July 12, 2023
VIRGINIA TRIOLI: As you know, the Federal Government, the Labor Government has proposed a crackdown on misinformation and disinformation on the internet. They've basically put the big tech giants on notice about how they run their business and asking them to do better and also potentially putting some controls on what they do. Well, that's been described as "dangerous and Orwellian" by the tech giants themselves, who actually spoke to members of parliament yesterday about this. And those who are sitting on the committee who are looking at this issue, some of them feel the same way, too. One of them is the Liberal Senator for Victoria, James Paterson. James, always good to talk to you. Good morning.
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning, Virginia. Thank you for having me.
TRIOLI: In fact, I think you heard from Meta yesterday, the world's biggest social media company, warning the government on this. What's their problem with the proposed legislation?
PATERSON: What I found very interesting about Meta's evidence yesterday before the committee, Virginia, was that we'd previously been told that tech companies were supportive of this policy and that they were happy with it. But that's not in fact what Meta told us at all. They were concerned that this would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and that in
wanting to tackle the absolutely genuine and serious issues of disinformation and misinformation, the balance could fall on the wrong side and end up involving more censorship of Australians' individual free speech, which is not what they want to see. They were particularly concerned by the potentially significant financial and even criminal penalties included in the draft legislation, and I share that concern.
TRIOLI: So you might say, of course, that as has been said of people in the past, that they would say that, wouldn't they? I mean, the tech giants, James Paterson, are never going to want anything really curtailing what's ended up being the most lucrative business on the planet right now. So, we have to take it with a grain of salt, don't we?
PATERSON: Well, and I'm with you on that, Virginia. The whole purpose of the hearing yesterday was to grill the tech giants on the fact that they're not doing enough to deal with the problem of disinformation. I'm just not convinced that this particular solution that the government is advancing is the right solution. And while we're entitled to be sceptical about their motivations, they were portrayed as being supportive of these laws previously, but they've changed their position or at least clarified their position. I think that is important understanding because it's them who's going to have to implement this and it users, Australian users who'll be affected by this and we should want to understand what they think the implications will be.
TRIOLI: So let's get specific then. What's their specific problem? And as a member of parliament yourself, what is your specific problem with what's being asked of the tech giants in this proposed legislation?
PATERSON: Well, for a starter, I'm someone who treats this issue very seriously. It's the whole reason why we established the Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media. And I'm particularly concerned about a category of misinformation or disinformation which is state sponsored. And what that is, is authoritarian states, including China and Russia and others who try to both use Western headquartered social media platforms like Meta and Twitter and YouTube and others to pump disinformation into our political system to try and influence it. They also use social media platforms that are already headquartered in authoritarian states who they more directly control, like WeChat and TikTok to try and influence our democracy. It's a serious problem. But my view is that a better way of solving that problem is through transparency rather than censorship. So one of the regrettable things that's happened after the change of ownership of Twitter recently is that Twitter used to very proactively label state sponsored media affiliated entities, and so you could tell when you were consuming content from the Xinhua News Agency, from China or RT from Russia that this was essentially a propaganda outfit for the Chinese or Russian governments. But since the change of ownership in Twitter, they've stopped doing that and now users are none the wiser unless they're a sophisticated consumer and understand these things of what the content there is being presented to them. Now, I'd much rather that we return to and mandate, if necessary, that proactive labelling of content so that consumers can make a choice for themselves rather than censoring them and preventing them from being posted at all.
TRIOLI: But under the proposed legislation digital platforms, they'll continue to be responsible for moderating the content on their services. But the regulator here, ACMA, will be able to seek information from them about the measures they're taking to address misinformation and disinformation. And James Paterson, what you describe there is what you end up getting depending on the particular, you know, predilection or vicissitudes of the person who ends up owning the platform. Surely this idea, this legislation dovetails with exactly what you're wanting, which is a kind of an industry standard, rather than having it dependent on the personality of the owner?
PATERSON: You are right, it would be the platforms that would enforce it, but it would have the teeth of ACMA sitting behind them and they would know that, and they would fear the consequences if they didn't take down enough content that was labelled or agreed by some that constitutes misinformation. And so what they would do is be even more sensitive than they are currently. They would censor more content on their platform for a fear of being fined or even have a criminal penalty attached to it if they don't do so. And so what that would mean is that the things that you and I can post on social media that any Australian can post would be much more restricted than it is today. And actually, I think there's a reasonable case to be made that already social media platforms have censored too often. And a very good example of this at the outbreak of the pandemic was a decision by Meta, which they've now conceded was probably wrong with the benefit of hindsight, to censor people talking about the theory that the origins of the pandemic came from a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Now, we still don't know whether or not that is the case or whether it was natural origin. The Biden administration commissioned the US intelligence community to look at it. They're divided on this question. It's still an open question, but it should never have been censored. It should be able to be freely discussed, at least until we do know what the actual answer is.
TRIOLI: So, what do you think is the future of the legislation? How do you see this playing out in the upper house?
PATERSON: It would be very tight in the upper house is my best guess. It looks like the Coalition is pretty sceptical about it. We haven't met as a party in a shadow cabinet to formally resolve our position, but you can hear from what I'm saying, my scepticism about it and our relevant Shadow Minister David Coleman has made similar comments. I imagine some of the crossbenchers would share those concerns. Some of them have said so already. I don't know where the Greens would land on this and I don't know whether the government will proceed with it if it continues to attract the opposition and concern that it is.
TRIOLI: I know I have to let you go. You're busy today, but I appreciate your time. Thanks for joining us.
PATERSON: Thanks, Virginia.
ENDS
