Well we do get a sense of why this push was so advanced under the Coalition government and why they were so keen to progress it.

From Foxy's link.

"The Department of Home Affairs says: “Foreign actors … spread mis- and disinformation through social media in order to advance their own interests at the expense of Australia”. As an example, it cites an Australian Strategic Policy Institute study that “reported that Australian mining company Lynas Rare Earths was targeted by an information operation that used environmental, political and health concerns to undermine efforts to diversify global rare-earth supply chains.”

Censorship is always a concern but tagging things as misinformation by social media companies when they clearly are just that is appropriate.

But as the article states: "The current bill is directed solely at encouraging digital platform providers to have robust and transparent systems and measures in place to address what the platforms consider misinformation and disinformation on their services; it does not involve the ACMA directly regulating individual pieces of content.

To be clear, the ACMA will not have the power to request specific content or posts be removed from digital platform services."

Bit of a storm in a teacup yet again.

DD

Yes. Something like that. But totalitarianism is always a gradual process that is recognised by the hoi polloi only after it has happened. While it is happening - which it is in Australia - everything appears normal: we have people 'just like us' running things: white, English speaking, not like those awful Chinese, Russian, Arab mobs. We are just not like that.

Pig's arse!

To all those other people 'not like us', their leaders appear - or did appear- just like good old Albo, Dutton, Turnbull, Morrison; then, one day - bang!

The people in Canberra are not our friends. They don't work for us. Their entire existence, in most cases, is to get power, and to hang onto it. A short, sharp Coup, with some real punishment, might be better than what we are suffering now.

Lets look at what we have:

We have a Prime Minister who strongly supports
greater care for the disadvantaged and the
aspirations of Indigenous peoples. Who
believes in negotiation, and common sense. Who
will leave a lasting legacy. Whose infrastructure
will make the nation safer and more prosperous
for the next century or longer.

Australia need a reformist leader who can bring
high values to the top job and transform the
nation and importantly continue to win elections
and stay in office.

We have such a leader in our current Prime Minister.

Reagan said "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " And so it has come to pass. New technology is offering the authoritarian minded the ability to suppress any and all dissent and, unfortunately, they are want to use that ability.

Misinformation is always in the eye of the beholder. There was a time during the great lockdown hoax that governments said it was disinformation to say the virus came from a lab, that masks didn't work against the WuFlu, that the vaccine wasn't safe and stopped the virus. All those things were wrong or at least contestable, but saying they were wrong or contesting their accuracy was misinformation in the eye of the beholder ie the authorities.

The new media meant that it was possible for the truth to get out, despite the efforts of the governments all around the world. So now they are going after that new media to try to close off any chance that the truth, or versions of the truth the government doesn't like, can reach the public.

As in the US where the Twitter and Facebook Files have proven how the government pressured social media to suppress 'unhelpful' content, so this new push in Australia pressures social media to do its bidding.

/cont

/cont
Its true that the proposals don't allow the government or its agency ACMA to directly censor a viewpoint. But it pressures social media to do the dirty work for it, primarily through fines if they allow so-called 'misinformation' to stand. Even before the legislation gets off the starting blocks, social media are towing the line. A NSW MP's maiden speech was removed from YouTube because of alleged misinformation because it contained ‘medical misinformation,’ which YouTube defines as any information that, “contradicts local health authorities’ or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19.”. ie saying anything different to the approved story is misinformation and will not be permitted.

The proposed legislation exempts government from censorship. It can say whatever it wants without fear of it being suppressed. But anyone who disagrees with it will potentially be censored by social media operating under the threat of fines for not doing so.

Started with Reagan, finish with Rand... "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."

Dan, AC, mhaze

Thanks for your comments so far. 'The Others' clearly don't list Lorraine Finlay among their experts to be listened to despite her accomplishments and qualifications; they will stick with Australia's answer to Lenin, Comrade Albanese.

I have to say though, that anyone who regards what Albanese is trying to do as "Bit of a storm in a teacup …" is more than a 'bit' of a fool.