While the US election was happening, the Australian government has pushed through, in the house of Representatives, the new MAD Bill - Mis and Dis information bill.
As far as I understand it, it will control and censor what we're allowed to say online, even more than now.
This website explains it better and if you scroll down you can sign the petition before it completely passes through and becomes law!
Look to the rest of the world to see where we might be headed. I summarise it in one word. Control.
https://maint.loc.gov/law/help/fake-news/china.php
"Spreading fake news that seriously disturbs public order through an information network or other media is a crime under China’s Criminal Law and is punishable by up to seven years in prison. The 2016 Cybersecurity Law prohibits manufacturing or spreading fake news online that disturbs the economic and social order. The Law also requires service providers, when providing services of information publication or instant messaging, to ask the users to register their real names."
https://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2023/opinion/austra…
"For example, Russia amended its Criminal Code in 2022 to make the spread of “fake” information an offence punishable with jail terms of up to 15 years, to suppress the media and political dissent about its war in Ukraine."
I'm confused, who are the controllers and controllees?
Generally the entity that has the power to imprison people is the controller. Hope this helps.
Err, the people behind this appear to be COOKERS (Malcolm Roberts, George Christensen, etc.) and operate via Telegram.
The summary of the bill is easy to find and read:
Amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to: impose obligations on digital communications platform providers in relation to the dissemination of content on a digital communications platform that contains information that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive, and is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm of a specified type (misinformation and disinformation); expand the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s compliance and enforcement powers in relation to misinformation and disinformation; and make consequential amendments. Also makes consequential amendments to 3 other Acts; and amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to make an amendment contingent on the commencement of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.
Nothing to see here .
Op brave move, posting in a nation of bedwetters.
Thank you, sir.
Oh please you lot have been sobbing about the sky falling for years; first covid was a depopulation mind control experiment, then the vaccine was was a government control experiment, then lockdown was never going to end, then the vaccines were all going to make us drop dead on October the 24th, 25th, 26th but not 2020, 2021, but not 2021, 2022, then the First Peoples were going to boot us all out if the Yes vote got up….and now the latest is the government is going to use this to censor everything and throw people into gulags….
I don't think anyone here needs lecturing about bedwetting
No, the vast majority just didn’t want to be forced to take an experimental drug.
It’s actually pretty simple aye?
Love a good vax, the voice, no.
So we are moving from SEO to what, Fact-Check Optimisation? AI truly would be the end of it all. Soon search engines would have an upvote and downvote button that let users censor and report 'inconvenient' information lol
I don't think this bill censors anything.
To give the government the power to suppress so-called misinformation or disinformation, and to punish those who refuse to conform, is to risk repeating the errors of history, such as the persecution of Giordano Bruno by the medieval Church for advocating ideas that challenged the prevailing orthodoxy. Just as the Church burned Bruno for suggesting revolutionary truths about the universe, empowering authorities today to decide what constitutes "truth" or "falsehood" risks stifling dissent, innovation, and progress. The suppression of controversial ideas often masquerades as protecting the public but can become a tool for enforcing conformity, silencing inconvenient truths, and undermining intellectual freedom.
Go away you spanner, and stop using AI, it's bloody obvious.
Oh, I am so scared of you, will you report me to your eSafty Boss? Please
Not sure if this solves the problem but in the past 10-15 years or so, facts have mattered little and opinions that go viral have somehow become accepted truths. The Lorenzo Van Matterhorn skid in HIMYM plays out in real life everywhere.
The major problem with this bill is that politicians decide what is true and what isn't true ! Facts don't matter.
To put it in terms that most of the oz bargain left majority would understand, how would you feel if Pauline Hanson or Trump were deciding what is true and what isn't.
You would be horrified !
This is what this bill has the power to do.
You may trust the current Australian leaders ( I don't) but you don't know who will be the future leaders.
This is false, politicians won't decide "what is true and what isn't true", it gives the ACMA (which is an independent body that regulates media in Australia) the power to make sure social media services have systems and measures in place to address mis/disinformation.
The bill has a lot of problems but if your opposition to the bill is based on this fundamental misunderstanding of its purpose, you should reconsider it before spreading false information about the bill.
