16 September 2024

‘Fascists’: Proposed new misinformation law criticised by Elon Musk, right-wing MPs

| Oliver Jacques
Join the conversation
35
Elon Musk smiling

Elon Musk sees himself as a champion of free speech. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

A proposed Federal Government law that gives it the power to crack down on misinformation on social media platforms has been criticised as an attack on free speech by tech billionaire Elon Musk and several right-leaning Australian MPs.

A new bill, introduced to Parliament on Thursday (12 September), aims to give the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), new powers to gather information, keep records and impose penalties on digital platforms (such as Facebook and X) to combat what it sees as “seriously harmful misinformation and disinformation”.

Under the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill, ACMA would attempt to impose a maximum fine of 5 per cent of a digital platform’s global revenue if it were deemed to spread misinformation.

“Fascists,” was the one-word comment tech billionaire and X (formerly Twitter) owner Elon Musk made in response to the prospect of this on his platform.

Mr Musk sees himself as a champion of free speech and has also criticised other national governments that have attempted to regulate social media.

READ ALSO Liberal overlays show comparable stadiums fit on Acton Waterfront site

Minister for Government Services Bill Shorten was quick to hit back at his latest slur.

“Elon Musk has more positions on our free speech than the Kama Sutra,” he said in an interview on Channel Nine.

“When it’s in his commercial interests, he is the champion of free speech; when he doesn’t like it, he’s going to shut it all down.”

Government Services Minister Bill Shorten hit back at Elon Musk. Photo: Region.

X has been criticised for amplifying misinformation in the wake of recent news events.

“Mis- and disinformation about the stabbing attacks in Bondi Junction and recently in Southport, UK, are just two examples that illustrate the need for digital platforms to do more to prevent and respond to its spread,” Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said in her speech to introduce the bill.

“In its 2023 report to government, the ACMA called on industry to take further steps to review the scope of the code and its ability to adapt quickly to technology and service changes. The code has only nine signatories – major digital platforms like X and Telegram are not signatories, meaning there are wide gaps in coverage across the digital platform industry.”

Senator Gerard Rennick, a former Liberal MP who recently became an independent, criticised the fact the bill excluded education institutes and government departments from its remit.

“You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to realise that the Misinformation Bill is about shutting down people who go against the government narrative,” he wrote on Facebook.

“To exclude governments, media and universities just goes to show how belligerent and unashamed the authorities have become in exerting power … this Bill needs to be killed stone cold dead.”

READ ALSO ‘Legal aid for NIMBYs’: Housing group calls on ACT Government to scrap planning advice service for residents

Nationals MP Matt Canavan called it “one of the worst pieces of legislation to ever come before our democratic parliament”.

“This is a bill to protect government bureaucrats from criticism,” he said.

Minister Rowland, though, said her government needed to address a growing problem.

“Misinformation and disinformation pose a serious threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society and economy,” she said.

”Doing nothing and allowing this problem to fester is not an option.

“The government is committed to keeping Australians safe online, and that includes ensuring the ACMA has the powers it needs to hold digital platforms to account for misinformation and disinformation on their services.”

Join the conversation

35
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

I like how you use the term ‘right-wing MPs’. So people who are concerned about our freedom of speech are somehow right-wing? Why didn’t you mention that legal experts like the Victorian Bar Council and the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, which represent over 15,000 workers in media and cultural sectors, are also against the proposed bill. Are they right-wing as well? Just goes to show the left-wing bias of the reporter and the Riotact.

Peter McSwine4:56 pm 18 Oct 24

So true – their information is my disinformation – the left are not consistent – Ministry of Truth –

Misinformation and disinformation? This is code for anything this Labor Government doesn’t agree with. They just want to have the ability to be able to shut down debate and criticism of their policies. So much for living in a free society with freedom of speech. Are they planning to have a Ministry of Truth? Welcome to China…

dazzer, “misinformation” and “disinformation” were not invented by the labor government. They are defined in formal terms by professionals in the fields of psychology, sociology, linguistics, security and others I have not checked. You are trying to recode them as merely political terms, and that is false, disinformation on your part or perhaps mis- if you lack comprehension. It is not, however, actionable under any current or proposed law so your claim of shutting down debate is just another furphy. Debate is not carried forward by that which is knowingly false.

