Australia’s Plan to Stop Misinformation. Will Huge Fines Make Big Tech Clean Up Misinformation? Can this bold move really push tech giants to control the spread of false content?

The Australian government has made a serious foray into the development of online misinformation with proposed new legislation that would apply significant fines to technology companies if they fail to stem the tide of harmful, false content.

The proposed law provides penalties as high as 5% of their global revenue if platforms fail to adhere to strict, new regulations to revert misinformation.

Currently, one of the significant pressures facing governments from around the world is the inability to control the flow of information across social media platforms. Of late, misinformation and disinformation have turned into scary threats through the ruining of democracy, public health, and social stability. Against this backdrop, Australia is spearheading new efforts at holding tech giants accountable for the spread of damaging falsehoods on their platforms.

Australia’s draft bill, with fines proposed at up to 5% of a company’s global revenue for failing to prevent misinformation, reflects a severe escalation in the worldwide push to impose greater regulation on internet platforms. The seriousness of the proposed law that ACMA will be responsible for overseeing indicates quite seriously that Australia is determined to contain the spread of false content that may cause harm to public health, trigger violence, or undermine democratic processes.

Misinformation as a Global Crisis

Misinformation, with the growth of social media as the medium for spreading information, is increasingly becoming a problem across the globe. That is apparent in the COVID-19 pandemic, where misinformation about vaccines, treatments, and the virus itself spreads so fast through digital platforms. False claims about the dangers of vaccines propagate vaccine hesitancy and prolong the global health crisis, causing preventable deaths.

Misinformation has also infected other domains, including those of election and public safety. The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election was rife with conspiracy theories and unfounded claims about the fraudulent conduct of the election to develop a generalised distrust in the processes of elections, culminating in the violent insurrection at the U.S.U.S. Capitol on January 6. The spread of misinformation does not pose a threat only to democratic institutions but also serves to fan social division and violence.

Australia’s decision to slap fines on tech giants comes amidst a worldwide crackdown on misinformation, with various regimes in Europe and the U.S.U.S. enacting legislation with which digital platforms would be made responsible for the kind of content published on their sites, with varying degrees of success. However, the most severe sentencing within Australia’s proposed legislation is one of the harshest to date, possibly setting a new threshold for efforts taken by regulators in this field.

Proposed Legislation in Australia

New legislation proposed to be implemented by Australia would make technology companies liable for not making sufficient attempts to cease the dissemination of misinformation. The proposal promises that the ACMA will be able to issue fines of up to 5% of a company’s global revenue if it is found to be in breach. Given the enormous global revenues of tech giants such as Meta, formerly Facebook, Google, and Twitter, now X, such penalties could amount to billions of dollars. This was probably the most important of various regulatory measures hitherto thrown up in the battle against misinformation.

Besides, the bill requires tech platforms to develop and implement the codes of practice necessary to curb the spread of false materials. These codes are subject to endorsement from ACMA, the principal regulator responsible for oversight. When the platforms fail to establish or adhere to sufficient codes, ACMA will create standards for the companies.

This is one of the facets of the bill that hopefully might clear up the ambiguity many tech platforms navigate today. For far too long, social media platforms have been faced with complaints concerning the lack of transparency in their content moderation practices. Many internally have content moderation guidelines, which are often not shared with the public or the regulator. The Australian government’s draft requiring platforms to take on ACMA-approved codes of conduct is the spur for more accountability and transparency in companies’ operations in handling harmful content.

Targeting Harmful Content

Significantly, the proposed law zeroes in on misinformation, threatening critical public areas. Lying about election processes serves to undermine democracy through its effect of eroding public trust in electoral systems.

Misinformation on health issues, vaccines, or treatments for diseases like COVID-19 can be fatal because it informs behavior on incorrect information. False content that incites violence or endangers groups of people is gravely concerning because, as already evidenced through the spread of misinformation leading to actual harm, mob violence and terrorism.

Misinformation that disrupts critical infrastructure or emergency services would have widespread detrimental consequences.

Difficulty in Defining Misinformation

One of the premier problems governments face in legislating misinformation is how to define it. Misinformation, by its very nature, is somewhat fluid and subjective. While some falsehoods are pretty straightforward, such as misinformation about vaccines or electoral fraud, others are more inconsistent in their definition. What one group may consider simple political dissent or freedom of speech can be harmful disinformation to another.

House Bill 2555 would put the ACMA in a position to determine misinformation and disinformation, an authority that has been an issue for some critics. Opponents of an earlier 2023 version of the bill argued that a single regulator could amass too much power in determining what misinformation is. The concern epitomizes the precarious balancing act between free speech and preventing harm caused by untruths.

The World’s Response to Misinformation; Past Efforts

Australia is hardly a trailblazer in making rigid proposals for tech companies to take on misinformation. Other governments and international bodies have tried to fix the problem with varying degrees of success.

The European Union- The Digital Services Act

The D.S.A. finally came into existence in 2021, and it made tech platforms more transparent in content moderation practices and quicker in taking action against the appearance of illegal content. The D.S.A. has noteworthy penalties, with fines of 6% of a company’s global revenues. Moreover, the legislation makes provisions for protecting fundamental rights so that content moderation practices are not overly restrictive.

