The federal government has introduced a new bill in parliament to combat the spread of misinformation and disinformation on the internet. However, experts have criticized the government’s plans to ban young people from social media platforms and its privacy reforms, stating that bans are ineffective and privacy protections are inadequate for the digital age. The government published a draft of the bill last year for public consultation, receiving over 24,000 responses. The new version of the bill incorporates some expert recommendations but ignores many others.
The bill defines misinformation as content that contains false, misleading, or deceptive information spread on a digital service that is reasonably likely to cause serious harm. Disinformation, on the other hand, involves intent to deceive or inauthentic behavior such as the use of fake accounts. The bill requires social media platforms to assess the inherent risk of misinformation and disinformation and publish reports, media literacy plans, and current policies on combating them. It also grants stronger powers to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to issue directives and impose penalties on non-compliant platforms.
The bill focuses on addressing misinformation and disinformation that is reasonably likely to cause serious harm, including harm to electoral processes, public health, vilification based on race, religion, sex, or disability, physical injury, damage to critical infrastructure or emergency services, and harm to the Australian economy. Platforms that breach the bill could face civil penalties of up to 5% of their annual global turnover.
While the bill improves transparency and accountability for social media platforms, it lacks provisions for sharing data with researchers, academics, and civil society, limiting transparency. It includes protections for political discourse, public interest communication, satire, humor, professional news content, and content for academic, artistic, scientific, or religious purposes. The bill will be regularly reviewed to assess its impact on freedom of expression. Limitations that would have excluded electoral and referendum matters have been removed, addressing concerns about misleading information during elections.
However, the bill maintains a distinction between misinformation and disinformation, which experts argue is unnecessary and unhelpful. They argue that intent is difficult to prove, and the result of spreading false content is the same regardless of intent. The bill also does not cover mainstream media, including outlets that contribute to the spread of misinformation, such as climate change denial. This omission diminishes the bill’s relevance in addressing the harm caused by misinformation. Overall, experts believe the bill is unlikely to achieve its goals as it goes against expert advice and neglects important issues.