Giving the power to the bureaucrats is even worse, as they are not elected officials but career government workers, the only thing they will do is to try to figure out how to please their boss and advance their own interests. This bill must be opposed 100%, and vote the Labor out next year.
Government chooses who is on ACMA.
Rubbish.
Amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to: impose obligations on digital communications platform providers in relation to the dissemination of content on a digital communications platform that contains information that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive, and is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm of a specified type (misinformation and disinformation); expand the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s compliance and enforcement powers in relation to misinformation and disinformation; and make consequential amendments. Also makes consequential amendments to 3 other Acts; and amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to make an amendment contingent on the commencement of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.
or Trump were deciding
Protecting free speech is a core principle of Trump's platform…
Yes, and like the LNP, free speech is any speech that they agree with.
free speech is any speech that they agree with
No, that's just not true.
source: https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/
- Republicans Will Dismantle Censorship & Protect Free Speech
We will ban the Federal Government from colluding with anyone to censor Lawful Speech, defund institutions engaged in
censorship, and hold accountable all bureaucrats involved with illegal censoring. We will protect Free Speech online.
@TightAl: Yes, also people calling Trump a nazi, rapist etc - it's all legal speech and will not be censored.
@trapper: Right, but Stephen King is banned from X because he called Musk a name.
Free speech - just watch what you say.
@foursaken: Stephen King is not banned on X.
Doesn't it occur to you to just take two seconds to actually check? before making yourself look like a fool.
@trapper: Oh okay, I'll do some checking.
Feb. Musk bans a group of leftwing journalists and commentators critical of Israel’s war in Gaza. Oh no, it was a "spam purge, sorry!"
X is currently complying with 100% of legal orders against its users. Free speech!
Of course, X is a champion of free speech in China! Oops! No.
July: Musk said he hoped some states would consider criminal prosecutions of people participating in what he called an advertiser “boycott” of platforms like his. Free speech!
Musk revived a long-running feud with a group that monitors hatred online, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, saying that its members should be prosecuted for “their many crimes.”
So of course Musk wouldn't censor X because a foreign government wanted it, because he's Mr Free Speech! Oops, no. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/09/25/elon-mu…
Let's move on to your mate Trumpy.
Media freedom? Nope! Do what I say, or else! FREE SPEECH!
Last Sunday Trump said he wouldn’t have minded if journalists had been shot during his assassination attempt.
Political opponent? Civil servant? You're going on a holiday unless you watch your mouth.
and on and on
Pull your head out of your ass.
Anyway, what do you care, you don't even live in Australia.
@foursaken: So Stephen King is not banned on X right.
Going to admit you were wrong on that? Of course not, just post some other random garbage.
@foursaken: The facts are very clear that Facebook censored news stories that made Biden look bad for months because the government advised Facebook to tackle the misinformation about his health and the issues around his son. Then Biden is removed from his own party for reelection because his dementia has progressed too far.
(I do have to point out that on reddit the gaslighting machine now tells us that he never intended to run for reelection, so you might have already had your memory updated to the latest version of "the truth")
Actual censorship, while you are focusing on Twitter - who did not comply with such directives in Brazil which had them banned.
Why are you so familiar with Elon Musk's issues? Is it because you get all your information from reddit? Do you realise it is heavily manipulated since it sold out to corporate ownership? That reddit has signed an agreement with Google to sell them all its content to train Google Gemini? What do you think happens next?
Is it good for democracy when the state can censor news stories they don't like? This isn't a hypothetical question anymore. What if orange hitler does the same, is it only wrong then?
This legislation is a continuation of both sides of government looking for a way to shut down twitter legally, because it is a threat to the power brokers that prefer you pay high taxes while their investments are subsidised.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/dec/21/australia…
@[Deactivated]: Sorry, no idea what any of this has to do with the bill. The "state" cannot "censor" using this bill.
As for shutting down Twitter, Musk is doing a great job himself.
@foursaken: It's an expansion of powers they are already using to attempt to shut down Twitter. They will be used in the same way as existing legislation. Twitter will be asked to censor or the platform will be banned.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-09-21/internet-onli…
As for shutting down Twitter, Musk is doing a great job himself.