Musk has already won when this is framed as ‘free speech’ versus regulation. It’s not free speech, Musk is the boss of a platform that aggresively promotes radical and divisive opinions to increase ‘engagement’. He’s a rich bully offering people money to punch strangers. In real life, most people would keep a wide berth.
I’m wary of government intervention too but suggesting billionaire publishers who push sensationlist headlines are on the receiving end of government over-reach is a bit rich.

In case anyone is actually interested in what is proposed rather than in their prior opinions, you will find here the proposed legislation, explanatory memorandum, and impact analysis.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7239

There is also Law Council commentary on the exposure draft in 2023, which you can find readily yourself.

No, I am not intending to answer questions on it. If you do plan to read it all, settle back for a while. It is a difficult problem.

HiddenDragon9:44 pm 16 Sep 24

People who think this is a great idea because it would be a weapon against the internet Orcs and the evil Murdoch empire (or words to that effect) need to reflect on the prospect of the same weapon being turned against their beloved progressive/Left websites and media outlets.

Regardless of how soothingly and reassuringly this proposal is being framed, it is a step down the same road that the Menzies government embarked upon when it sought to “protect the freedoms” of the Australian people by banning the Communist Party of Australia – a power grab which was vehemently opposed by the then Labor Party.

Labor doesn’t want you to be anonymous online.
No more leaving bad reviews or sites like this.

The story headline says is all. Elon Musk and ‘right-wing MPs” are on the fringe (as always), and the progressive part of our society (self acclaimed intellectuals, ‘ left-wing MPs’, and alike) are submissive to this latest egregious attack to common sense and our basic freedoms – the freedom to hear all sides of a story (any story) and make our own conclusion on what it means and what the truth might be.
And, for Bill Shorten having a dig at Elon Musk in his way out of the political spotlight, in a way that other pests/parasites did before him (likes of Jackie Lambie et ali.) – if I were Elon Musk I would say I am feeling good about it! As the old adage says: “Tell me who is praising you and who is cursing you, and I’ll tell you what sort of a person you are!”
What good has Bill Shorten done in his time in the Parliament? NDIS? He has saddled generations of Australians to come with the burden that they will have to carry, until their back breaks. He would be well advised to keep his mouth shut now that he is exiting the circus we call the Parliament, on his way to a well paid cushy retirement that parasites like him always get in the end. Good riddance, I’ll say!

Morality is essential to truth because only the honest person can pursue, evaluate and hold knowledge honestly – only honest knowledge equating to truth; any objections to this on relative grounds being self-destructive.
Politicians are not honest people and are therefore the last people on earth you’d pick as the arbiters of truth.
But despite the above making absolute perfect sense – supported as it is with logical and concrete examples – I still feel compelled to tell the tale of the bee and fly, being the honest guy that I am:
The bee told the fly that nectar is better than crap and yet the fly wasn’t able to understand

… yet the fly wasn’t able to understand why the bee was so stupid it had no concept of ecological niches, or the importance of recycling.

In your case, you confuse the roles of politicians, administrators and courts. There is not much value in honesty without understanding the question, nor in presumptions of “truth” without consequences.

I have zero faith in our government being able to determine what is mis/disinformation, no matter which party is in power.

You don’t fight the spread of incorrect information through censorship, you fight it with better information.

@chewy14
While I agree that ‘government being able to determine what is mis/disinformation’ is hard to accept, as we have seen on here, countering misinformation with factual (better) information doesn’t always work.

Justsaying,
and I would say that is the lesser of 2 problems.

It’s better to have people free to debate ideas and information rather than having the government deciding what is allowable, no matter how well their intentions may be.

It’s too easy for them to decide what is “true” and “acceptable” based on their own beliefs, which we’ve already seen in recent years in numerous debates.

And as above, this goes for any party who would be in power.

@JustSaying
Yeah, countering misinformation with facts doesn’t always work.

Only thing worse is letting politicians decide what the “facts” really are.

Can you imagine if Scummo (the man of many ministries) had those powers available to him? What if Dutton had them

@JustSaying where have we seen that? During COVID, when most information was censored and the “factual information” we were given was simply “it’s safe & effective” with few actual studies to back it up?

@chewy14 Absolutely, 100%. Govt deciding what opinions we can & can’t have is the fastest way back to the really horrific things that have happened in the past.

@Bernard
Having government decide on mis/disinformation is hard to accept – and I certainly agree with chewy14 that iot doesn’t matter which flavour of government.

