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

- xdigger on 12/07/2023 - 13:39
  
  Or media corporate ownership. Murdoch media is very pro-American because of Rupert's business and political interests in the US.
  
  Of course the ACMA won't tackle that because they cannot offend the powerful media barons, its easier to just target their smaller competitors or everyday Aussies posting with critical thinking skills.
  - CowFrogHorse on 14/07/2023 - 20:01
    
    -1
    
    You havent thought this through. Without advertising papers and tv stations will tank and greedy aresholes like Murdoch wont bother to run them, as they will be loss makers.
Danstar on 11/07/2023 - 18:33

Imagine if the likes of Hitler and Mussolini were alive today; they’d love all this sort of control.
Saver Scott on 11/07/2023 - 19:57

What happens to the transgenders?
- Aneurism on 12/07/2023 - 04:10
  
  +2
  
  They probably use this to declare any speech that is adverse to their viewpoints will be classified as misinformation but will now have the ability to push and threaten until people give in
DogGunn on 11/07/2023 - 20:45

I don't you could have selected a worse person to argue against the bill than Meryl Dorey.
bobswinkle on 12/07/2023 - 08:39

+2

It's pretty amusing that this entire thread is a perfect case study for why we need interventions to deal with misinformation online. Most people in this thread haven't read the bill, haven't engaged with what it's trying to achieve and are basically just making things up. The level of hyperbole is absolutely unreal for something which is really a pretty minimal intervention in which the government will have absolutely no say on what is and isn't 'truth' (despite all the claims to the contrary on here).

It literally says on the opening page: "The ACMA will not have the power to request specific content or posts be removed from digital platform services."

This bill is about forcing social media companies to have systems that will allow them to combat misinformation when it arises. It is designed to stop social media platforms who claim that removing content on their platform is "too hard" and then wash their hands of any moral responsibility for it being there.

We know international governments are trying to influence Western countries and politics through misinformation. We know that vested interests are spreading misinformation for their own benefit. We know only scammers and trolls are spreading misinformation for either monetary gain or clout. The only thing this bill requires is that social media companies build systems that allow them to take said content down.

THIS BILL DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL THE POWER TO REQUIRE A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM TO REMOVE ANYTHING. ANYONE WHO CLAIMS OTHERWISE HAS NOT READ THE BILL AND IS JUST A HYPERBOLIC IDIOT.

It's astounding that so many people on here are espousing the benefits of critical thinking while doing absolutely none of their own.
- [Deactivated] on 12/07/2023 - 09:25
  
  +2
  
  Institutional trust levels are at an all time low. We cannot blame it all on people not taking any bit of effort when the government is not making sure that people are involved in the administrative processes.
  - bobswinkle on 12/07/2023 - 09:44
    
    +2
    
    I would say there's a direct causative relationship between social media and misinformation and the reduction in institutional trust levels. Nonetheless, I think people should take personal responsibility to inform themselves to the bare minimum before spouting their opinions online. The information is on the first page of the linked website. It's not that hard.
    
    The government has posted this online for comment, providing complete transparency and asking people to provide input. Are you suggesting they should do more?
    - xdigger on 12/07/2023 - 13:32
      
      +3
      
      In asking for public 'feedback', the government is just paying lip service to the vestiges of democracy as they will pass each bill one at a time to chip away at our freedoms. Much like how the $368 billions AUKUS subs deal went ahead to support the US illegal wars across the world, 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.
      
      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 if passed will stop all future Julian Assanges from ever reaching the masses. You ever think of that?
      - aisling on 12/07/2023 - 14:01
        
        -2
        
        @xdigger: Objection - irrelevant speculation
      - bobswinkle on 12/07/2023 - 14:11
        
        -1
        
        @xdigger: You're conflating so many different issues here. Either to muddy the waters or because you're not compartmentalising appropriately.
        
        "Vestiges of democracy" - What? We hold an election every cycle. The people deciding on this bill have all been duly elected through a free and fair election. That is democracy.
        
        "This bill if passed will stop all future Julian Assanges from ever reaching the masses." - Please tell me precisely how this legislation would ever do so. Nothing Julian Assange leaked was misinformation or disinformation. It would not fall within the remit of the processes and procedures this covers. Would other legislation? Potentially. I won't argue the government doesn't sometimes protect its secrets. But this legislation just doesn't and claiming it might is nothing short of completely wrong.
        
        xdigger on 12/07/2023 - 14:16
        
        +1
        
        @bobswinkle: Nothing Julian Assange leaked was misinformation or disinformation? Sure obviously not now after the truth have been revealed.
        