I don't disagree, if he doesn't care about making money that's his business. If he ran a sanitised censored platform he would make more money
@[Deactivated]: Still no idea how you think "the government" is going to "shut down Twitter", like that's the objective of this legislation. In fact, I have no idea why you are here on a moderated, censored forum. Shouldn't it be against your creed? There's no free speech on Oz Bargain, or Australia for that matter.
If by "sanitised" and "censored" you mean something reasonable people actually want to use like it was before he got involved, you're right.
@foursaken: I am going to assume your question is genuine and you are not stereotyping me as some contrarian cooker.
The government will be able to use this legislation in the same way it has already used legislation to attempt to shut down twitter after they were unable to prove, to the satisfaction of the government, that twitter had sufficient controls to remove child pornography.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/dec/21/australia…
Now if your first thought is that I am defending the freedom of people to post child porn please just F Off. I have no interest in having a discussion about a serious topic with someone who clutches to emotional arguments when reasoning is required.
I am talking about how these laws could be used unfairly, for instance - if only twitter is targeted in this way but not other forums, and what recourse twitter has when the government decides their response isn't enough. If you don't understand, think about how laws against marijuana are only used primarily to incarcerate poor blacks in the USA.
'Misinformation' is in the eye of the beholder. By definition, a speculative statement cannot be 'fact checked'. Having this legislation on the books enables this government, and every government that comes afterwards, to decide a particular topic is Misinformation and then use that to shut down its discussion - by demanding that platforms like Twitter perform the censorship, indirectly, by badgering their target to demonstrate compliance with the law. Hence it doesn't matter if the law doesn't directly provide powers of censorship - its effect is censorship.
If you disagree with my understanding I am happy to be educated. But I expect you to approach this discussion honestly and not just twist my words for your entertainment
@[Deactivated]: I don't share you concerns, in fact I would say that any methods at all to drag us back towards pre-post-truth are most welcome in my eyes.
Either we wait for someone else to enact legislation, or we have a go, and I'm all for having a go. This bill isn't something I expect to survive Boofhead's election next year anyway.
I see where you're coming from though, and I have similar, negative feelings about the 16 year old social media ban. Terrible idea.
@foursaken: Both major parties have shown support for the legislation.
I can understand if you think the censorship won't eventuate because politicians might be afraid of voter backlash or some other disincentive, but I do have an issue with so many people claiming the bill isn't censorship.
We can already see this in action in the article you posted earlier, where the author focuses on 'Elon Musk bad' rather than the governments that are actively demanding the censorship
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/09/25/elon-mu…
@[Deactivated]: We clearly have a different definition of "censorship" - you're pushing American-style free speech which does not exist in Australia.
@foursaken: No, I am not confident that this legislation will never be abused, even if it is unlikely to be abused in the current political climate. I don't have any problem with actual criminal behaviour/hate speech/misinformation being flagged.
I know that but most people on here don't . They believe he is a Nazi because they are brainwashed by MSM. Just watch this comment quickly be down voted to prove my point !
Oh look at the poor victim!!
Jesus you RWNJ's are sickening.
The major problem with this bill is that politicians decide what is true and what isn't true
No the major problem is that anyone at all gets to decide for us what is true and what isn't.
Alot of the misinformation is deliberate state sponsored content from Russia.
They are in a Cyber war with us, and we just take it like bitches.
Alot of the misinformation is deliberate state sponsored content from our own government also.
The Russian government is less of a threat, because unlike our own government, it can't censor us.
AnotherRedLight could you give us an example of that ? And don't mention the Russians colluding with Trump to influence an election because that was proven to be misinformation.
Nah, I'm all for stopping people spouting disinformation and misinformation
Sure, but each to their own to figure that out not the ministry of truth by the government
If elections and social media have taught us anything, they taught us that many, many people are extremely gullible and unable to discern fact from fiction.
many people are extremely gullible and unable to discern fact from fiction.
and you want to put them in charge of deciding what we are allowed to say? No thanks.
@trapper: They aren't in charge. They are the ones who need the help.
Education is the key to not being easily fooled.
What's the use of misinformation and disinformation?
