Amid continuing debate over the undesirability of either – or both – platforms and government acting as gatekeepers of online content, CMT has lodged its own submission on the proposed new laws targeting mis- and disinformation.
As we noted in the last newsletter, we think some of the commentary on the draft Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill overstates the role of the media regulator, the ACMA, in restricting free speech. Simultaneously, it underrepresents the impact of platforms in censoring content, including news. But we also acknowledge there’s a legitimate concern for free expression that underpins some of this debate. For this reason, our submission focuses on ways in which the regulator could be further distanced from direct decisions on content – for example, whether a social media post is false or misleading. We then present some ideas that could underpin a longer-term approach.
Our suggestions include targeting ACMA’s powers on measures that platforms implement to prevent or respond to mis- and disinformation. This would remove the opportunity for ACMA to give opinions on what was, or was not, false or misleading or deceptive. This approach could be applied to ACMA’s proposed information-gathering powers and to its enforcement powers, as well as to the power to make its own standards in place of an industry code or practice.
We also suggest that the statement of regulatory policy underpinning this new scheme include an indication that Parliament expects platforms themselves to take freedom of expression into account when making decisions on online content.
This second aspect connects with our suggestions for a longer-term rethinking of the approach adopted in this draft Bill, having regard to how the scheme works in practice. This rethinking would acknowledge that the Bill actually limits industry accountability by placing a range of current platform responses outside the regulatory scope. While needing to take action to reduce one form of content (mis- and disinformation), platforms will still be free to exercise an almost unfettered discretion over content posted by professional news businesses and private citizens alike.
A different, broader approach to platform accountability that includes a responsibility to protect information integrity and improve the online information environment would focus on accountability for the effects of system design and platform policy, rather than for various types of content. Principled frameworks for platform decision-making could distribute accountability and oversight beyond government and encourage industry to work creatively to seize responsibility for achieving outcomes.
We’ll continue to work on the development of these longer-term goals. In the meantime, we’ve presented some specific suggestions for ways in which the current draft Bill could provide further protections for freedom of expression. And on that basis, we think Parliament should proceed with this first stage in addressing an evolving problem of the online environment.
Derek Wilding, CMT Co-Director
This was featured in our fortnightly newsletter published on 25 August 2023.
Subscribe here or download it to read it in full: