Select Page
Once in place, will the crackdown on fake news and misinformation be expanded from the legitimately dangerous like burning down 5G towers to the more benign.
Where does opinion and exploring the range of possibilities on an issue such as the voice, intersect with misinformation? The Albanese governments reticence to be more forthcoming on the voice, is, in its own way misinformation by the mere lack of honest and real information.
And if governments don’t provide information but try to hide it (as with the voice) people will simply interpret and fill in the gaps for themselves. And who can blame them.
Then there’s the recent history of matters deemed misinformation that have turned out to be true after the event.
Although in America, the Hunter Biden laptop is the classic example.
Even though it was known to be real (the FBI sat on it for 12 months) it was written off by experts as misinformation that 17% of the population said would have changed their vote. The fact that it was legitimate and very, very, real wasnt revealed until after the election and no longer mattered. At least in terms of the election.
The social media companies simply smothered the story. The suppression of a real story as fake, is an example of how governments colluding with social media, can abuse the power.
Would a climate scientist/expert with a heterodox opinion on climate change, be regarded as peddling misinformation?
Under this crackdown on fake news on social media, will stating that men can’t have babies and that because of their genetic and biological differences, men shouldn’t play in women’s sport, be regarded as fake news?
They haven’t thought this through at all. When we think of social media we think Twitter and Facebook BUT the worst of the worst purveyor of fake news is Wikipedia.
It is peppered with social, cultural an political partisan fake facts and because of its unique nature whereby ordinary people can make corrections and adjustments, it is monitored 24/7 by activists globally. Try it for yourself.
So the question then becomes, who gets to decide what’s is misinformation?
Political parties specialise in misinformation and propaganda. That’s what they do. They subtly promote and highlight the benefits and down play the negative.
This in the final analysis comes down to the question of, do we trust the political machine to be upfront and honest?