Australia vs the Internet: Misinformation overload

ABC Listen, podcasts, radio, news, music, and more.

Hi, it's Patricia Carvelis here from the Politics Now podcast, and the election week is finally upon us.

This Saturday, Australia will cast their votes, and we're here every day keeping you up to date on the campaign.

Maybe voters will think, gee, I'd rather a bit of extra help in my hip pocket with a tax cut, the guns or the butter, as it's historically called.

Follow politics now on the ABC Listen app.

This podcast is recorded on the lands of the Awabakal, Dharug, and Iora people.

I want to poll you on an election policy idea and see what you think about it, okay?

Labor is imposing 20% death tax.

He's the only one talking about a death tax.

Death tax?

Death tax.

Death tax.

Yeah, so how would you feel about a 15% tax on your estate after you die?

And Australia hasn't even had one since the 70s.

Oh, and one more thing.

Members of parliament are exempt.

How do you feel about that part of the policy?

A tax on inheritance for everyone except politicians.

So to be clear, this is not a policy anyone is suggesting in any election in Australia or otherwise.

But on Twitter or X, as it's known now, a fake fake list of Labour policies has been circulating for almost a year, indicating that this is one of the things they want to implement after the 2025 election.

The post was originally from an account called Mauling Wall Street.

Now, if this had been posted ahead of the last election in 2022, it probably wouldn't have gone very far.

But a lot has changed since 2022.

We're seeing Twitter change its policies day by day.

Since then, anyone can pay a little bit of money to get a blue check next to their username.

I will say I enjoyed the idea of everyone getting a check mark.

Twitter used to boost the posts of journalists and celebrities.

X boosts the posts of anyone who pays up.

I don't know, how much does it cost?

$8?

I don't know.

That's a lot.

Something feels wrong, doesn't it?

Doesn't quite feel

kosher.

Well, Mauling Wall Street had a spare $8 and spent it on a blue check.

And thanks to this verification, that fake list of labor policies has now had at least 400,000 views across multiple accounts and counting.

The list was shared into dozens of community Facebook pages and posted to group chats across the country.

You know how it goes.

Now, in the good old days, that is before 2022, the big tech companies did at least pretend to care about this kind of thing.

We are very focused on safety here across groups.

And, you know, while we're recommending groups for people to join, we're very focused on making sure that our recommendations and discovery surfaces aren't highlighting groups where where people are repeatedly sharing misinformation or harmful content.

But now they really aren't even trying.

The 2025 election campaign has been the least regulated in recent Australian history, and that's despite years of the government trying to lead the world on cracking down on harmful misinformation.

So, why has that failed?

And can it be fixed?

I'm Matt Bevan, and from If You're Listening, this is the second episode of Australia versus the Internet.

Town squares have an important place in modern history.

Whether your square is of the Times, Red, Tiananmen, Trafalgar, St.

Peter's, Federation, Tahrir, or Maidan variety, you know the significance of this kind of place.

My local town square is Wheeler Place, Newcastle.

On one side, there's the big city hall.

On the other side, there's the light rail stop.

There's places to grab coffee, there's a pub, which means

when you're in Wheeler Place, it's extremely likely that you'll bump into someone you know.

Before long, you'll be chatting about what's going on around town.

But in the last 15 years, this sort of place has become less important as people started to spend more time online.

Friendly Friendly neighborhood chatter was replaced with comments, likes and pokes.

Remember pokes?

More and more people looked for that sense of community online and they built new town squares with people all over the world who shared common interests.

The internet has become the public space of the 21st century.

The world's town square, classroom, marketplace, coffeehouse, and nightclub.

We all shape and are shaped by what happens there.

This is Hillary Clinton in 2011, back when she was the head of the U.S.

State Department.

She was encouraging other countries to allow free speech in this new digital town square.

The goal is not to tell people how to use the internet any more than we ought to tell people how to use any public square, whether it's Tahrir Square or Times Square.

By 2018, Twitter in particular had embraced this idea.

We believe many people use Twitter as a digital public square.

They gather from all around the world to see what's happening and have a conversation about what they see.

But the thing about town squares like Wheeler Place is you can't actually

do whatever you want in them.

