If the average Australian is as disinterested as OLO posters are in the fact that the dimwitted and dishonest Anika Wells will be deciding what they can say and see under Labor’s third attempt to close down free speech, they deserve everything coming their way.

Digital Duty of Care is the latest manifestation of the censorship attempt that was in the guise of the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill. It was defeated.

DDC is a comfortable-sounding thing designed to slip past an unsuspecting public. A “Trojan Horse”, as described by Scott Hargreaves of the IPA.

Australian journalist Cheng Lei, recently a political prisoner in Communist China, has compared Albanese's Digital Duty of Care idea with China's internet censorship regime.

The best the dying Coalition can come with in response to this authoritarian, Communist-style Bill is a squeak to withdraw it and ‘redraft’ it, meaning that they too are in favour of some form of online censorship - just a different way of doing it.

The DCC Bill, if passed, would allow the Minister (Anika Wells! ) to “expand the categories of serious ‘harm’”. Whatever she or Commissar Albanese decide is ‘harmful’ (to them), in other words. Another description for Wells has been coined by one journalist as “the minister who can determine new harms”.

And of course, the American Inman Grant will be able to hand out fines of $109.2 million for anything considered to be a breach. She has an “extensive history” of that behaviour already. LGBT. Transgenderism. Voice to Parliament, where “abuse” of aboriginal (descendants) was ‘discovered’ - 2 complaints received! The terrorist stabbing of a clergyman covered up. Even overseas footage has been banned.

The Bill would allow the increasingly authoritarian Albanese government to prevent any sort of speech that they don't like.

Albanese himself is actually proud of this proposed atrocity. He is going to hawk it at the UN General Assembly! And the failed ‘misinformation’ Bill is also back on the table.

Labor doesn’t give a toss about Australia. They only want to be in government to experiment with our country for their socialist ideal. And ‘about half’ of Australians are waking up, and have rejected the likes of Anika Wells’ proposal to give herself the power to “define" and “control” ‘harmful’ content online.

The other half will either wake up when it is too late, or they are already resigned to letting politicians do their thinking for them.

In fact, 42% of the drongo part of the population actually say that a law is needed to make them watch what they say on line as the government dictates them to do, and 10% (the double drongos) don't know.

Wells tells us that she would “act on expert technical advice” from the Safety Commissioner. Julie Iman Grant has no particular expertise” on what is right and wrong. There is no diploma in censorship.

Minister Wells puts the control of freedom of speech in the same category as the control of safety in ‘cars, foods and toys’.

Social media-users will be ‘required’ to use government-recommended feeds instead of what they are now choosing to do of their own free will.

For all those people screeching about Nazis, Fascists etc, look no further than the Albanese extremist government.

In one week 400 Russians were arrested for online comments the government did not like.

In the same week, in Britain, 3,300 Brits were arrested for online comments that the government did not like. (Konstantin Kisin, Russian-British political commentator).

This disgusting move against freedom of speech - a supposed democratic country out-tyrannising an autocracy - is on the cards for Australia if we keep voting the way we have been in the past.