All the Evidence You Need: We Are Ruled By Our Intellectual and Moral Inferiors

Communications Minister Michelle Rowlands produces a school girl's sloppy essay as justification for her sinister Misinformation Bill

Communications Minister Michelle Rowlands wrote a column for the Daily Telegraph this week explaining why we desperately need her to censor our social media comments.

It read like a school girl’s sloppy essay.

If ever evidence was needed that we are ruled by our intellectual inferiors, this was it.

Let’s go through it line by line together …

Rowlands begins …

This week there has been a lot of wild claims about our misinformation bill.

Australia’s Communications Minister is just four words into her article before making a grammatical mistake.

“This week there has been a lot of wild claims” should, of course, read “This week there have been a lot of wild claims.”

Communication is clearly not the Communication Minister’s strong point. Oh well.

Accusations everyday Australians could be jailed or that it’s a Big Brother bill.

The accusations were from legal experts who warned that, under the proposed bill, Australians working for Big Tech companies could face 12 months jail if they failed to co-operate with government ordered investigations into misinformation.

As for accusations that the misinformation bill is a ‘Big Brother bill’ - well, that would seem to be on the money.

What else should we call a bill that allows the government to pressure Facebook or Twitter to remove posts it does not like?

In reality it is all about safeguarding Australians.

That’s exactly the sort of thing totalitarians say right in order to trick you into giving over control of your life.

“The spread of disinformation on the internet, and the way in which that infects people’s minds … and causes them to commit, or contributes, at least, to them committing extreme acts, should be of concern to any right-thinking Australian”.

I agree with these words, but they are not mine. They are Peter Dutton’s.

If you want to convince us you are not trying to introduce a Big Brother bill, maybe don’t talk about “right-thinking” Australians, even if quoting someone else.

The majority of Australians – 80 per cent – are concerned about misinformation and disinformation, according to a 2024 Australian Media Literacy Alliance survey. 

Of course people are “concerned” about lies online. That doesn’t mean they want the government to have the power to censor opinion online.

Research by SEC Newgate – as part of its Mood of the Nation report – shows only seven per cent of Australians consider addressing it is not important at all.

Again, this doesn’t mean that 93 percent of Australians believe Michelle Rowlands and her band of censorious totalitarians should control our speech.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

In the digital world, misinformation and disinformation can threaten people’s health, safety and wellbeing. It can undermine our social cohesion, economy and democracy.

Replace the phrase “misinformation and disinformation “ with “government censorship” and the sentence makes even more sense!

Australians understand that false claims spread at speed and scale on social media. Conspiracy theories go from fringe to mainstream in a matter of hours.

The notion, for example, that drinking bleach may cure Covid-19, a virus being spread by 5G phone towers. This kind of content can put lives at risk and encourage damage to critical infrastructure.

She’s trolling us, surely!

The notion that drinking bleach may cure Covid-19 NEVER went from conspiracy theory to mainstream. That, dear Communications Minister, is YOU engaging in misinformation. Or was that disinformation?

No-one. I repeat no-one believed drinking bleach was a cure for anything. Though if someone told me that drinking bleach would rid me of the Albanese Government, I reckon I’d try it.

False narratives can perpetuate harmful ethnic and religious stereotypes. We saw this in the wake of the Bondi knife attacks in April, when the false identification of the perpetrator resulted in hate speech and death threats.

I remember when comments were flying around online that the Bondi stabber was probably an immigrant. Probably a Muslim.

But it turned out that he wasn’t and social media as well as the news media quickly corrected the record.

See? Misinformation was corrected without the need for government interference.

Should there be no constraints for this type of information spreading online?

The entire point of Freedom Speech is that there are no constraints, Minister. Do you really need that explained to you?

Six digital platforms have signed up to a Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation developed by industry. They may detect harmful misinformation and disinformation on their platforms, have content fact-checked, labelled or even removed.

And yet you’ve designed the legislation so that it does not apply to you or your government. Convenient.

Incidentally, whatever happened to that $275 off my power bill? Members of your government mentioned it 97 times prior to the last election. Hmmm.

But these efforts are inconsistent and some platforms are dodging their responsibilities completely. An independent review found efforts by platforms to improve transparency have stalled.

Forgive me. A government that requires religious organisations to sign Non Disclosure Agreements in order to participate in discussions around a Religious Discrimination Bill has no right to talk about improving transparency!

The Albanese Government’s Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill builds upon the self-regulatory code by empowering the Australian regulator to hold big tech to account.

It will empower the ACMA to get information from digital platforms, encourage compliance with codes or standards, and require improvements where necessary.

That’s a very long-winded way of saying you want to censor the views of citizens.

Until recently, the Coalition had a policy to do the same, yet under Peter Dutton they now say they will oppose these sensible and well-balanced reforms.