I can't bring a projector and show graphic footage of a mass shooting on the wall of the pub.

I can't walk around the place shouting at people or squirting them with a water pistol if I don't like the look of them.

If I printed off a poster of mauling Wall Street's fake list of labour policies and stuck it on the wall of the town hall, someone would take it down pretty quickly.

And that's because if the local council and police let me do those things, the square would become quite undesirable.

And it turns out that digital town squares have the same problem.

So, how can you make them nice places to visit as well?

In the first episode of this series we were talking about the law known as Section 230.

Section 230 is the most important law protecting internet speech and removing Section 230 will remove speech from the internet.

That's former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey speaking to a U.S.

Senate committee hearing in late 2020.

Section 230 gave internet services two important tools.

The first provides immunity from liability for users' content.

That's the one we talked about in episode one.

The second provides good Samaritan protections for content moderation and removal, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it's done in good faith.

And this is the part of the law that allows Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.

to delete stuff from their sites, to kick unpleasant people out of the town square without being accused of infringing on their right to free speech.

When we see abuse, harassment, misleading information, these are all threats against that and it makes people want to leave the internet.

It makes people want to leave the internet, he says.

Makes people want to leave the town square.

Makes people want to leave these conversations online.

So that is what we're trying to protect, is making sure that people feel safe enough and free enough to express themselves in whatever way they wish.

Jack Dorsey's argument here is, I think, fascinating.

And it's one that's really been proven correct, especially since Elon Musk took over Twitter.

He's saying if social media platforms are awful places to be, that will stifle the free speech of reasonable people.

Our interpretation of objectional is anything that is limiting potentially the speech of others.

A lot of our policies are focused on making sure that people feel safe to express themselves.

Now, it's in Jack Dorsey's interest to seem like a good guy, but it's also in his interest to make money.

And CEOs of social media companies make money through ad revenue.

See, more conversations equals more ads, which equals more profit for these companies.

Dorsey wanted those conversations to be nice, but toxic conversations make money too.

Though, there is a point where toxic conversations turn into real-world violence.

Mr.

Speaker, I wish to make a ministerial statement relating to the Christchurch mosque's terror attacks.

This is then New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

She's speaking in March 2019 after the mass murder of 51 Muslims in Christchurch was streamed online to millions of people on Facebook.

That quiet Friday afternoon has become our darkest of days.

The attacker, a 28-year-old Australian man who had been radicalised online, had been arrested by the police.

He will face the full force of the law in New Zealand.

The families of the fallen will have justice.

He sought many things from his act of terror, but one was notoriety.

And that is why you will never hear me mention his name.

Jacinda Ardern outlined a lot of different responses the government would be taking to the shooting, and one of them was to look into the role of social media.

There is no question

that ideas and language of division and hate have existed for decades, but their form of distribution, the tools of organisation, they are new.

We cannot simply sit back and accept that these platforms just exist and that what is said on them is not the responsibility of a place where they are published.

They are the publisher, not just the postman.

But remember, that law, Section 230, specifically says that social media companies are not publishers.

There cannot be a case of all-profit, no responsibility.

Now the Australian government had been trying to regulate the social media companies, but they hadn't had much success.

Christchurch was a bit of a catalyst.

The appetite for regulation was growing.

The government says it's consulting with the tech sector over an online safety charter which could set standards for the removal of illegal online content.

They weren't messing around either.

Australia's eSafety Commissioner has issued notices ordering websites to take down abhorrent, violent material.

Those that don't comply face harsh penalties, including fines and jail time.

There's nothing the tech sector fears more than regulation.

So they tried to make it clear that they could regulate themselves because when their profit margin is on the line, it turns out they can actually act pretty quickly.

One and a half million videos of the attack were removed from Facebook within just 24 hours.

They also said there was no need to force them to tackle misinformation.

They could do that themselves too.

Twitter attached a fact-check warning to a series of tweets by the president for the first time earlier this week.

Clicking the link leads to news debunking the president's claim.

Posts which the providers considered to be disinformation were being hidden or deleted to stop them from spreading.

Our enforcement isn't perfect yet, but we are working on improving that, and that's a concrete step we've taken already.

The Australian government was happy to let them regulate themselves, but the problem was it didn't work.