The United States- The Honest Ads Act

In the United States, efforts to rein in misinformation have been less successful. The Honest Ads Act of 2017 proposed legislation requiring digital platforms to disclose who paid to run political ads on their sites to increase transparency in online political advertising. The bill was a response to reports that foreign actors, including Russia, had used social media to spread misinformation during the 2016 U.S.U.S. Presidential election. However, the bill has come under criticism from free speech advocates and tech companies and has stalled in Congress.

Without comprehensive federal legislation in place, many U.S.U.S. states have pursued their own ways of fighting the problem of misinformation. For example, last year, California enacted a law requiring social media platforms to report how they moderated elections and public health content. Critics, however, say state-by-state regulation falls far short of what is needed for a national, indeed global, crisis.

The ramifications for uncurbed misinformation are dire, as has been demonstrated in a spate of high-profile cases worldwide.

U.S.U.S. Capitol Riots

Perhaps one of the most significant instances in reality was when supporters of then-President Donald Trump laid a storming on the U.S.U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, on account of trying to nullify the results of the 2020 Presidential election. These rioters were driven by unfounded claims of widescale voter fraud, which had been spreading on social media sites in the months leading up to the attack. Events on January 6 illustrated how misinformation might inspire violent acts and compromise democratic institutions.

Mob Violence in India

In India, the dissemination of misinformation has been linked to a number of instances of mob violence and lynchings. False rumors spread over WhatsApp and Facebook have incited mob attacks against people accused of crimes they did not commit. Examples of this include misinformation about child abductions in Karnataka, a southern state, to justify the lynching of an innocent man in 2018. Incidents like these have prompted the Indian government to implement measures designed to curb the dissemination of fake news, but the problem persists.

What Should Countries Do?

The battle against misinformation is multi-faceted, and it needs a matching multilayered approach that offsets the need for free speech with the pressing need to protect public safety and democratic institutions.

One of the significant problems with regulating misinformation is that it is somewhat problematic to define what exactly will be regarded as false content. In light of this challenge, it is desirable that a definition and standards, clear enough to clarify misinformation and disinformation, be drawn out by governments in collaboration with experts and civil society organisations to avoid ambiguity in enforcement.

With how the Australian proposed law has shown, it has also been clear how meaningful penalties for takedown of harmful content can ensure compliance. In this regard, when calculated as a percentage of a company’s global revenue, fines become a tremendous and powerful deterrent for behemoths of technology, which have often put profits over the public good.

In the longer run, one of the practical ways to fight misinformation would be to invest in media literacy education. Critical thinking regarding online content and identifying false claims contribute to decreasing the influence of misinformation among citizens. Media literacy and public awareness should be included in schools.

The authorities really need to work in tandem with technology companies to negotiate transparent content moderation practices, together with superior detection and removal of harmful content. At the same time, most platforms have begun to take steps to prevent misinformation; a lot more needs to be done to improve transparency and accountability.

Independent fact-checking organisations will, therefore, have to form a part of the essential work of claim verification and provision of facts to the public. This is where governments should come in through funding to keep such initiatives running.

One of the significant reasons misinformation spreads so quickly on social media sites is that it is an enormously lucrative venture. Bogus content garners clicks, shares, and engagement, translating into colossal ad revenue for the sites. Because of this, governments should work with technology companies to address the economic incentives behind surges in fake content.

Misinformation is spread globally and requires a collaborative approach in many dimensions to fight against. Countries should share experiences in best practices and conduct harmonious efforts to bring a regulatory framework into force for technology companies and cross-border misinformation campaigns.

Lessons to Learn from Australia

Like many countries, India has struggled to combat the spread of misinformation on digital platforms. The country has seen a significant rise in cybercrime, with citizens losing over Rs 1,750 crore due to online fraud between January and April 2024.

The government of India has treaded a few correct paths, such as setting up the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre I4C-invoking sections under the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) along with Information Technology (I.T.I.T.) Act to tackle false content. But the scale of the problem continues to worsen.

India and most other countries should consider enacting a law that levies actual punishment on technology companies when they fail to stop disseminating misinformation. Fines calculated as a percentage of global revenue are some of what Australia proposes and may be a powerful deterrent.

There is a need, like Australia, for investment in media literacy education that would help citizens contribute to critical evaluation of information online. This is important, but it is done in the context of a large and diverse population that depends on social media for news and information.

The government should effectively liaise with technology companies to develop unprejudiced content moderation policies. Popular applications like WhatsApp need to be instructed to take more drastic measures to stop the propagandistic propaganda of fake content. Governments should fund and otherwise support independent fact-checking bodies involved in information verification and busting various fallacious claims.

Of all the defining challenges of the digital age, few are as insidious as the fight against misinformation. That Australia would put forth legislation with bold steps in the right direction merely represents but one cog in a much larger global initiative to stem the flow of maliciously harmful untruths online.

India and other countries should learn from others’ experiences and take urgent action to meet the growing challenge. This is where governments can use legislation, education, collaboration with technology companies, and support for independent fact-checkers are examples of a multi-pronged approach to help build a more resilient and informed society.

After all, the battle against misinformation is a struggle for the quality of our democracies, citizens’ health, and social cohesion. By pushing back against those peddling false content and ensuring accurate information comes out on top, countries can help protect the safety of their people and the stability of their institutions.