Twitter Faces Millions in Fines After New ‘Disinformation’ Laws Released in Australia

As a result of the Australian government’s recent announcement of new regulations aimed at combating “misinformation and disinformation,” social media companies like Elon Musk’s Twitter and others might be subject to billion-dollar fines.

The draft law that would give the nation’s media regulatory body, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), more authority to stifle damaging information online was unveiled after months of preparation by Communications Minister Michelle Rowland.

“Mis and disinformation sows division within the community, undermines trust, and can threaten public health and safety,” the Labor communications minister said in a statement on June 26.

This consultation process gives industry and the public the opportunity to have their say on the proposed framework, which aims to strike the right balance between protection from harmful mis and disinformation online and freedom of speech.

The government has pledged that ACMA will not have the power to determine what is “true or false” on individual posts and will have no impact on “professional news content or authorised electoral content.”

New Standards and Penalties

The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 introduces a two-tiered system to regulate mis- or disinformation online.

Similar to the telecoms sector, the first layer will see ACMA ask social media businesses to create industry codes that will be registered and enforced by ACMA.

Significant penalties, including a $2.75 million fine or two percent of worldwide turnover, whichever is higher, will be imposed for violations of this code.

If the code is violated, the ACMA will be responsible for developing and enforcing an industry standard (a more stringent type of regulation) that carries even greater fines of $6.8 million or 5% of worldwide revenue, which translates to millions of dollars for Twitter and billions of dollars for businesses like Meta (Facebook).

The purpose of these rules is to reinforce current voluntary codes created by the Digital Industry Group.

Concerns raised by the federal opposition center on how ACMA will define “misinformation or disinformation.”

“This is a complex area of policy, and government overreach must be avoided,” said David Coleman, the shadow communications minister.

“The public will want to know exactly who decides whether a particular piece of content is ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation.’

“The significant penalties associated with this legislation potentially places substantial power in the hands of government officials,” he said in a statement online.

Dr. Nick Coatsworth, a former deputy chief medical officer who has publicly argued with other physicians on lockdown procedures and vaccinations, was also skeptical of the laws.

“Misinformation is an accusation thrown so readily that such legislation would be impossible to implement; and if it was implemented, would inevitably lead to fines being levied for things that are not, or turn out not to be,” he wrote on Twitter

The public is invited to provide recommendations on the proposed law before August 6, 2023.

Musk’s Ongoing Clash with Australian Authorities

The broadcast regulator in Australia is called ACMA, and it has a larger range of responsibilities than the eSafety commissioner, who only looks at online material.

Just a few days prior, the commissioner threatened Twitter with fines up to $700,000 (US$476,000) per day unless it provided details regarding its efforts to halt “hate speech” on it’s site.

The commissioner says it has received “more complaints about online hate on Twitter in the past 12 months” than any other platform and alleges an “increasing number” of reports of serious online abuse since Musk took over in October 2022.

Additionally, Commissioner Julie Inman Grant blamed Elon Musk’s decision to reduce Twitter’s worldwide staff from 8,000 to 1,500 (including its “trust and safety teams”) and remove its public policy presence in Australia for the rise in “hate speech.”

According to Musk, the firm was overstaffed and inefficient, and even while Twitter is well-known and widely utilized, it has failed to regularly earn a profit. This is why the personnel reductions were essential.

There is no right to free expression in Australia, according to Rob Nicholls, an associate professor at the University of New South Wales, and there is only an “implied right of political communication.”

Neither was this privilege codified in law; rather, courts took it from common law.

“As usual in an Australian environment, not doing what you say is more problematic from a regulatory perspective than problematic conduct,” he previously told The Epoch Times via email.

“It’s important to note that the eSafety commissioner’s comments were about Twitter promoting hate speech when it has a policy to prohibit hateful conduct on the platform.”

According to Nicholls, Twitter’s lack of an Australian public policy presence to interact with authorities would work against the social media behemoth.