Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

We've been hearing about the pros and cons of combating misinformation and disinformation through legislation ever since the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill was circulated. Like many members in this House, in my electorate I have been inundated with calls and emails about this bill, even more than for the Voice referendum, which I received hardly any on. I understand the government's intention with this bill is to make social media platforms liable for prosecution for content posted by people that could be considered misinformation or disinformation. Currently, a voluntary code of behaviour for social media platforms is in place to manage this.

I think what many speakers in this House have failed to grasp is the scale of growth in social media and how futile it is to think that it could, or indeed should, be controlled by legislation. If anyone has a chance, I encourage you to listen to the BBC 4 podcast series called The Gatekeepers. It investigated the rise of social media and the inability of anyone to really control it, especially with the US Congress under President Bill Clinton passing section 230, which was originally part of the Communications Decency Act. This protects Americans' freedom of expression online by protecting the intermediaries that we all use and come to rely on, and it states that in 26 words:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Section 230 basically prevents any civil lawsuits being used against users or services that are based on what others say. Platforms aren't publishers. They're simply a means by which individuals can freely express themselves, and those individuals are responsible for their own actions and what they share online. As a result, of course, we've seen the growth of social media, the likes of Facebook, X, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, doing just that—providing individuals with the ability to create, shape and choose the content that they want to engage with.

This bill seeks to put some form of policing into this new world order. It can't. The Australian government cannot reach beyond these shores and it shouldn't attempt to reach into the minds of people seeking to express their views, however wrong they might be. It sounds scary but that's the reality. What one might consider fake news could be another's truth or vice versa. I don't believe that the government will be able to monitor or, as this bill intends, expect social media platforms to monitor or take responsibility for other people's thoughts and ideas. Like I said, global tech platforms such as X, Facebook, Instagram and so forth have their own agendas and goals to connect people everywhere, to give them access to information anywhere, anytime, and at the same time build their businesses. As private companies, they can formulate their own rules on content. It is not a legitimate role of the government to influence this.

I think the primary focus of lawmakers in tackling mis- and disinformation is to ensure that individuals are educated and empowered to make their own decisions, choices, and to take full responsibility for their lives. The best protection is to ensure we and our young people are aware of the content out there. Give them access to information, diverse perspectives, diverse ideas from which they will make informed choices based on their experiences, what they learn from their parents, what they hear from their peers and what they get from listening to the influencers that they follow. It is, indeed, a brave new world. We need to be brave and trust that individuals are informed and capable of making their own decisions and choices about what they want to hear and engage with. Government should stay in the line of managing the information and not be involved in what the people can and cannot access.

See this speech in context