I've got two kids who are both really into Mario Kart.

One of them beats me fair and square every time, and the other one I have to let win.

But it's impossible to tell by watching me whether I'm letting them win or not.

With the social media companies, I can't tell if they were really trying to stop misinformation in 2020 or just pretending to try.

But either way, they were no match for a global pandemic.

The pair have prominent social media presences where they espouse anti-government sentiments and allege COVID-19 is part of a global conspiracy.

See, misinformation is actually fantastic at keeping people engaged in social media.

A registered nurse helps run Australia's largest anti-5G Facebook group.

If you are not currently working to stop 5G,

this means you don't understand it.

Nothing else matters anymore.

In news that will surprise no one, people love to feel righteous and angry on the internet.

Do you think that I would get more people to come to Wheeler Place if I promised that two local politicians were going to have a respectful hour-long debate, or if I promised that they would engage in nine rounds of bare-knuckle boxing?

There's a reason that professional wrestling is a more popular spectator sport than professional chess, and the social media CEOs know that.

Misinformation can fire people up on social media very effectively.

It drives conversations and it increases engagement.

Cracking down on misinformation isn't necessarily profitable, and it's also unpopular in some circles who describe it as a form of censorship.

These recent incidents are only the latest in the long trail of censorship and suppression of conservative voices on the internet.

When former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was called on to appear at that congressional hearing in 2020, it definitely wasn't to demand that he crack down harder on misinformation.

You're writing your standards to target conservative viewpoints.

I don't like the idea of a group of unelected elites in San Francisco or Silicon Valley deciding whether my speech is permissible on their platforms.

The Republican majority senators subjected the tech moguls to this for four hours.

The three witnesses we have before this committee today collectively pose, I believe, the single greatest threat to free speech in America.

Have you ever censored a Democratic senator?

And how about President Obama?

So while little old Australia was urging them to control what was being posted online, the market and U.S.

Republicans were telling them to do the opposite.

Australia wanted respectful debates.

Others wanted the boxing ring.

The platforms were being pulled pulled in two directions.

It couldn't last forever.

And it all came undone in April 2024.

One of the things that the tech giants are either unwilling or unable to keep out of their town square is religious extremism.

The teenager's social media activity shows he followed extremist accounts, liking videos of terrorists including Osama bin Laden encouraging martyrdom.

He commented on a video of of a Muslim woman chastising her for dancing and wearing makeup.

This particular Australian teenager, who we can't name for legal reasons, had a long history of behavioural problems and an uncontrollable temper, which were potentially signs of undiagnosed mental illness.

He saw so many counsellors in his schools and we saw like more than two psychologists and they're all saying like he have a problem he have issue when he gets gets angry.

He allegedly came into contact online with a notorious Sydney Islamic extremist.

He spent long nights in his room on his phone.

From all reports, he really isolated himself further from his family at home and retreated to a space online.

On the 15th of April 2024, he took a bus to Christ the Good Shepherd Church in the suburbs of Western Sydney, where a controversial bishop was delivering a sermon.

Bishop Emmanuel has made his name as a conservative firebrand.

He rose to prominence during COVID, criticising lockdowns and vaccines, and preaches anti-LGBTQ views.

From his pulpit, Bishop Marmari Emmanuel became internationally famous as every one of his sermons was live-streamed online.

If Trump is not in the White House this year, you can kiss America goodbye.

In the middle of the bishop's evening sermon, which was being streamed online, this radicalised teenager allegedly attacked him with a knife.

They bore witness as their bishop was stabbed.

The alleged assailant, a 16-year-old, was pinned down by churchgoers and police.

The video spread rapidly.

Hundreds of people nearby rushed to the church, wanting revenge.

A clip of the alleged attack spreads online.

Then word, the teenager, was still inside the church.

Bring him out here!

Bring him out here!

Bring him out!

Bring him up!

Bring him out!

It turned into a riot.

Desperate to get inside the church, the crowd turns on the police.

The Australian government's e-safety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, wanted that video taken down, not just for Australian users, for everyone around the world.

That is why I am exercising my powers under the Online Safety Act to formally compel them to remove it.

YouTube complied.

Facebook too.

