Pitfalls of new Australian social media law

Australia's proposed legislation on social media platforms raises more questions than it answers, says Anne Twomey

- Anne Twomey

The Australian government's proposed legislation on misinformation and disinformation has passed the House of Representatives, but faces a rocky time in the Senate. Opponents have dubbed it the MAD Bill, and it has certainly made some of them mad. Ironically, there is a great deal of misinformation circulating about the bill itself.

Some believe it gives the Commonwealth government power to censor them and prosecute them for what they say - but it does not.

The bill is directed at digital platforms such as Google, Facebook, Instagram, X and TikTok. It requires them to be transparent, by publishing their policies, risk assessments and complaints mechanisms for dealing with "misinformation" (which is false, misleading or deceptive content) and "disinformation" (which is misinformation that is intended to deceive or involves "inauthentic behaviour" by bots).

It also requires the platforms to keep records and provide information to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) about how they deal with misinformation.

The digital platforms already take action to remove content, demote its accessibility, and place warning labels on content that is disputed. But exactly how they do this, and whether their actions are sufficient, remains contentious.

The controversial aspect of the government's bill concerns its outsourcing to the digital platforms of the primary responsibility of dealing with misinformation. It requires them to enter into industry codes to address the spread of misinformation and disinformation.

Once ACMA has approved the code, it becomes binding on the industry and is backed by hefty fines for any failure to comply.

If there is a failure to develop a code, or ACMA decides the code is deficient, or if there are "exceptional and urgent circumstances", ACMA can impose its own "standards" on the digital platforms.