Misinformation: A wolf in sheep's clothing

By Freya Leach

First published in the MRC’s Watercooler newsletter. Sign up to our mailing list to receive Watercooler directly in your inbox.

This week's headlines were dominated by Anthony Albanese’s announcement that Labor will impose age restrictions on social media before the next election. Polling for the Menzies Research Centre shows age restrictions on social media are supported by 80% of voters. Even among young people aged 16-24, 66% support this idea. 

Concerningly, Anthony Albanese has also used this popular policy as cover to quietly relaunch his Misinformation Bill—or more accurately, his Social Media Censorship Bill. 

The Menzies Research Centre has long called out the dangers lying behind social media’s addictive interface. In June, Peter Dutton pledged to enforce restrictions for children under 16 during his first 100 days if elected. 

Bipartisanship on an issue as important as kids’ mental health is critical. Unfortunately, Labor’s incompetence has been especially evident in their handling of this issue. 

Governing badly seems to be the one thing Labor is good at. On May 1 2024, Labor announced a trial of age verification technology, and this week Anthony Albanese said the trial was underway. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, the Government only published a request for tender for the “Age Assurance Technology Trial 2024” on the day they announced the age restrictions. The tender does not close until October 7 meaning the trial will not start until late October, at the earliest. 

The Prime Minister is playing catch up. Four months after announcing his trial, he’s announced a ban before it even begins. He’s not sure what the age limit should be, but his ‘personal view’ is that it should be 16. As usual, the Prime Minister is incapable of making a call himself, despite the Coalition doing so months ago. 

Labor MPs consistently claim the ban will limit children’s access to “harmful content”. While this is true, their assumption that mere exposure to "harmful content" as the driver of the youth mental health crisis is false. Surveys consistently show that boys are more likely to encounter "harmful content", including pornography and graphic images. And yet, it's not the boys but the girls who are experiencing a more severe decline in mental health. This discrepancy suggests that it isn't just the content itself that's the issue. It's the very nature of social media platforms—their mechanics of constant comparison, relentless feedback, and addictive notifications—that's wreaking havoc on the mental wellbeing of Australia’s children. 

By focusing on combating “harmful” social media content, Labor is opening the door to massive Government overreach. Take the example of the controversial handling of the Bishop Marri Marri stabbing video. The E-Safety Commissioner, in a zeal to sanitise online spaces from all “harmful content”, mandated the removal of this video from social media—not just within Australia, but globally. When the social media giant X (formally Twitter) resisted this global ban, the Commissioner took X to Court. Here’s where it gets ironic: Bishop Mari Mari himself, the individual at the centre of the video, supported keeping the video online and publicly sided with X. Ultimately, the E-Safety Commissioner dropped the case demonstrating the impracticality of trying to control “harmful” content on social media.

Labor’s mentality that big Government must protect its citizens from all “harmful” content online, has also given credence to its misinformation—or social media censorship—Bill. Their second attempt at the Misinformation Bill is a classic case of not learning from their first blunder. In an almost comedic display of political stubbornness, they are doubling down, using social media bans to distract Australia and surreptitiously push through new censorship laws. The initial draft of this bill was universally rejected. Critics spanned the whole spectrum—from the Human Rights Commission to civil liberties groups, religious organisations, media outlets, and the social media platforms expected to enforce these policies. Even the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) chair, tasked with administering this law, publicly distanced herself from the draft during a public hearing. The public backlash was fierce, with 23,000 submissions and comments made to the Inquiry deliberating the Bill. 

The critical issue no legislation will be able to overcome is: Who gets to decide what "truth" is? The latest Misinformation Bill suggests a shift in Labor’s strategy with social media companies now being roped in to serve as the arbiters of truth, instead of unelected bureaucrats at ACMA. This is hardly any better. Do you really want Chinese-owned TikTok to decide what the “truth” is, especially ahead of a Federal election next year? 

Ironically, social media companies don’t want to be the arbiters of truth either. Meta’s website states, "We don't think a private company like Meta should be deciding what’s true or false, which is exactly why we have a global network of fact-checking partners who independently review and rate potential misinformation across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp." 

If the Government is deferring to the social media companies, and social media is deferring to third-party “fact-checkers”, what will this mean? The case of the RMIT FactLab captures the risk perfectly. The FactLab was one of Meta’s third-party fact-checkers. Meta severed ties with the group after revelations surfaced about its director campaigning for the Voice to Parliament, all while his team moderated and censored the related online debate. The ABC ended their 7 year deal with the FactLab too. They have not published a single “fact-check” since its bias was exposed in August 2023. This is a global problem. The Stanford Internet Observatory, another social media “fact-checking” institution, has also shut down after allegations of bias and incompetence. 

The Government cannot be the arbiter of truth, the social media companies won’t accept responsibility, and the third-party “fact-checkers” are biased and incompetent. So who should determine the “truth”? Individuals themselves. 

The best way to counter false information is through open debate. Censorship, under the Orwellian doublespeak of “misinformation”, creates more issues than it solves, opens the door for massive government overreach and the curtailment of freedom of speech. 

While we support legislating age restrictions for social media, the Albanese Government's attempt to sneak through the new Misinformation Bill is wrong. The Government's insistence on being the gatekeeper of truth and its reliance on social media platforms and questionable third-party fact-checkers is not just ineffective but inherently risky. It puts too much power in the hands of a few, potentially biased, entities and undermines the democratic values of free speech and open discourse. The Labor Party's strategy is misguided, and we must call it out for what it is—a dangerous encroachment on our freedom.