ttbn,

What if there were a national (or international) campaign of disinformation by Russia or China? Wouldn't you think it appropriate for ASIO to alert Australians to such conduct?

Fester,

ASIO manages high-level threats. Disinformation often operates below the national security threshold but still causes harm. We saw this during the covid pandemic when vaccine misinformation led to lower vaccination rates and preventable deaths. In such cases, waiting for ASIO to step in wouldn’t be effective because the damage is already being done by the time an official warning is issued.

The legislation isn’t about persecuting individuals for holding contrarian opinions. It would target large, organised campaigns deliberately spreading harmful falsehoods. The anti-vaxxer movement is a good example of this. Widespread campaigns of disinformation during the pandemic endangered public health. People will still be free to question vaccines, but there will ideally be less misinformation for them to sift through in their quest to do this.

The bill would ensure that social media platforms are held accountable for allowing such content to spread unchecked. They'd only need to implement checks and balances to avoid any penalties.

Using arguments to counter misinformation, in theory, that’s ideal. But in practice, disinformation spreads much faster than facts, especially on platforms where algorithms prioritise sensationalism over truth. It’s not about silencing debate - it’s about stopping deliberate disinformation campaigns from overpowering the truth. Sound argument should always prevail, but without platform accountability, disinformation can drown out facts.

As for climate change, all the evidence supports the reality of human-caused climate change, and advocates for renewable energy rely on data and evidence to support their positions, so they're not analogous to anti-vaxxers or climate deniers.

If implemented correctly and ideally, the legislation would provide a safeguard against harmful disinformation without infringing on personal opinions or stifling genuine debate. Platforms are asked to step up their transparency and accountability, which helps ensure that the space for public discourse remains protected from dangerous falsehoods.

The Bill is designed to censor ordinary Australians from saying things that the government doesn't like. Simple. How ASIO, which has much more important things to do than concern itself with than harmless, mundane waffle, was brought into the discussion is beyond my ken.

Anyone wanting ASIO to “alert” him to misinformation or disinformation about Russia or China is thinking well above his pay grade. ASIO deals directly with the government, not with the great unwashed. The day our senior security service bothers itself with gender, pronouns, political opinion, climate change, vaccines etc, the country will be well and truly effed.

John and ttbn,

So the issue is important enough to warrant its own legislation, yet far too trivial a matter for ASIO? And God forbid anyone in the peanut gallery should ever be stopped from getting on a soap box, yet the legislation will target the social media organisations that allow us plebs to get on our online soap boxes and proclaim that the Earth is as flat as a tack? Am I the only one thinking the advocates of this legislation are being as duplicitous as they were with the Voice?

John,

Covid was very much a national security issue as there was a risk of public hospitals failing.

"advocates for renewable energy rely on data and evidence to support their positions, so they're not analogous to anti-vaxxers or climate deniers."

That's a matter of opinion. I think a belief in powering Australia with wind and solar analogous to a belief in perpetual motion.

ttbn,

You have no evidence for that claim. You're just speculating. I’ve given sufficient reason to believe that’s not the case.

Further to what I’ve said previously, independent bodies would be doing the auditing. It would be incredibly short-sighted for a sitting government to assign themselves the role of auditor and dictators of what constitutes misinformation, given that a change of government could see pseudoscientific beliefs codified as fact.

Your fears and claims are the stuff of dystopian novels. I’m sorry to break it to you, but the real world just isn’t that exciting.

--

Fester,

It’s not a question of the issue being too trivial for ASIO or too significant for platforms.

Disinformation operates on a spectrum - sometimes it rises to the level of national security, but more often, it undermines public trust, safety, and health on a day-to-day basis. That’s why both ASIO and social media platforms have complementary roles. ASIO tackles serious security threats like foreign interference or terrorism, while platforms are better equipped to manage the constant flow of online content, some of which has the potential to cause real-world harm without triggering a national security crisis.

Yes, people have the right to share their opinions - even wacky creationists and flat-Earthers. But, once again, this legislation wouldn't target the opinions of individuals; only organised disinformation campaigns intended to manipulate public opinion on important issues, and sometimes even with malicious intent. It’s not about silencing individual voices but holding platforms accountable for the spread of disinformation on a large scale.

Similar standards already exist for broadcasting standards on television. Platforms need to ensure they’re not amplifying falsehoods that could harm society.