        The US government labeled Julian Assange a liar at the beginning as part of damage control from the Wikileaks fallout. And you think Australia would protect her own Assange after the US has spoken? How naive.
        
        bobswinkle on 12/07/2023 - 14:36
        
        @xdigger: What? What are you talking about?
        
        First, most of the leaks from Wikileaks were released via traditional media. Which is expressly exempted under the legislation and would not be subject to even the limited powers set out in it.
        
        Second, what has this got to do with the arrest of Julian Assange? This legislation has nothing to do with the criminal laws under which Assange was arrested…
  - aisling on 12/07/2023 - 14:00
    
    facepalm
    This whole thread is about a government effort to make sure that people are involved in the administrative processes!!!!
    
    They are literally seeking everyone's feedback on this bill:
    https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-pow…
- reactor-au on 12/07/2023 - 09:45
  
  +3
  
  You mean like how department of home affairs didn't ask social media companies to remove content about COVID on behalf of department of health between 2020 and 2022? https://youtu.be/t_P2DVCAyNE
  - bobswinkle on 12/07/2023 - 09:51
    
    -3
    
    So? The government asked Facebook to enforce its own policy in relation to specific posts. Facebook was still the decision maker about whether or not to remove that content. At no point was the violent power of the state wielded against Facebook.
    
    Governments have done this for centuries in relation to all forms of media. This is nothing new. The government's position and advocacy relating to COVID misinformation was a matter of public record. They were upfront about the fact they were asking social media to apply their own policies to particular posts. They did not demand in any way for Facebook or others to remove the posts and they had no power to take action if Facebook disagreed with them (and Facebook did, on numerous ocassions)
    - reactor-au on 12/07/2023 - 10:45
      
      +4
      
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obA8AX0s9HA
      
      Sounds like you are just making excuses for government, this behaviour of censorship is not exclusive to Australia as seen in the Twitter Files and the US elections, COVID, etc. The ACMA bill takes it further by removing any requirement of social media company policies to uphold their policies, the ACMA will decide what information is disinformation or misinformation and impose fines if social media do not enact the takedown request.
      - bobswinkle on 12/07/2023 - 10:51
        
        -2
        
        @reactor-au: It's. Not. Censorship. The government has no power to compel the removal of any content under this bill. Period.
        
        There. Is. No. Takedown. Request. There is literally no mechanism in this bill that will allow ACMA or any other government official to demand a website takedown anything.
        
        You. Can't. Read. Legislation.
        
        reactor-au on 12/07/2023 - 15:02
        
        -1
        
        @bobswinkle: So the gov just want to decide what is and isn't misinformation but doing absolutely nothing about it after? Yeah right.
      - SBOB on 12/07/2023 - 11:32
        
        +1
        
        @reactor-au:
        
        as seen in the Twitter Files
        
        oh, well if its in the "Twitter Files' it must be uncensored and completely unbiased reporting of 'facts'.
        why didnt you say so :/
        
        reactor-au on 12/07/2023 - 15:01
        
        -1
        
        @SBOB: And having he facts kept private makes them more true?
        
        SBOB on 12/07/2023 - 16:58
        
        -2
        
        @reactor-au:
        
        facts
        
        If you're claiming twitter files as definitive, unbiased, completely detailed out 'factual' reporting…..well, I think you're using the word facts wrong. Most of it was misrepresentation of screenshots or emails, or elaborations of half the information in an email chain while ignoring the other half to help tell a narrative
        
        For someone whose like pro "free speech", anti censorship, against mainstream media bias and half truths, using the twitter files as something of 'evidence' is hilarious.
        
        reactor-au on 12/07/2023 - 17:07
        
        -1
        
        @SBOB: And someone whom 100% discounts the Twitter files is clearly unbiased and not billions to the dangers of censorship. Got it, thanks.
        
        SBOB on 12/07/2023 - 18:22
        
        -2
        
        @reactor-au: Not discounted, actually read including not just the 'tweet' words.
        
        But hey, you just keep on doing that cute 'critical thinking'.
        
        reactor-au on 12/07/2023 - 18:30
        
        -3
        
        @SBOB: Don't worry mate, the government will be censoring these types of discussion in the near future. You won't have to do any thinking of any sort, they will do that for you.
        
        bobswinkle on 13/07/2023 - 08:19
        
        -1
        
        @reactor-au: Lmao. Tell me precisely what in the Twitter files you found shocking? The part where a campaign asked Twitter to remove hacked nude photos of someone who was not running for government? Shock horror! They wanted Twitter to remove illegally posted personal photos of someone! Disgusting!
        