When you talk about “balance” when it comes to free speech you show you know nothing about free speech. We need free speech precisely so that governments do NOT try to “balance” what is allowed to be said.

This shows they are more interested in stoking division and playing politics than protecting Australians.

Is this misinformation? Or disinformation?

It is completely disingenuous for the Coalition to claim the Bill applies to every opinion in the community or that it will stifle public debate. It’s not about individual pieces of content or individual users, but holding big tech to account.

Oh my God! And what will you “told big tech to account” for? For publishing opinions in the community and permitting debate you do not like!

The Bill sets a high bar. It only requires digital platforms to address seriously harmful content that is false, misleading or deceptive and has significant and far-reaching consequences for Australians.

And who decides that is “false”? You?

Who decides what is “misleading or deceptive”? The goons in the Albanese cabinet?

Further, it preserves freedom of expression by exempting professional news, parody and satire and the reasonable dissemination of academic, artistic, scientific or religious content – similar exemptions that already exist in Australian law.

This is pretty funny - when you claim to be preserving freedom of expression by exempting selected people from your attack freedom of expression.

To be clear: the Bill does not empower the ACMA to take down individual pieces of content or user accounts, or to investigate or fine users for their posts.

Whenever a politician begins a sentence with the words “to be clear” you know they are about to con you.

It’s true the Bill does not empower ACMA to take down social media posts. That’s because the Bill demands that social media companies take down social media posts.

Michelle Rowlands thinks you and I are dolts.

The Bill does not give the Minister any new powers to direct the ACMA to conduct investigations. In fact, when it comes to misinformation, the Bill limits the Minister’s longstanding powers.

And instead gives far reaching powers to an unelected, unrepresentative body appointed by the Minister.

Again, she thinks we are stupid.

It is about making sure digital platforms have systems and processes in place for addressing seriously harmful content and empowering users.

Who defines “harmful”? And who determines how “serious” the “harm” is?

As an example, if I promised to make electricity affordable only to win power and make electricity completely unaffordable … would that constitute “harm”, “serious harm” or “bloody outrageous harm”?

Digital platforms will continue to be responsible for the content on their platforms, as is now the case.

But will be penalised if they allow content deemed disagreeable by a government appointed body to remain on their platform. So there’s that.

Anyone concerned about censorship or the power of digital platforms to moderate content should welcome the Bill because it will improve the transparency and accountability of big tech.

Huh?

Every time the Albanese Government talks about transparency and accountability my head starts spinning like i’m living in a parallel universe.

It will also empower everyday Australians to challenge moderation decisions made by the platforms.

Everyday Australians?

Perhaps the Government should introduce a Condescension Bill and apply it to itself.

Naturally, Michelle Rowlands is not an “everyday Australian”.

Australians understand protection from harm and freedom of expression can, and do, coexist.

Again, define harm.

When people Chris Elston dared to suggest that a transgendered woman was not in fact a real woman, Australia’s E-Safety Commissioner tried to have his comments erased from social media.

Turns out the trans woman was a friend of the E-Safety Commissioner.

Where was the misinformation in saying that a biological man cannot be a woman?

Where was the harm in point that out? Or is “harm” defined has “hurty feelings experienced by the E-Commissioner’s friends”?

The Bill balances community protection with freedom of expression – which is so fundamental to our democracy.

As I said earlier, the moment you talk about “balance” in relation to free speech, you show you know nothing about free speech.

The reason freedom of speech is essential is to protect unbalanced speech.

Elected representatives have a duty to act to keep Australians safe from harms spread online. They must ensure Australian values and laws are upheld in the face of threats posed by malicious actors, keyboard warriors and conspiracy theorists.

Wow. There’s so much to unpack in this paragraph.

Who says Michelle Rowlands has a “duty” to keep us “safe” from “harms” spread online?

I never asked her to keep me safe. Did you?

Michelle Rowlands promises to protect us from “keyboard warriors” … what does that actually mean? Who are these “keyboard warriors”?

If I type that trans woman are not women; that Islam is hardly a religion of peace; that abortion is murder; that the climate crisis is a a con manufactured by socialists to facilitate a massive transfer of wealth; that Covid vaccines were neither particularly safe or effective …

Would Michelle Rowlands classify me as a “keyboard warrior” from whom the pubic needed to be kept “safe”?

I imagine she would.

Protecting our citizens, society and democracy from harm is the number one priority of the Albanese Government.

Which is why the Albanese Government allowed numbers of Gazan refugees from a highly radicalised war zone to enter the country without first conducting proper security checks.

Oops … there I go being a keyboard warrior again.

The Albanese Government’s first priority is protecting their seats in Western Sydney. I think we all know that.

Doing nothing is not an option.

Oh but it is. Most of us can only dream of a government that would do nothing. Imagine a government that committed to simply leaving us alone.

Sadly, leaving us alone is not something the Albanese Government has ever contemplated.