They aren't in charge. They are the ones who need the help.
This perspective reflects a certain naivety.
@trapper: Ditto.
You're afraid of fact checking, facts are facts.
Would you be ok with teachers teaching kids that the earth is flat?
No, you'd expect that they were taught fact, not fairytales.
Would you be ok with teachers teaching kids that the earth is flat?
Once upon a time they did!
and according to you it should have been illegal to dispute this.
@trapper: Fact checking stopped it.
You would've wanted it to be taught despite facts proving it wrong.
You're showing that you don't know how this works.
@imurgod: Teachers once claimed the Earth was the center of the universe.
Galileo studied the heavens and proved that wasn’t true.
The "fact checkers" of the time banned his work and threw him in prison!
You are being naive, mate.
@trapper: Do you read what you type?
That didn't happen, to begin with, but that's irrelevant.
If it had been discovered that the earth was round, but teachers still taught that it was flat, you'd have a point.
That's where you're going wrong, you don't understand what your against or why.
@trapper: No, I'm aware of that.
I'm saying it wasn't taught in schools, but doesn't change the point I make.
Are they still teaching it now?
That would be a problem, no?
@imurgod: The guy with the actual facts got banned and imprisoned by the "fact checkers".
And this is the world you want to live in.
No I will never agree. Free speech is critical and we must defend it.
@trapper: I agree but you're against free speech, can't you see that?
Its hard to debate this with you when you're not even sure what the topic is.
You're not describing free speech, you're describing scientific discovery in a time when the church controlled the state…. A dogmatic, disinformation machine!
@imurgod: Life is very good in Saudi Arabia for Saudis. They live much better than Australians do. That is another fact you aren't aware of.
Democracy doesn't work when the people voting have no interest in understanding the world
@[Deactivated]: I can see you've never been to Saudi Arabia…. Most Saudis live in poverty and they have absolutely no freedom of speech or really not even basic human rights.
You're for extreme censorship. We saw how that worked out.
@imurgod: 'Saudis' means people that are citizens, not people that happen to work there. Facts matter, without facts people end up not knowing what reality is and believing in stereotypes like you are sharing here.
I think you are the one for censorship not me. You have been arguing that the government can decide what facts are. And now you are saying you are against censorship.
Tell me what is heavier, 1000kg of feathers or 1000kg of steel?
@[Deactivated]: Yes, the citizens don't have much freedom at all. They are among the most heavily censored and least free of anyone on Earth!!
Jailed or killed for any opinions against the government, discrimination in the justice system, male guardianship system which treats women as legal minors, can't play any music that isn't religious, women can't travel without men's consent, religious police attacking anyone for religious reasons, among the worst women's rights on the planet - In 2024 Saudi Arabia ranked 126 out of 146 countries in the WEF gender gap forum. In 2023, Saudi Arabia ranked 131 out of 146 countries.
Hell women have only been allowed to drive since 2017, vote since 2011 and enter the Olympics since 2012.
I genuinely don't believe you understand the topic well enough to debate it because you claim one thing and then argue for the other.
I'll take facts over disinformation any day but then I'm able to discern fact from fiction… not everyone can….. and that's dangerous.
Nah, I'm all for stopping people spouting disinformation and misinformation
Just to be clear, this is you right? The one supporting government censorship. Why are you so concerned about what happens in Saudi Arabia when you ask for the same treatment for yourself?
When I said democracy was a mistake, it's because democracy means people like you get to vote also, people who don't even understand what they are voting for.
@[Deactivated]: You're confused again.
You're for Govt censorship… Refer your misinformation about Saudi Arabia.
I never mentioned supporting government censorship at all, you keep making that assumption…. You're spreading disinformation..
You attempted to say that Saudi Arabia has more freedom than Australians.
You were wrong.
You now want to deflect this because I proved you were completely clueless in your answer.
You said Democracy was a bad thing….
You were wrong again, despite the back pedaling …. Everyone except a criminal has the right to vote in a democracy and that's the crux of democracy as a concept… You're wanting to limit who can vote… Which stands to reason given your Saudi Arabia position.
You are confused by this stuff which is why you've gone straight to the non-existent boogeyman.
