The federal government has introduced a new bill in parliament aimed at addressing the spread of misinformation and disinformation online. This move, which includes additional plans to restrict young people’s access to social media and improve privacy protections, has drawn criticism from experts who argue the measures are insufficient.
Despite last year’s public consultation on a draft version of the bill, where over 24,000 responses were received—including contributions from experts—several key recommendations appear to have been overlooked in the final legislation.
Key Provisions of the Bill
The bill defines “misinformation” as content that is demonstrably false, misleading, or deceptive and is likely to cause significant harm when disseminated via digital platforms. Disinformation is differentiated by the intent behind it—if there are grounds to believe a person is deliberately spreading false information or engaging in deceptive practices like using fake accounts, the content is classified as disinformation.
Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland, in a statement to the ABC, highlighted that the bill mandates social media platforms to implement systems and processes to identify and mitigate the spread of misinformation and disinformation.
The bill, which awaits parliamentary approval, obliges digital platforms to assess the risk of such harmful content spreading and publish a media literacy plan. Additionally, platforms must disclose their existing policies for dealing with misinformation and disinformation.
One of the bill’s notable features is the expansion of powers for the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), which could direct platforms to adopt media literacy tools and report on efforts to curb harmful content. Failure to comply could result in civil penalties, potentially amounting to 5% of a company’s annual global turnover—a figure that could reach billions for large tech firms like Meta.
Sco pe of Regulation
The legislation is not designed to regulate all forms of misinformation and disinformation. Instead, it focuses on content that poses a clear risk of serious harm, which is defined as:
Threats to the integrity of elections or referenda
Harm to public health
Vilification based on race, religion, sex, or disability
Physical injury or imminent damage to critical infrastructure
Disruption to emergency services or harm to the economy
Promising Aspects of the Bill
The bill introduces measures aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability for social media platforms. However, experts point out a key shortcoming: data shared by platforms with ACMA is not required to be made available to researchers, academics, or civil society groups, limiting the potential for broader accountability.
While there were initial concerns that the legislation could stifle free speech, the current version of the bill includes protections for political discourse, satire, humor, and content that serves academic, artistic, or scientific purposes. Additionally, the bill will be subject to regular review to ensure that its application does not infringe on freedom of expression.
Importantly, a previous proposal to exempt electoral and referendum matters from the bill’s coverage has been removed. This change is seen as crucial, given the influence of misleading information during recent political events, such as the Voice referendum.
Areas of Concern
Critics argue that the bill’s distinction between misinformation (spread unintentionally) and disinformation (spread with intent to deceive) is problematic. Proving intent is challenging, especially as content is reshared across digital platforms. The result, whether deliberate or accidental, is often the same: the proliferation of false or misleading information.
Another significant concern is the bill’s exclusion of mainstream media from its scope. Some media outlets, like Sky News, have been implicated in spreading misinformation, particularly regarding climate change—a critical issue not addressed by the legislation. This omission has raised doubts about the bill’s effectiveness in tackling the full extent of online harm.
In summary, while the bill represents progress toward greater oversight of digital platforms, its failure to fully incorporate expert advice and address vital areas like climate misinformation may hinder its ability to achieve its intended goals.