Mis/disinformation legislation puts Government credibility at risk

The 2024 Misinformation Bill prioritises speech suppression over transparency, threatening regulatory credibility.

David Kennedy · Venture Insights20 September 2024Period: September 20244 min read

4→

Problems with the exposure draft highlighted by the AHRC (2023)

2024→

Year of the revised Misinformation and Disinformation Bill

Locked

Companies covered:

Abstract

This report analyses the Australian Government’s Misinformation and Disinformation Bill 2024, arguing that while social media harms are real, the proposed legislative response creates significant risks for government credibility. By positioning the ACMA as an arbiter of truth, the Bill threatens both freedom of speech and public trust. The analysis highlights how revised definitions of 'verifiable' information and broad harm thresholds could lead to the suppression of legitimate, albeit controversial, public debate.

Key Takeaways

The 2024 Bill risks damaging the ACMA's credibility by forcing the regulator to act as an arbiter of truth for controversial information.
Revised definitions of misinformation now require content to be 'reasonably verifiable' as false, which merely shifts the burden of proof to the regulator.
The Bill lacks a specific remit for the ACMA to prevent social media platforms from imposing unreasonable restrictions on speech.

Create a free account to keep reading

stakeholder implications · PDF download

Frequently Asked Questions

The revised legislation introduces a zero-minimum threshold for harm, meaning content is captured if it merely 'contributes' to serious harm across 5 specific categories. This shifts the burden of proof to the regulator to determine if content is 'reasonably verifiable' as false, forcing platforms into high-stakes content moderation cycles.

The 2024 Bill positions the ACMA as a final arbiter of truth, a role that the AHRC identified 4 major problems with in its 2023 review of the exposure draft. This mandate threatens public trust by requiring a government body to rule on controversial information that may later prove to be legitimate.

While the Bill includes a new broad exemption for academic and scientific purposes, its broad harm thresholds would have likely suppressed legitimate debate, such as the COVID-19 lab leak theory, during the 2021-2022 period. The lack of a specific remit to prevent unreasonable speech restrictions means platforms will likely default to suppression to avoid regulatory scrutiny.

Mis/disinformation legislation puts Government credibility at risk

Abstract

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

Unlock the full report

Free

Lite

Team