• hey_frankie@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 年前

    If I make a post on here saying “the sky is purple”, am I spreading disinformation?

    Contrived example obviously but this seems like very far reaching legislation.

    • Bill Stickers@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 年前

      For the purposes of this Schedule, dissemination of content using a digital service is misinformation on the digital service if:

      (a) the content contains information that is false, misleading or deceptive; and

      (b)the content is not excluded content for misinformation purposes; and

      © the content is provided on the digital service to one or more end-users in Australia; and

      (d) the provision of the content on the digital service is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm.

      Draft bill located here

      I think the last one is key.

      Also the bill doesn’t empower the government to make individual rulings on misinformation. It says sites have to follow an industry code of practice to have systems in place to keep on top of misinformation.

      Think of it as a way to avoid another Cronulla, or any of the pizza gate/Qanon shit happening here. i.e when news is breaking, sure let it through in the fog of war. But don’t let people post for years that the election was stolen by the deep state kiddy fiddler alliance.

      • landsharkkidd@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 年前

        Yeah I figure there is a bit of leeway when it comes to misinformation. It’s when it becomes serious and can cause harm, like yeah Qanon, vaccines cause autism, that sort of stuff.

        • Bill Stickers@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 年前

          Nope. It lists the excluded content on page 5. Can’t copy on my phone right now but basically just excludes good faith entertainment parody and satire; accredited educational bodies, professional news bodies and government bodies.

          No mention of religion or belief in the entire bill.

          You’d get a pass on interpretation but you won’t get a pass on making shit up that harms a religious or marginalised group. It defines harm too on page 6.

      • No1@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 年前

        I bet the politicians have excluded themselves, because God knows they spout so much misinformation that they’d all be constantly in court.

        • Bill Stickers@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 年前

          Yep. In the draft bill, Anything published by any level of government or anything published by political parties about electoral matters or referendums is excluded. So they’re free to push misinformation to their hearts content.

          Professional news content is also excluded. Though to be fair is probably included under other acma rules.

          • No1@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 年前

            Well that’s interesting. Murdoch’s Fox News claimed it wasn’t a news organisation in a court case.

            So Sky News is gonna have to decide if it’s a news organisation or potentially be up for misinformation…