The following article is authored by Senator Malcolm Roberts

The growing influence of social media platforms under the guise of regulating “misinformation” raises significant concerns. Many Australians have experienced suspensions or bans from platforms like Facebook or YouTube for sharing information that was later proven true. Yet, the government proposes to make these platforms the custodians of truth, despite their troubling record of misinforming the public.

While some suggest that amending the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill could make it more transparent, it’s important to recognise that censorship and transparency fundamentally conflict. The government itself has publicly criticised these platforms for spreading “misinformation,” so if these platforms cannot be trusted, why should they be empowered to control what the public sees and hears? Entrusting them with such authority is, metaphorically, letting the fox guard the henhouse.

The bill also suffers from significant ambiguity, with vague language prone to abuse. Although initial drafts of the bill addressed only “factually inaccurate” statements, recent updates in the Explanatory Memorandum include references to opinions. How can social media platforms and government bureaucrats be expected to fact-check subjective opinions?

Moreover, the bill fails to provide recourse for companies or individuals whose content is wrongfully labelled as misinformation. Platforms are incentivised to over-censor, with fines of up to 5% of global revenue (potentially billions of dollars) for failing to remove flagged posts, yet no penalties for over-censoring. This imbalance encourages platforms to remove any content that might be deemed controversial rather than risking fines for insufficient censorship.

Algorithms add another layer of concern. The way these unseen mechanisms filter or amplify content fundamentally impacts what information is available to the public. Legislation should demand transparency in how these algorithms operate.

No single entity—especially not the government or a corporation—should have the authority to define truth. History shows that “facts” underpinning mainstream narratives often evolve over time. When platforms act as sole arbiters of truth, they undermine the democratic principle of open discourse.

A healthy society thrives on debate and discussion, which fosters collective prosperity. Empowering individuals with media literacy and critical thinking skills enables them to assess information independently, rather than relying on content pre-filtered by government agencies or private entities. Free speech advocates and respected leaders have long recognised that truth emerges from diverse perspectives, not through suppression.

Ultimately, legislation should not hand content control to a few private entities driven by profit rather than the public good. This issue strikes at the core of privacy and democracy itself—citizens deserve access to a broad spectrum of views to form informed opinions from varied sources. This scepticism towards the bill arises from a belief that, while it may appear to safeguard public interests, it potentially veils censorship in the guise of protection.

The Misinformation and Disinformation Bill belongs in the bin, not in the legal framework of a democratic society.