Urgent Need for Legislation to Combat Disinformation from Powerful Interests

Social media platforms are facing increased scrutiny in Australia as disinformation spreads unchecked, with calls growing for regulatory frameworks similar to those implemented in Europe. Experts say that without proper oversight, these digital platforms will continue to amplify divisive content that undermines democratic processes.

Millions of Australians rely on social media networks like TikTok, Facebook, Instagram and X (formerly Twitter) to connect with others and stay informed. However, alongside legitimate content, these platforms have become breeding grounds for disinformation campaigns that can have serious societal consequences.

The recent referendum on an Indigenous Voice to Parliament highlighted this problem, as social media channels were flooded with misleading content designed to stoke fear and confusion. Racist messaging spread rapidly across platforms before being amplified by traditional media, ultimately contributing to the referendum’s defeat.

“Disinformation targets people’s fears and anxieties to recruit them to extremist ideologies, and polarises our communities for political or financial gain,” notes Alice Drury from the Human Rights Law Centre. Once released, this content moves seamlessly between social media platforms, news outlets, and messaging applications.

Critics argue that the business models of companies like Meta and X actively incentivize inflammatory content. Controversial posts generate higher engagement metrics, which translates directly into advertising revenue. This creates a perverse incentive structure where platforms financially benefit from the spread of divisive information.

The European Union has taken decisive action by implementing the Digital Services Act, which requires large social media companies to conduct annual risk assessments regarding disinformation spread through their algorithms. These platforms must then implement “reasonable, proportionate and effective mitigation measures” overseen by regulators.

Australia is now beginning its own regulatory journey. The Albanese government recently circulated an exposure draft of the Combating Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, which would empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to monitor and enforce social media platforms’ compliance with their own codes of conduct.

Industry observers note that the Australian proposal is considerably less stringent than Europe’s approach, giving significant deference to the platforms themselves. Nevertheless, the bill has faced strong opposition from several quarters, including the Liberal Party, News Corp, the Australian Christian Lobby, and advocacy group Advance Australia.

These opponents have characterized the legislation as creating a “Ministry of Truth” that would control Australians—ironically spreading the very type of misinformation the bill aims to address. Advance Australia, which has previously been criticized for spreading disinformation during the 2022 election and Voice referendum, has been particularly vocal in its opposition.

Proponents of the legislation argue that these objections are not about protecting free speech but about preserving the ability of powerful interests to manipulate public opinion. They emphasize that the goal is transparency and accountability, not censorship.

“Unregulated disinformation, incentivised by the profit motives of big tech companies, is wreaking havoc on our democracy,” says Drury. “It is making the world a much more hostile and scarier place for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, transgender people, migrant communities and women.”

Advocates for regulation are calling for Parliament to pass laws that both protect freedom of speech and increase transparency around how disinformation spreads. They want social media companies to fundamentally change their business practices to stop promoting divisive content and give users more control over their data and how it’s used.

As Australia grapples with these complex issues, the debate continues to highlight tensions between free expression, corporate responsibility, and the need to protect democratic discourse from manipulation. The outcome will likely have significant implications for how social media operates in the country for years to come.