@Vousie
Actually, I used the best resource available to me during COVID – it was my GP, who has looked after my health for over 20 years and whose professional opinion I trust.

@chewy14
The issue is not the debate – being able to defend one’s opinion is a healthy pursuit.

It’s those who consume the mis/disinformation (a euphemism for lies) and then ‘mobilise and take action’ because they believe the lies being circulated.

Again, I agree governments (as you say, no matter the flavour) are not the best arbiter on ‘what is “true” and “acceptable”’.

The challenge? How to ‘educate’ people to be able to differentiate between opinion and lie. Is legislation the answer? Probably not – but I don’t think self (or no) regulation within the social media industry is the answer either.

Justsaying,
I think there is a large chasm between no or self-regulation and what the government is proposing.

I definitely believe there is a role for government regulation in the space to reduce harmful information and increasing the overall level of discourse but what they are currently proposing is way over the top and more dangerous than the risk of what they are trying to control.

I think supporters of this bill haven’t fully considered the implications of having a government you may fundamentally disagree with deciding what is allowable and correct.

Lies, misinformation and “alternative facts” are not pillars of free speech. In fact, they are the opposite. This dude’s inability to tell the difference is exactly why there needs to be more protection.

The question is, who decides what is lies or misinformation and should be blocked from public view? If you trust the government to do it impartially, then you are far more trusting than most.

Even if you trust the current government to not abuse those powers for their own benefit, what about the next one? Are you happy for the LNP to get in and be the arbiters of truth with the power to block anything they don’t want seen by the Australian public?

The Biden administration tried to implement something similar last year and it was rightfully laughed it and then scrapped as the dangerous joke that it was.

We’ve already seen the Labor government decide for us that a certain piece of video was not in the public interest to be allowed on the internet and unsuccessfully attempted to have it blocked, not just within Australia but globally. I don’t know about you but I don’t want anyone deciding for me what information is “in my best interest” to have access to, do you?

Giving the government the power to decide what is right and what is “misinformation” or “disinformation” and to silence anyone who disagrees with their position… I don’t see any way in which this could possibly be abused. Just look at the other pillars of virtue that do the same, such as North Korea, Iran and China etc.

“When it’s in his commercial interests, he is the champion of free speech; when he doesn’t like it, he’s going to shut it all down.”

That is a blatant lie. His position on free speech is the very opposite of his commercial interest. He has had large numbers of advertisers pull out from Twitter because he refuses to censor people on the platform.

Governments aligning their positions on censorship with authoritarian regimes is definitely not a good look.

Bob, if Musk is, as you apparently believe, virtuous regarding “free speech the very opposite of his commercial interest” then why is he suing advertisers who exercised their right to withdraw from his platform?

Or, to quote from financial commentary sources in the US about his 23 active lawsuits (pay attention to the second paragraph):

“Musk, Tesla, X, and SpaceX have sued competitors, startups, law firms, watchdog groups, individuals, the state of California, federal agencies, and pop star Grimes, who is the mother of three of his children.
Musk has been so legally aggressive that one judge decided his litigation was more about revenge than justice: “This case is about punishing the defendants for their speech,” the judge said.”

Companies taking legal action to protect their financial interests from activist organisations running campaigns to get all of the advertisers to quit his business? You think any other company wouldn’t be doing the same? What advertiser is he suing for leaving the platform?

Whatever you think about Musk personally, he knew that his purchase of twitter and turning it into a free speech platform was going to be divisive and probably cause people to start hating his guts, he said as much before the purchase. The left loves their censorship and he knew that it was going to lose him money but he did it anyway on principle.

I don’t see anyone else starting platforms to allow people to speak freely without overt government and corporate censorship. You may not agree but I personally see freedom of speech as a good thing.

I honestly don’t care about Elon, he can do whatever he wants, my point is that I am and will always 100% remain opposed to government censorship, like this utterly egregious over-reach.

CVS Heath, Mars, Unilever, others. Why are you writing when you do not even know the simple things about ti?

Your proposition, when translated to company level, appears to be that a shop can sue me for failing to buy their goods again if I have ever bought there before!

From what planet does that thinking arise? Especially after that shop (Musk) has already told me they do not care if I leave and that I should do so in a copulative fashion (to ameliorate his actual epithets).