I'm for social media (in fact, all media) platforms taking responsibility for spreading misinformation and disinformation.
As you're experiencing, it has the potentional to confuse and mislead certain people.
You're learning that you're pro government overreach and prefer autocratic and fascist governments.
@imurgod: I haven't spread any misinformation about Saudi Arabia. Only you have. You believe "most Saudis live in poverty".
The average wage is over 100,000 AUD.
There is zero income tax
University is free
Healthcare is free
You, the one who claims to have such a strong ability to discern facts from disinformation fail the most basic test and cling to stereotypes.
@[Deactivated]: I rest my case.
You've just proved me right and shown that you haven't the faintest clue about facts.
@imurgod: I proved the point long ago. I believe you really do value freedom. But you also support your own government making laws that will result in censorship.
Read what I have said, not what you assume I have said. I said people in Saudi Arabia live better than Australians. They clearly do. Except they have less freedom - something you say is very important but you won't even defend it on an internet forum. Why? Because you can't think past "misinformation" and see what else this law will be used for.
@[Deactivated]: I'm sure you think you did but all you've done is contradict yourself over and over and make things up that don't exist.
By no measure is Saudi more free than Australia. That's just ludicrous.
I just think you really want to pretend the government is out to get you and that I am pro-Govt overreach, despite the fact that I literally never said so and, in fact, said the opposite.
I'll end this here so it doesn't descend into a slinging match.
I'm done with the whataboutisms and deflection. It's draining to have to keep repeating myself.
@imurgod: This has nothing to do with knowledge. It's a question of critical thinking. You assume I've said things I haven't said. You assume my intention is something other than what I say it is.
You brought up Saudi Arabia not me. My point was always about you.
I never said Saudi Arabia was more free, go back and read my posts. Why do you think I did?
@[Deactivated]: It does though. You keep trying to convince me that Saudi is freer than Australia when it's categorically not.
Education would allow you critical thinking (thus it is about education. You're even admitting it) and, despite you using it as a catchphrase, you're not using any critical thinking skills. You're repeating incorrect statements like a cult member.
I haven't assumed anything, your intention has been made clear by your comments…. They are pro-fascism and misinformed.
That's not my opinion, that's fact.
@imurgod: Education in critical thinking is important, so is experience.
You trust the government will only use this law to combat genuine misinformation.
Misinformation has already been used as an excuse for government censorship in many countries, including the USA where the Biden administration famously used "misinformation" as the reason they forced Facebook to censor posts critical of President Biden's health, for over a year.
If you don't know this is possible then I can see why you don't understand when I say you are for government censorship. You genuinely don't realise what this law can be used for.
@[Deactivated]: But Elon didn't do that with X, right?
That kind of thing…. What you're describing…. Would be reduced with fact checking. Remember, this is merely about influential platforms taking some responsibility to avoid things like inciting violence due to disinformation, like the Jan 6 insurrection attempt.
Anyway, we're never going to resolve this, so let's agree to disagree and for what it's worth, I don't truly believe you have bad intentions, I just think we view this topic from different perspectives.
It's been a fun discourse.
Good night.
But Elon didn't do that with X, right?
No, Elon did not. That is why the left hate Elon.
If you want to understand the truth you need to read both sides, not only what they tell you on reddit.
@imurgod: Not sure what that means but OK. I encourage you to read this conversation again with fresh eyes.
Courtesy of one of Senator Gerard Rennick’s facebook posts is the following info:
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/em…
on page 44
“Clause 13—Meanings of misinformation and disinformation
Clause 13 defines misinformation and disinformation for the purposes of Schedule 9.
Subclause 13(1) provides that dissemination of content using a digital service is
misinformation on the digital service if it meets all four of the following elements:
• the content contains information that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or
deceptive. ‘Information’ is intended to include opinions, claims, commentary and
invective
• the content is provided on the digital service to one or more end-users in Australia
• the provision of the content on the digital service is reasonably likely to cause or
contribute to serious harm (see subclause 13(3) and clause 14), and
• the dissemination is not excluded dissemination (see clause 16).
A couple of words above highlighted by Rennick are "opinions & commentary".
