Adding to the ‘Disinformation’ Wall: Another Brick
Commentary:
There is a concerning trend of totalitarianism in democracies across the world. This trend relies on the concept of “misinformation” and “disinformation” to undermine opposition to government policies, regardless of what those policies may be at the time. The definition of these terms raises the important question of what truth is and how it can be determined. This issue has gained significant importance, particularly in English-speaking countries, where governments are seemingly coordinating efforts to regulate “untruths” on the internet.
For instance, the UK has introduced the Online Safety Bill, which aims to regulate truth through the Office of Communications (Ofcom). In Canada, there are numerous laws that have been used to impose severe measures against dissent, as seen when a trucker’s bank accounts were frozen. In the United States, despite the protection of free speech under the First Amendment, there is a Disinformation Governance Board and evidence of attempts by the federal government to evade constitutional rights under the guise of national security.
Australia is now following this trend, proposing the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023. The Labor party has a history of supporting political censorship, as seen in 2009 when legislation to filter the internet was introduced by the communications minister at the time, Stephen Conroy.
The origins of these control measures can be traced back to around 2018 or 2019, but they gained significant public support in 2020, coinciding with the emergence of COVID-19 and the implementation of states of emergency and controlled narratives. However, it is worth noting that similar concerns about misinformation and disinformation arose in 2004, when the Iraq War started based on a false premise. This suggests that governments themselves have been a source of misinformation in the past.
While it is natural for governments to try to suppress unfavorable information, as demonstrated by Senator Conroy’s failed attempt at censorship, it becomes more dangerous when the public is polarized and fearful. Some individuals may support online censorship because they perceive others’ free speech as a threat to their lives. However, there has been significant pushback against proposed legislation in Australia, including opposition from legal organizations like the Victorian Bar Council.
Aside from legal and free speech arguments against such legislation, research also undermines the rationale behind these control measures. A report by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in 2019 acknowledged the impact of online platforms on competition but recommended excluding misinformation from any code of conduct, as existing laws and institutions can address most of these issues. The fact that ACMA ignored this recommendation suggests political bias, as misinformation and disinformation are terms more commonly associated with the left.
The ACMA relies on a research report commissioned from the News and Media Research Centre, which examined exposure to misinformation about COVID-19 on the internet. The report tested propositions related to mask efficacy, vaccine safety, best scientific practices by governments, exaggerated risks of COVID-19, and the use of supplements for treatment. These propositions, still favored by the left, were proven false or subject to scientific dispute. Interestingly, the study found that those who were more exposed to the internet and less reliant on mainstream media were better informed, indicating that a free exchange of ideas can counter misinformation.
Ironically, the ACMA proposal suggests treating all government information as true and exempt from a code of conduct, revealing its true intent. This bill is about partisan control, with elements within the government and public service wanting unquestioning belief in their statements. If this bill were to pass, it could restrict even the Opposition from questioning government narratives, undermining the democratic process.
To prevent the suppression of truth, it may be necessary to embed simple propositions in the Constitution, such as the right of citizens to challenge government information. When the government, public service, corporations, and influential groups collaborate, it becomes difficult for the truth to prevail. However, a successful, pluralist, and liberal society requires the conflict between truth and falsehood to play out. Only through this process can we discover our initial misconceptions and strive for truth. Allowing a nanny-state actor to determine truth will lead to civil unrest and poverty instead.
Source link
