How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bill

Telling Big Brother what he wants to hear.

Australia’s Federal Government has recently introduced a new Bill into parliament aimed at cracking down on the spread of misinformation and disinformation on the internet.

Before the Bill becomes law, the Australian Senate referred its provisions to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for report by 25 November 2024. The purpose of inquiries like these is for the Senate committee to gather information, seek expert input, and scrutinise the bill to ensure it is sound, necessary, and beneficial.

Let’s be clear.

It is none of these.

In reality, the Bill proposes a dangerous overreach of government power, granting excessive control over what is deemed “truth”, silencing dissenting voices.

It is a clear attempt to restrict your freedom to have “wrongthink” as defined by the Government.

The threats of financial penalties will foster even greater self-censorship than we observed during the pandemic, and will create a system of State, peer and self-surveillance that is frighteningly Orwellian.

The only escape might be irony, satire or parody.

In that light, here is our submission to the inquiry on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024.

---

“I cannot express enough how deeply thankful I am for the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. In an age where the very fabric of our society is threatened by misinformation, I depend on the Government to step in and shield me from the tidal wave of lies and harmful content that floods our digital platforms daily.

Without this Bill, I am left vulnerable to the ravages of “anti-vaxxers”, conspiracy theorists, and those reckless individuals who spread falsehoods about our trusted institutions. They thrive in the dark corners of the internet, and every time I open my phone or check a news feed, I am exposed to their venomous rhetoric. Their lies not only endanger public health but erode my confidence in the very systems that are meant to keep me safe. What if they convince someone not to COVID-19 vaccinate their infant? What if they threaten the purity of financial markets? These are risks I cannot afford and the Bill will protect me.

Opponents of the Bill believe that definitions of “serious harm” are too broad, but I welcome that breadth. The harm caused by disinformation is not confined to just one area of life. It touches everything; health, security, our economy, and even the sanctity of our elections. I am grateful that the Government recognises this and has defined “serious harm” in a way that is all-encompassing. When it comes to protecting me and my fellow citizens, no harm should be considered too small. I am happy to know that every aspect of my wellbeing is under the watchful eye of those who know better.

It is further reassuring that the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is given such vast powers to oversee these platforms. Critics may say that the ACMA will have too much control, that it will become a censorship machine. But in reality, this level of oversight is exactly what we need. When I read something on social media, I want to know if it has been vetted, verified, and sanitised of any dangerous falsehoods by fact-checkers and bureaucrats. I do not want to have to think twice about whether a source is credible or whether the content I am consuming might lead me astray. The ACMA’s rigorous oversight means I can browse without fear. After all, I trust the Government to decide what is true and false far more than I trust some random person on the internet.

There will be some who baulk at the idea of turning platforms into regulatory watchdogs, requiring them to assess risks, keep records, and report to the ACMA. But platforms are required to take this responsibility to prevent disinformation from running rampant. These platforms need to understand that it is not enough to simply exist; they must protect me from the dangers that lurk within their code. And if that means they have to overhaul their entire business model, then so be it. My protection is far more important than their profits.

If digital communications platforms are required to hand over our private personal information to prevent “serious harm”, then I am confident our information will be used responsibly and will be secured by responsible Government agencies. Sacrificing our private, personal information for protecting the greater good is a small price to pay for the security and peace of mind I so desperately need.

However, the Bill is not perfect without some exemptions. These are needed to handle unique situations and make sure the law works in the real world. The exemption for professional news associations is not only necessary but entirely justified. These institutions, while not immune to occasional errors or the unintentional spread of misinformation or disinformation, operate with licences granted by the ACMA, demonstrating the trustworthiness of these professional news associations. Any of their missteps are understandable within the context of their broader role as vital sources of disseminating official government information, and any misinformation they may have disseminated is obviously well-intentioned. As such, it is only right that they be given the freedom to continue their essential work without the regulatory burdens placed on other platforms. The trust placed in these organisations reflects their crucial role in maintaining political order and stability for the Government of the day.

Finally, the exemption for satire and parody perfects this Bill. Satire can be dangerous; it can sow confusion and doubt, but under this Bill, it is carefully monitored. I trust that the regulators will have the wisdom to distinguish between harmless humour and something more insidious. Satire might have its place, but not when it risks contributing to serious harm. I am glad the Government is keeping a close eye on it, just in case.

In the end, this Bill is not just about protecting society; it is about protecting the single most important person in my life: me. I have so much to lose if misinformation is allowed to spread unchecked. If the Bill seems overzealous to some, then it is only because they have not grasped the full scope of the threat. This is not about limiting free speech; this is about ensuring that the speech I am exposed to is safe, truthful, and beneficial. The world is a scary place, full of misleading information that can harm me in more ways than I can count. I am relieved to know that my Government is stepping in to protect me; whether I realise the danger or not.

As John Stuart Mill so famously wrote:

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be entirely justified in silencing that one person, just as he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

---