Twitter did not.

Well actually it wasn't Twitter anymore.

Social media platform X, formerly Twitter, is fighting government demands it take down violent or offensive posts about the stabbing, with owner Elon Musk labeling the e-safety commissioner the censorship commissar.

The commissioner took X to court.

Predictably, Elon Musk's followers threw their support behind him.

He issued a dog whistle to 181 million users around the globe, which resulted in death threats directed at me.

Politicians from right across the Australian political spectrum reacted angrily.

This arrogant billionaire who thinks he's above the law, but also above common decency.

Elon Musk's arguments run completely counter to the facts in the evidence.

He's carrying on like a narcissistic cowboy.

If that bloke had half a social conscience or even 10% of one, that stuff would be pulled out.

For non-Australians, that's support from the left, the right, the green left, and Jackie Lambie, who's kind of her own thing.

But there were some who supported Elon Musk's ideas, including Bishop Marmari Emmanuel.

I would be of great concern if people use the attack on me to serve their own political interests to control free speech.

And eventually, after signals from the Australian court system that the case was going to go Elon Musk's way, the government dropped it.

Musk said that he wouldn't block videos if asked to by the Chinese or Russian governments either.

This case was being closely watched as a test of a domestic authority's power to regulate a global space.

So, is it all over?

The battle has been lost, but the e-safety commissioner warns the fight is just beginning.

Let's face it, the war is going to be much longer and more extended.

Since then, the Australian government has tried and failed to pass legislation regulating misinformation online.

And it has passed a bill which will require social media platforms to prevent children under 16 from logging on.

Will the tech bros comply with that, though?

That's the big question.

Because if we thought the town square wasn't a great place for kids to hang out unsupervised before,

in the last year it's become even worse.

On X, Elon Musk hasn't just given up on fighting misinformation, the platform's algorithm is actively promoting it.

Mark Zuckerberg, meanwhile, wearing a $900,000 watch, announced that Facebook and Instagram were cutting ties with their independent fact checkers.

The fact checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the US.

They were also getting rid of most of their automatic content filters.

The reality is that this is a trade-off.

It means we're going to catch less bad stuff.

It will also reduce the number of innocent people's posts and accounts that we accidentally take down.

And then, in something that definitely raised eyebrows in Australia.

We're going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more.

And all those things are making that digital town square a far, far worse place to be.

But don't take it from me.

Here's Trump supporting conservative commentator James Lindsay speaking at an event in March.

About every third thing on my Instagram feed is a racist joke right now.

Used to be dancing girls.

Bring back the hot chicks.

This dude's feed is like a Bucks party that's experienced a very unpleasant vibe shift.

My Twitter feed is split into thirds.

Right now, it changes every two days.

It's one third pro-CCP propaganda, one-third pro-Nazi propaganda, and one-third this kind of what in the hell is going on.

And now, thanks to Musk and Zuckerberg, all of our feeds are descending into this, a vast network of unpleasant digital town squares where outrage and misinformation drive almost every conversation.

We've arrived in a place where a handful of billionaires own our town squares.

And while anyone can visit, they get to decide decide who gets a megaphone.

Is that how free speech should work?

If you're listening is written by me, Matt Bevan.

Supervising producer is Cara Jensen-McKinnon.

Audio production is by Cinnamon Nippahard.

Next, given that these billionaires have so much influence over how we communicate, Why are they seemingly struggling to actually influence our politics?

After Elon Musk had some success assisting Donald Trump in last year's election, he has struggled to convert that into victories for his chosen political parties in other countries.

In fact, being in any way similar to Donald Trump has been a dead weight around the ankle of political campaigns over the last few months.

But why is that?

And what will it mean for what comes next for Musk and his tech bro buddies?

That's next week.

It's the case that's captured the attention of the world.

The mushroom case.

Three people have lost their lives.

On the menu was Beef Wellington, made of mushrooms.

Erin Patterson is charged with murder.

She says she's innocent.

I'm devastated.

I love them.

Mushroom Case Daily will be your eyes and ears inside the courtroom.

Police say the guests had symptoms consistent with the ingestion of death cap mushrooms.

Mushroom Case Daily.

Hear the podcast on the ABC Listen app.