Australia‘s proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill has sparked a debate during a Senate Committee hearing on October 11. Multiple stakeholders have raised concerns about transparency, fairness, and potential overreach. The bill aims to combat harmful misinformation on digital platforms but has prompted questions about censorship, the role of fact-checkers, and whether it unfairly targets certain sectors of the media.
Critics, including community broadcasters and the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), argue that the bill could create a two-tiered system where media outlets face less scrutiny than average citizens. The IPA conducted a survey which found that half of the respondents believed open debate and freedom of speech were the best ways to counter misinformation. Specifically, 49 percent supported increased debate or freedom of speech, while only 39 percent backed government or social media company censorship.
Interestingly, younger Australians aged 18 to 24 showed strong support for free speech with only 8 percent favoring government censorship and just 17 percent supporting censorship by social media companies. A significant 59 percent of this age group believed that more debate and free speech were effective in dealing with misinformation.
The proposed legislation has been criticized for potentially establishing a two-tiered system where professional media organizations face fewer consequences for publishing false information than everyday citizens. The IPA argued that exemptions for certain media outlets created an imbalance and questioned why the source of misinformation should matter if it is considered a problem.
Critics also raised concerns about fact-checking organizations being biased and lacking transparency under the bill. They warned that empowering such organizations could further stifle public debate. Another concern was heavy penalties in the bill which could lead social media companies to over-censor content to avoid infringing on the law.
Regulating non-human actors like bots in the digital space remains challenging under this legislation. Questions persist about whether regulatory bodies have sufficient capacity to effectively address bot activity contributing to misinformation spread.
Fears were also expressed regarding potential double regulation for community broadcasters who are already regulated by ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority). Community Broadcasting Association of Australia (CBAA) highlighted their vital role in delivering local news but expressed concern that they may be exposed to penalties for misinformation despite existing oversight by ACMA.
stakeholders have raised various concerns about transparency, fairness, bias in fact-checking organizations, heavy penalties leading to over-censorship by social media companies, regulating non-human actors effectively, as well as potential double regulation burden on community broadcasters.