        If you actually read the underlying emails to the Twitter files, you'll see that not only was there no government compulsion to remove anything but that Twitter refused to remove a bunch of content that both political sides asked them to. And suffered zero consequences from that refusal. Everything was done pursuant to Twitter's own policies, not a government policy.
        
        There's literally nothing in the Twitter files that shows the government censoring anybody. It was such an absolutely ridiculous beat up. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
        
        reactor-au on 24/07/2023 - 20:56
        
        -2
        
        @bobswinkle: https://youtu.be/M28tXX0cvvI
        
        Well let me know if you still thinking the Twitter files was only about hacked photos 😆
        
        bobswinkle on 24/07/2023 - 21:26
        
        @reactor-au: God damn you conspiracy theorists find it hard to focus don't you. That video only mentions the "Twitter files" in passing and is otherwise an incoherent rant from a vested interest of the far right media. Nothing she's ranting about is definitively proven and she is protected by the forum. It's a hack job FFS. Use your critical thinking skills.
        
        reactor-au on 24/07/2023 - 22:52
        
        -1
        
        @bobswinkle: Be careful not to mistake critical opinion for critical thinking, it just proves why censorship is so dangerous and why we should let people think for themselves.
        
        bobswinkle on 25/07/2023 - 06:32
        
        @reactor-au: You do realise that the Hunter Biden laptop was a total non story right? Three Republican lead inquries concluded it in no way implicated Joe Biden, and serious questions have been raised about whether it's a foreign state disinformation campaign. I have to say I disagree with Facebook and Twitter's decision to remove it from their platforms, but mostly because it created a Streisand effect for what was a complete joke of a story.
        
        Nonetheless, even with their decision to remove it, there is still literally zero evidence it was censored. They made the decision to do so off the back of a perceived reputational risk after they facilitated the spread of Russian propaganda in 2016. No one made them. No one compelled them.
- xdigger on 12/07/2023 - 13:25
  
  +4
  
  Slippery slope mate, passing the Bill means the feds can expand on it once it gets broadly accepted by the public. The Identify and Disrupt Act 2020 comes to mind.
  
  New surveillance law Identify and Disrupt Act 2020 Put Nail in the Coffin of Democracy
  https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/identify-and-d…
  - bobswinkle on 12/07/2023 - 14:13
    
    -3
    
    'Put a nail in the coffin of democracy'… Be less hyperbolic… You'll find it far, far easier to convince people
    - xdigger on 12/07/2023 - 14:19
      
      +3
      
      Views are not my own. They are Sydney Criminal Lawyers's per the link. Its obvious now that it would suit the government (your?) agenda if these public defenders and their free speech do not exist in Australian society.
      - bobswinkle on 12/07/2023 - 14:29
        
        @xdigger: Actually they're the views of Paul Gregoire who is a journalist. Anyone can publish under a name like Sydney Criminal Lawyers. Nonetheless, because someone else is being hyperbolic doesn't mean you should just follow their lead and spread it around. You adopt it by choosing to post here in support of your comment.
        
        The weird thing is, despite those laws passing, everyone is still publishing huge amounts of criticism of the government every day. Chicken Little springs to mind. Can you show me an example of where these laws have been used to kill off democracy?
- trapper on 21/07/2023 - 10:23
  
  +2
  
  It literally says on the opening page: "The ACMA will not have the power to request specific content or posts be removed from digital platform services."
  
  Yeah they won't remove your post… just request your personal information so they can hunt you down and fine you thousands of dollars. lol man
  
  For posting something that may even be factually true.
  - bobswinkle on 21/07/2023 - 14:28
    
    -2
    
    Lmao nothing in this legislation says anything about requesting personal information. You're just making shit up now…
    - trapper on 21/07/2023 - 15:26
      
      +2
      
      https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/docume…
      
      The proposed powers would:
      - enable the ACMA to gather information from, or require digital platform providers to keep certain records about matters regarding misinformation and disinformation
      
      It does seem more generally aimed at punishing the digital platforms if they allow people to post even factually true information that goes against the government narrative.
[Deactivated] on 12/07/2023 - 09:21

+3

Exposing the funding received by the media will help a lot more than these censorship laws. Most of news is just advertising and vested interest biases pretending to inform and educated viewers. I guess they don't really want to solve the problem because they want to use these tools arbitrarily and for their own benefit.
- aisling on 12/07/2023 - 14:06
  
  -1
  
  Hi StiffHindQuarters, that is an excellent point that I agree should be incorporated into this bill, or perhaps a suite of new legislation to protect people from scammers and bad actors with vested interests online.
  