My comment on his pure hypocrisy stands. Thank you for the opportunity to make it clearer.

Regarding “free speech” in your terms, you never had it and never will, or have you zero comprehension of how societies have worked since the dawn of time? At least today there is improving rationality over basis and rule of law rather than it being merely authoritarian. We have moved on from lese majeste to actual consequences of incitement and hate within society.

I was writing on government censorship, you were the one that decided to drag the conversation onto your irrational hatred of Elon Musk. I honestly don’t care how triggered the man makes you, it’s irrelevant to everyone else but you.

I made no such proposition and you know it. Feel free to keep your obvious strawman arguments to yourself as I have no interest in them.

“Especially after that shop (Musk) has already told me they do not care if I leave and that I should do so in a copulative fashion”

Yeah, that was great wasn’t it? 🙂

Anything disagreeing with the far left is “incitement and hate” got it. Have a nice day.

Bob, please get a grip.

Who “dragged” in Musk? You, in your opening post to which I responded that your view of his virtues regarding free speech was wholly divorced from reality.

You asked “would not any other company do the same?” then challenged me to name any whom Musk was suing. ROFL, tough one that.

In response to you saying other companies would do the same, I explained the literal nature of Musk’s febrile claim, yet, despite you having just written it, you claim you never thought it. OK, I take you at your word that you that you write without thinking.

In your affirmation of Musk telling advertisers to depart, you fully support all critiques regarding his absurd hypocrisy.

Nowhere did I mention “the left” or any view of Musk other than the facts I have cited. I discussed how societies have ever worked. You seem unable to talk about that, preferring fantasies around free speech as I have already discussed, which is a pity because social issues such as this need considered responses to balance risks and benefits

I guess having an opinion entitles you to leave thought to others. /s

Byline – “I responded that your view of his virtues regarding free speech” Can you show me where I said anything about my view of his virtues on free speech in my first post? You may want to work on your reading comprehension. I simply made the self-evident observation that his stance on freedom of speech is diametrically opposed to his commercial interests.

What would be in his commercial interests would be to have towed the line, remained apolitical and keep his sponsors happy by implementing the censorship they demanded. After all, as Michael Jordan stated when asked why he didn’t get political “Conservatives buy sneakers too”.

From an Associated Press article: “X CEO Linda Yaccarino said in a video announcement that the lawsuit stemmed in part from evidence uncovered by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee which she said showed a “group of companies organized a systematic illegal boycott” against X.” So, they are NOT suing them for choosing not to advertise on Twitter, they are suing them for trying to organise a “systematic illegal boycott”. I am not an expert on American corporate law but I assume if there was no legal merit to the case then they wouldn’t be wasting the time and money to file the case so again, you were wrong.

As I already said, keep your attempts at strawman arguments to yourself, I stated no such thing and you know it.

What are the political leanings of the groups all over the western world that are calling for massive government and corporate censorship currently? Are you honestly going to try and make the case that it’s not coming from the left? It truly is a pity that unlike the US, we don’t have the right to freedom of speech enshrined in our constitution, as it would provide us at least some protection from the little tinpot, authoritarians pushing for this.

“I guess having an opinion entitles you to leave thought to others. /s”

Well, you would certainly be the expert on the topic.

Bob, you wrote this, quoting Shorten:
“’When it’s in his commercial interests, he is the champion of free speech; when he doesn’t like it, he’s going to shut it all down.’ … That is a blatant lie.”
and I proved your claim false, that Musk is a common hypocrite. Now you wish to say you never claimed any virtue in Musks’ stance. So why is it there and you still keen to defend it? Are you now saying your comment was merely, wholly irrelevant, but you wrote it anyway? So confused.

I am very highly unlikely to be wrong about the legal matter. It will be quite a discovery in law if Musk’s strategy of throwing spaghetti (as an American jurist put it) against the wall to see what sticks gets more than short shrift. He is litigious, and a proven hypocrite in more than this. Were the potential advertisers colluding in their own commercial interests? Against their own interets according to Musk, shooting his own case in the foot. They have political freedom of speech and walking the walk, discussed or otherwise.

So you claim I am offering a straw man regarding your arguments on freedom of speech while you are fulminating about freedom of speech using Musk as your prime example. So confused.

Australia does have political freedom of speech implied in the Constitution, as found by the High Court. Don’t you follow High Court cases? We have always had laws restricting some speech and behaviours, like every society. You never responded to that, because you cannot.