This is who they are aligned with: on page 48: “The World Economic Forum’s 2024 Global Risks Report warns that ‘misinformation and disinformation may radically disrupt electoral processes in several economies over the next two years’. On page 49: “ The World Health Organisation has warned that ‘misinformation online has the potential to travel further, faster and sometimes deeper than the truth’.
At least they are upfront about who they listen to for expert advice. Entities that are intimately tied with vested economic & corporate interests. It truly is an orwellian bill.
Slow news, China has been doing this for years
Curious… So we should just kick back, switch off, chug some beers and watch us turn into the supposed bad place? Bad because they have the law our leaders want?
People in China accept it because the government has lifted them out of poverty into prosperity.
Meanwhile the spineless majority here are demanding censorship while their quality of life decreases every year
1984 coming to Australia everyday. Didn't think I'd ever see "The ministry of truth" actually come true. I'm all for making 1984 fiction again.
The biggest flaw in this proposed legislation is government is not always correct, so when they say covid vaccines were safe, then years later come out and say that actually was not entirely correct, who should be held accountable?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Enz7Pi-6XMc
Does the government get in trouble? lol
It is not always possible to definitively verify something as True of Fact either, since no single entity can always be 100% correct. Conspiracy theories sometimes end up being true also.
Freedom of speech allows different views and perspectives to be heard, as finding truth is not always a simple matter. Should we believe everything one body tells us?
NO.
100% on accountability. The purpose of free speech is to hold those we put in power to be accountable. It doesn't matter if it's government or an independent body.
Information is the only way to combat misinformation. Censorship is the wrong solution, you remove them from accountability and as many have mentioned, even they are capable of misinformation and especially in volatile political environments, be pressured to control the information as admitted by Mark Zuckerberg. Censorship only works if the moderator were perfect but we do not live in a perfect world.
The irony is many of those who are for censorship are progressives. If it were not for free speech, their progressive ideas would have been censored long ago.
Government are excluded from the law so won't be accountable.
However there will be nothing to be accountable for as whatever is determined to be misinformation by the government will be deleted before anyone sees it, so we will never be aware that the government was ever wrong in order to even question it.
Blissful ignorance… Which a lot of people are quite happy with.
lol rebel news - that Avi guy is a (profanity)
damn so many spineless idiots are actually supporting the government on this lol. are you idiots? this is an overton window shifter for a bad future.
The idiots will downvote you - it's really a sad state of affairs in Australia.
You hear people say things like, "why didn't the slaves fight back they had the numbers!" - then go on clapping their hands for a government that's giving away more of their rights.
Unfortunately there's a lot of people who don't have the capacity or will power to think for themselves, so are quite happy to hand that task over to the government.
Being skeptical helps encourage us to hit pause on just believing in something because we hear or see it. Rather, pursuing knowledge through systematic doubt.
So did this get thrown in the trash like the current government is likely to at the next election?
I say this as someone who hates the libs more than labour.
Yes!
The Misinformation & Disinformation Bill didn't get to a vote. But on the 25th of Nov 2024 something called the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2024 was tabled in the House of Representatives by Zoe Daniel MP.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat…
Explanatory memorandum here:
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.…
It appears to be just another way of imposing obligations on providers that will effectively censor social media.
"To safeguard the wellbeing of Australian citizens, society, and democracy against the risk of misaligned digital systems and processes"
Platforms must do risk assessments including for (Division 6):
The dissemination of online scams
Negative effects on electoral processes and public security
Negative effects on civil and political rights, such as political freedoms, freedom of opinion and expression
Negative effects on gender-based violence, children’s best interest, public health
Serious negative consequences to Australian end-users, including their physical and mental wellbeing.
These politicians have absolutely no shame.
The dissemination of online scams
Was with it for this, but not after. That said, most scams would be too hard to crack down on, though a lil more effort from the platforms would be nice (eg FB fake profiles etc)
(eg FB fake profiles etc)
Yep, I struggle to come up with a reasonable explanation for why accounts that are impersonating others are left untouched.
So much misinformation about fluoride, we need to stop people discussing why something that only works via direct contact with tooth enamel is added to the water supply
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/23/fluo…