFunSocks on 14/07/2023 - 15:58
          +1

          Can you please shut it with your "I'm pro-vaccination but…"

          I'm fully vaccinated against COVID you absolute pencil.

          Where is the evidence this happened? Trump was the POTUS of the day so I doubt he would say that.

          lol here's the literal video evidence of Biden saying it:

          https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1550126265490763785

          Here's a news.com.au article about it:

          https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/yes-th…

          It didn't happen, so moot point, game over

          What didn't happen? You gonna pretend that people weren't censored/banned for saying that the vaccine didn't prevent transmission and infection?

          https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-17/twitter-bans-harmful-…

          You know what was treated as a "false claim"? That the vaccine didn't prevent transmission.

          • aisling on 14/07/2023 - 22:55
            -3

            @MrFunSocks: Video evidence? Oh you mean a single cherry-picked 6-second sound bite?

            Where Biden clearly went on a ramble and got lost in his own point? He was answering a question on when children under 12 would be eligible for the vaccinations.
            see full town hall here: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/07/22/part-1-en…
            and transcript here: https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/se/date/2021-07-21/segment/…

            This is not the "president of the united states [going] on tv multiple times stating that if you get the vaccine you will not catch COVID", it's someone gleefully catching Biden in a gaffe and pushing their own political agenda.

            By the way, in case you didn't get the point, your vaccination status, fictitious or not, is irrelevant. No need to devolve to name-calling.

            • MrFunSocks on 15/07/2023 - 08:54
              +1

              @aisling: So your rebuttal is “he said it but he didn’t mean it because he’s just a bumbling old man” 😂

              He said it other times too, as did many of his government officials. Here I was thinking a video of the president directly saying it would be enough proof but nope, not for you hahah

              My vaccination stays isn’t irrelevant because you were saying that i was pretending not to be anti-vaccination the way some racists pretend not to be. I’m 100% pro vaccination and vaccinated out the wahzoo.

              Take the L mate. You earned it.

              • aisling on 15/07/2023 - 12:32
                -2

                @MrFunSocks: Socks, there is no point continuing this debate in bad faith.
                Context and nuance matter, unverifiable claims do not.
                An online search points to the fact that this CNN town hall was the only single time Biden ever uttered those words. Every article about this issue references this CNN town hall. And in context, he clearly did not say what he meant to say.
                In his position, he should not have said those words. You could fault his team for not immediately correcting it. He did say earlier, correctly, that vaccinated people were less likely to have severe infections.
                But there is no point posing this was a concerted effort by Biden to push this particular message. No need to pretend that "He said it other times too, as did many of his government officials".
                If you relish picking on an older man for a slip of the tongue, so be it. Reasonable people can draw their own conclusions.

                • MrFunSocks on 16/07/2023 - 10:57
                  +1

                  @aisling: You’re the one arguing in bad faith. First it started by trying to say I’m an anti-vaxxer pretending to be pro vaccine to spread my agenda, then you tried to hand wave away the president of the United States literally saying “IF YOU GET THE VACCINE YOU WONT CATCH COVID” as just a silly old man getting confused, then you pretended that social media sites weren’t censoring and banning anything that said government deemed “negative” about the vaccines.

                  You’re right, there’s no point continuing this discussion because you’re clearly one of the people that would approve of this sort of censorship and “misinformation” law because you agree with the current censorship. I don’t agree with any censorship of speech, and no one should be fined or face jail time for what they say.

                  • aisling on 16/07/2023 - 19:58
                    -1

                    @MrFunSocks:

                    then you pretended that social media sites weren’t censoring and banning anything that said government deemed “negative” about the vaccines.

                    Socks, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you must be mistaking me for someone else. I never said anything of the sort; don't make things up, it will only make you look bad.

                    You’re right

                    On this we agree.

                    • MrFunSocks on 17/07/2023 - 13:15
                      +1

                      @aisling:

                      Socks, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you must be mistaking me for someone else. I never said anything of the sort; don't make things up, it will only make you look bad.

                      You literally said it in your first reply to me.

                      It didn't happen, so moot point, game over

                      Again - showing you're arguing in bad faith.

    • aisling on 11/07/2023 - 21:43
      +1

      So true.

      Especially point 3.

      If you cannot abide censorship in any form, at least let us unite against our enmity of vast untaxable corporations profiting off the "engagement" that misinformation provides their lucrative advertising engines.

      • aisling on 12/07/2023 - 13:57

        Oops meant unity in enmity, of course ;)

    • Aneurism on 12/07/2023 - 04:20
      +1

      Why stop there. I'd love for everyone to be GPS tracked, and microchipped. All platforms should be then associated to the microchip and any comment should be traceable to a real person. They should get rid of anonymity and expose the source of any information.

      This would be incredible and change the world for the better. Not only can we stop propagation of misinformation, we would be able to also find the source.

      • caitsith01 on 12/07/2023 - 08:14

        Ah yes, just like how if you're going to have a speed limit you have to make it zero because it's not possible to have laws that balance limiting people's 'right' to do whatever that want against broader social benefits unless you take it all the way in one direction…

    • OzBarAnon on 13/07/2023 - 16:23
      +1

      Because you're now outsourcing the arbitration of legitimacy to the government. Do you really trust the government to be completely honest about this stuff?

  • MrFunSocks on 11/07/2023 - 15:47
    +3

    Who gets to decide what is misinformation or disinformation? That is the main problem with this.

    Many things that have been labelled "misinformation" end up being correct. I'm pro-vaccine, but people saying that the vaccine prevents spread of COVID for example was 100% wrong, or misinformation in other words. On places like facebook etc you would have been censored for saying that it doesn't prevent the spread of COVID, because they (and the government) deemed the very correct fact "misinformation".

    • SpicyStew on 11/07/2023 - 17:16
      -1

      china decides

  • SpicyStew on 11/07/2023 - 17:15

    censorship time!

    social points for spreading positive government propergander

    • SBOB on 11/07/2023 - 17:33
      +3

      Bonus points if you spell propaganda correctly….

      • SpicyStew on 11/07/2023 - 17:37
        -1

        I bet you're fun at parties…

        • SBOB on 11/07/2023 - 17:46

          It generally helps when claiming the intelligent high road of opposing governmental oversight and tyrannical laws, that you at least know how the spell the words you're claiming the government is pushing :)

          Unless you were promoting how the government wants to you take a real quality hard look at things, aka proper gander?

          • SpicyStew on 11/07/2023 - 18:34

            @SBOB:

            1. you assume i'm opposing, which cannot be formed from my brief comment.
            2. you also forgot to correct me on lack of capital letters and punctuation or understand why there is a lack of on a public bargain forum
            3. you think english spelling is correlated to high intelligence (look up einsteins spelling skills he was german)

            you don't exhibit high intelligence or thoughtful insight
            you try hard but all you can go by is your engrish spelling that you've learned to memorize from someone telling you. not something you've worked out on your own which is the indicator of high intelligence and iq

            • SBOB on 11/07/2023 - 19:18
              +3

              @SpicyStew:

              you've learned to memorize from someone telling you

              sip
              Sounds like propergander….

  • CowFrogHorse on 11/07/2023 - 18:24
    +2

    The sooner the government bans third party advertising the better, for lying and disinformation.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join