Last Tuesday in America the tectonic plates of social media shifted and with Trump in the White House and Elon Musk on speed dial, this more than likely or at least ahould, fizzle.
If Albo has any political nous he will let it slide.
But if it passes it will be at Albo’s peril. Peter Dutton must recognise this as both a threat and also as an opportunity and campaign on it loudly until the election next year.
He must give an undertaking that if it does, he will undertake to repeal it at the very first opportunity.
The pressure will be all on Dutton and Libs if it gets up.
Have you ever thought that the new misinformation laws may violate the rule of law and due process?
On the rule of law, there are two subtopics. The clarity of the law must be prospective and people have notice of the proposed topics of what is regarded as misinformation. Is that to published on a .gov.au site or social media site?
In addition how long is what is regarded as misinformation is no longer regarded as misinformation that one can freely produce content?
We don’t need to wait for laws when social media companies can suspend or cancel channels.
For example evangelical channels and anti-vaccination channels have been cancelled.
It intrigues me that Dr John Campbell, an anti-mrna vaccination presenter has survived. The lesson his videos have evidence backed by data and scientific papers.
On the other hand, some channels on Rumble have content directly and indirectly anti-Semitic as a way to blame a group of people for all the economic ills of the world.
It is reminiscent of nazi campaigns in the 1930s including 1920s. See documentaries on Einstein illustrating vigilantes antisemitic activities.
Certainly such content may warrant being censorship.
Then you have to consider due process. Currently content producers have been cancelled suspended and demonized with the vague reason of “violating community standards”.
YouTuber conservative commentator Steve Turley has been suspended and demonetized. He continues to be demonetized yet ads are still shown on his channel.
How does that affect due process? If the social media sites are to enforce misinformation interdicts from the government, the appeals process may not give due process given in a court of law or government tribunal.
Consequently, it is doubtful that social media companies will institute a tribunal to decide if the content producer was misinforming.
Then if an AI program decides that a content producer is violating the law in the course of discussing informed and disinformed content, gets cancelled.
What recourse to due process does the content producer get if it is in favour of the government view yet discussing the misinformed view?
Conclusions: the misinformation laws may violate the rule of law in respect of what is today’s misinformed and whether what is regarded as misinformation is acceptable tomorrow. This is especially when content producers don’t know what is misinformation.
Also social media companies don’t practise due process when the content producer cannot properly appeal the cancellation or suspension of a channel.
It is unlikely that with the new misinformation laws, social media companies won’t institute tribunals.
Thanks
Latest from
From the Daily Telegraph, 22-11-2024 as at 2115:
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news%2Fnsw%2Fgreens-deliver-final-blow-to-labors-misinformation-bill%2Fnews-story%2Fce020e60f8d941285e81c9131074a592?amp
Greens deliver final blow to Labor’s misinformation bill
The Greens and the Coalition have joined forces in a rare show of unity to torpedo the government’s misinformation bill.