By the way, where has social progress ever come from but progressives; “the left”? I abjure leftist extremists. Alas, on the other wing you are one too.

byline – Do you even read responses before replying to them? At what point did I express any kind of opinion regarding my “view of his virtues regarding free speech”, as you started previously? I simply stated the self-evident fact that his push to establish a free speech platform is diametrically opposed to what is in his commercial interests. I’d love to see anyone attempt to prove otherwise.

You proved precisely nothing, you incorrectly stated that his company is “suing advertisers who exercised their right to withdraw from his platform?” When that is absolutely NOT the case. As you have already pointed out, if a company tries to make demands for censorship on his platform with the threat of leaving, he’s more than happy to tell them to go “F” themselves on the way out. What the legal case is about is corporate activists attempting to organise OTHERS to leave the platform to hurt a company that operates in a manner they don’t like. The legality of this will be tested before the courts but the fact remains that you were wrong.

“Your proposition, when translated to company level, appears to be that a shop can sue me for failing to buy their goods again if I have ever bought there before!”

Where did I say that, where did I even suggest something that was tangentially related to the concept? You attempted to attribute an opinion to me that I had never professed and then proceeded to argue against it. It was just embarrassingly transparent on your part which is why I refused to entertain such an absurdly obvious attempt.

byline –

“Australia does have political freedom of speech implied in the Constitution”

The key word here is implied, not guaranteed. There is a big difference. The restriction of speech has always been directly related to people’s safety e.g. you can’t yell fire in a crowded room, you can’t incite people to go and attack someone in the streets etc. There is a vast difference between this and governments and corporations deciding that they should be the arbiter of what is true and should be able to silence anyone with a dissenting opinion. I am shocked that the difference appears to be lost on you.

Apparently our definition of what constitutes “progress” differs greatly if you are in favor of censoring speech. To answer your question: Off the top of my head – who ran the vote on and then legalised same sex marriage? Who legalised abortion in NSW? Who implemented the firearms reforms in Australia? I’ll give you a hint, NOT the left. You make changes where changes make sense, not for the sake of it.

“I abjure leftist extremists. Alas, on the other wing you are one too.”

Oh I’m a right wing extremist now? That’s something of a shock given every time I do a political compass test, I come out as firmly on the left and have voted as such, nearly without fail throughout my life.

Bob, I’ll try to keep it brief. You attempted to refute Shorten who said Musk was a hypocrite regarding free speech, which he is, as shown by a variety of lawsuits especially including that against a bunch of companies supposedly colluding (in full public view, with announcements) where they are not even in the same industries. A component of Musk’s “case” is that they are acting against their own economic interests, which of course is for those companies to determine. It is born off a Republican House committee report, and in the vastly unlikely event it should be successful, would give rise to no new advertising, such that any damages would be capital, not income, and not an encouragement to any other party to deal with X at all

You fail to deal with my query why you claim to see no virtue in Musk’s stance, yet you raised it and keep defending it. The gist of Musk’s position beyond the “collusion” smokescreen is his petulant demand for advertising to be continued, for which my shop analogy stands.

If you actually think Musk is a bit of a self-obsessed hypocrite because you disagree with everything you said or which might reasonably be inferred from your writing, you are welcome.

“The key word here is implied, not guaranteed.” (etc)

OK, we know you do not understand Australia’s system of government and laws. Your limited knowledge and somewhat pejorative use of the term “censoring” helps to illustrate this.

You should also read my response to dazzer on misinformation and disinformation.

I give great credit to John Howard for implementing gun controls which had long been argued by the Coalition for Gun Control and which followed recommendations argued in Gun Control Review (ISSN 1032-674x). The country is fortunate that Howard had just won an election rather than facing one (the same caveat would apply to Labor).

Who proposed same sex marriage? What were the respective voting patterns of left and right leaning members in Parliament? NSW beat only one other State to decriminalise abortion, losing to the other six jurisdictions. My point stands. In any case, a single contrary one would not prevent it, unless you have no comprehension of averages.

Who said make changes for the sake of it? Your prejudices are showing.

Your positions expressed here on libertarian speech opposed to reality puts you in company with the extreme right. Happy to see your sensible side on any other subject, but you are wrong here on a subject where you have yet to display understanding rather than shallow opinions.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.