The real issue is control and paranoia. The Australian government is again demonstrating that Australian citizens are its property. It has decided what they can consume, what they may be allowed to read or post, and can make the final say. Social media platforms must comply or they will be fined; how this is enforced is the next stage of overreach.
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/information-isolation-from-down-under/
by Kym Robinson
“Misinformation and disinformation pose a serious threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society and economy”– Communications Minister Michelle Rowland
The Australian government is looking to further control speech and information online, deciding what its citizens may consume through stricter social media laws. The proposal is that social media platforms will be fined 5% of their global revenue should undesired posts or information be seen by Australians. This in conjunction with a South Australian ban on children under fourteen from social media. Steps are being made by the Australian national government to set a standard for information isolation. This is not just an Australian problem but one that is becoming apparent in Canada and the United Kingdom as well. It is a cautionary tale to nations that boast about freedom.
The intention is to censor hateful and deceptive content. The internet has been full of that since the first online forums, so nothing new there. It has also been full of other forms of information and art which at certain times and places (and without context) would also be considered “unapproved.” The intention of the government is to gatekeep and police what it decides the citizens of Australia are allowed to consume or produce.
“Australians’ legitimately-held political beliefs should not be censored by either the government, or by foreign social media platform”– Opposition Home Affairs spokesperson James Patterson
A threat to democracy is the most common cited reason. Dissenting opinions which run contrary to permissible political ideologies or refute the notion of government itself are dangerous. They challenge the status quo and bring into question specific policies while exposing corruption. Instead of setting a better example, allowing transparency and running with consistency and efficiency, the response is to ban anything that presents a challenge. As such, the new bill is part of an Australian government crackdown to take control of the nation in regards to tech influence from foreign platforms.
The irony is that banning information adds an element of taboo and enhances paranoia. Those who already have a distrust of the state will lean into conspiracy theories or embrace rightfully repulsive persons or ideologies. Damn the nuance! Repulsiveness becomes appealing because in some way it is a snub to the status quo, which is hated and distrusted that much more than history’s pariahs.
It’s been the government that has betrayed people’s trust, not memes. Recall the constant lies and twists and turns from the Global War on Terror to the war on COVID. Other, less grand moments have also inspired challenges to a paranoid authority and its experts, who at different times made Pokemon Go, planking, fidget spinners and shirtless men on the Magic Mike poster all aspects of social concern to be policed, censored, or controlled. They’re now mostly forgotten, but were part of the culminating paternal arrogance of those who view themselves as your superiors.
Social media has continued to be a focus of censorship by various governments, and its still banned in some parts of the world. During the COVID years, those who sought alternative information found themselves in a place of controversy, while others were visited by the police for online posts. Information ranged from blatant lies to more subtle and complicated. The trouble is this went for corporate and state media agencies as well as meme accounts.
In 2023, the Australian government attempted to pass a bill that was criticized in Parliament for giving the governing authority too much power to determine what is permissible speech. The problem is in defining misinformation and disinformation. Social media is certainly rife with both, including the intentional spreading of lies, whether for ideological gain, clout, or for shitposting purposes. What someone does with this information is up to the discretion of the consumer. A person only needs to go to the comment section to find clarifications and explanations, or they could research further. For those who take a meme or spurious claim at face value, this in itself brings into question democracy; power is placed into the hands of individuals who can be swayed by memes. Are such memes any better or worse than the claims and “promises” of a politician? False claims and outright misinformation can be quite obvious to anyone who is not actively trying to feed their preconceived biases.
Social media platforms have been using community notes and self-policing to address the problems of bots and false claims. The trouble is that history itself is constantly being learned and studied, debated and reviewed by historians and amateurs in the field. Developments in cience are the subject of scrutiny and critical review and analysis. To have an authority determine the correct viewpoint leaves itself open to experts bias or outdated information.
Be seeing you
MCViewPoint 