  Why don't you submit your proposal for consideration? Do you have any ideas on implementation/ enforcement?
  
  https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-pow…
- CowFrogHorse on 14/07/2023 - 20:02
  
  +1
  
  WHich is precisely why third party advertising which this is an example of should be banned.
pr0o on 12/07/2023 - 15:38

+1

would this apply to dailymail and news.com.au?
qaz182 on 13/07/2023 - 11:57

+4

Name one time in human history when the group fighting to ban books and censor speech were the good guys
- aisling on 13/07/2023 - 20:17
  
  -3
  
  The people who banned Mein Kampf
  - aisling on 14/07/2023 - 23:07
    
    -3
    
    I was downvoted! Guess that confirms there are literal Nazis in this thread :/
    - trapper on 21/07/2023 - 15:42
      
      Mein Kampf isn't banned.
- CowFrogHorse on 14/07/2023 - 20:04
  
  +2
  
  Like most people here it would appear nobody understands why people or organisations say lies in the media. They do it for money and nothing else. Take away the money and they wont bother wasting their time with fake news generations.
  
  Ban third party advertising and a large portion of fake news disappears. Advertising is the start that makes this all possible as it pays the bills.
- Ughhh on 16/07/2023 - 10:13
  
  What if someone wrote a book about you and how you created x disease to end a particular race? Ban or no ban?
OzBarAnon on 13/07/2023 - 16:10

+1

Literal Ministry of Truth. Let's go!
quog on 25/07/2023 - 11:21

+1

4 pages and still no one has actually defined what misinformation is.

Just curious if those in favour of this proposal would be in favour if the exact same proposal came from LNP?
sintro on 31/07/2023 - 17:47

See Australians for Science Freedom and Maat's Method Law Firm Joint Submission PDF for the key points, with recommendations included:
A. What are Australia’s obligations with respect to freedom of speech and freedom of expression?
B. What does the Bill do and why is it problematic?
C. Conclusion
mrdean on 05/08/2023 - 17:10

+3

The deadline for feedback has been extended to the 20th of August.

This bill, & the process, is a good example of how the governments & corporations get to implement something they want, whilst making it sound like it's something good for the country. It isn't good.

Some posters here claim there is nothing to be concerned about, the bill is not going to do what the crazies are claiming it will do or lead to. But sadly, these posters are not seeing the bigger picture. The bigger picture is the framework being built that slowly creates a society where everything is monitored & subject to bureaucratic & corporate control.

Under "The Issue" is: "Misinformation and disinformation pose a threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society and economy."

Really. Who says so? From this basis, all of a sudden there must be powers given to ACMA to "gather information" & to "create & enforce an industry standard".

Who gets to decide what "misinformation" or "disinformation" means? They say it is "harmful", but who is going to decide what "harmful" is defined as?

The posters here who don't see the bigger picture point to the governments claim that ACMA will not have the "power to request specific content or posts be removed from digital platform services", so that means it is ok. But that is not the point is it, when at the risk of suffering crippling financial penalties for platform providers if they fail to adhere to removing whatever is considered "misinformation" or "disinformation", online companies will indeed censor & remove content all thanks to a "code of practice". ACMA & the government shift the responsibility on & absolve themselves & keep their hands clean all the while exempting themselves from the proposed regulations.

This is how governments & corporations operate. Heed the lesson well. The banality of words that create a poisonous framework.

The government & the corporations have been BY FAR the biggest disseminators of misinformation & disinformation, EVER.
- xdigger on 08/08/2023 - 10:37
  
  +3
  
  Yup, couldn't agree more. When AUKUS was first proposed it was sold to us as making Australia more stable and increasing local jobs.
  
  However, ABC Investigations today just revealed the fat cat ex-pollies and their American beneficiaries are celebrating their big win at the expense of the non-Defence portions (Housing, Medicare, etc) of the federal budget.
  
  Imagine a future where ABC Investigations couldn't report freely anymore under this new bill because it has been classed as misinformation by those same vested interests in government.
  
  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-08/aukus-lobbyists-mps-d…

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

Comments

New Forum Topics