Australia has dodged the censorial Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, and yet something much worse in on the way.
Following a grassroots campaign involving thousands of emails, phone calls, outraged social media replies, and Senate Inquiry submissions – fence-sitting Senators have been shifted over the line. Even Labor’s historical allies heeded the will of the people and announced their intention to vote MAD down.
Knowing that the bill was doomed, Labor scrapped it.
Goodbye, for now…
The whole thing was a heart-attack-inducing experience we didn’t need to have so close to Christmas holidays when Australians should be thinking about their families, not the existential threat of government.
The very idea that citizens have to keep mobilising to defend speech is an embarrassment to this country and our tradition of liberty.
A history that the Uniparty has tarnished.
Even the demise of the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill has been a tepid victory, with many Senators expressing their desire to see it replaced with another ‘better’ and perhaps more detailed plan to curtail speech.
The lesson about valuing citizen independence has not been learned. What my peers in the Senate whisper about is how to present the idea of censorship in a more palatable way.
‘Child safety’ appears to be their confected answer, with the drafting of an under 16 social media ban (officially called the Online Safety Amendment Bill) enjoying bipartisan support despite few politicians having the slightest idea how social media works and the role it plays for children in the modern world.
Most children use social media as we use phones – to have conversations. Imagine what our reaction would have been twenty, thirty, or even forty years ago if the government had banned phones for minors. Or Telco companies started demanding age verification before adults could dial a number…
Of course, if parents wish to keep their children away from social media, there are many ways this can be done. Phone manufacturers, tech companies, and third parties offer a wide range of free parental lock tools while other parents deny their children access to smart devices. Forcing a government ban removes choice from parents and dramatically changes the social fabric of society – without warning – and without any kind of investigation.
What are the implications for mental health when it comes to cutting children off from their friends and family? How will sick children keep in touch with their mates? What about isolated children whose online friendship groups keep them safe? This is before you examine the loss of knowledge and community which has been established online after the decline of ‘the real world’ due to physical spaces shutting down thanks to insurance costs, council regulations, and the cost-of-living crisis. There are fewer places available to children outside school.
It’s one thing to say, ‘We used to play outside!’ yet today’s children have concerned parents who would never tolerate their children vanishing until dusk.
Instead of panicking about ‘safety online’, perhaps it would be better for the government to do its job and restore safety to the streets. And while they’re at it, to schools.
Then parents would have the confidence to let their children roam around.
As has rightly been pointed out, this discussion is not limited to the impact such a ban might have on children. It extends to asking what kind of unintended (or deliberate) consequence the enforcing of the ban might have on privacy and digital liberty.
Most are concerned that Digital ID will be employed as a mandatory tool to gate-keep social media, making speech online something that happens at the approval of government regulators. Other options include invasive facial recognition software pushing us closer to a biometric state.
Does anyone remember voting for this?
The danger this poses to society vastly outstrips any benefit that the bill’s drafters suppose.
Since its announcement we have watched politicians backflip between championing free speech to oppose the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill to championing censorship to ‘keep children safe’ for the Under 16 ban – often in the same sentence. This has spawned ludicrous and incoherent press conferences from Liberal-Nationals politicians who came off looking like charlatans.
The entire conversation about censorship has called into question the motive of those who propose these laws.
More so when people realise bureaucrats in every nook and cranny in the world have failed to enforce such laws until the Liberal-Nationals developed the Identity Verification bill that Labor hastened into force via Parliament.
Now, with biometric data available for universal identity verification it becomes possible to check the identity of every social media user to ensure age 16 or older. That means every Australian, including you.
Is this about safety, or is it about ramming through the grand dream of an all-encompassing digital future where every aspect of our lives is under surveillance and controlled?
It is fair to say that we exist in a low-trust environment with the political class.
Australians are constantly looking over their shoulder, wondering what comes next. It’s not the sort of relationship we are used to having with our government which, back in the good old days, did its best to stay out of people’s lives.
Our only protection is a Senate full of One Nation representatives, who proved their worth stopping the MAD bill. Soon there will be an election where you have the chance to strengthen this shield against tyranny.
The widespread embedding of collectivist thought among those in power, including a Treasurer who would like to ‘re-invent capitalism’ and a former policeman who can’t let go of his desire to dictate behaviour, is deeply concerning. Look at the suffering of our UK peers, where their Prime Minister has taken the Stalinist approach to farmers. Their anguish is our future if we don’t start speaking up. They too are pursuing a censorial future for the internet based around ‘child safety’.
22.9 per cent of Australians are on Twitter while 62.7 per cent have used Facebook. 18 million Australians visit YouTube every month. 10 million scroll through photos on Instagram, and 6.4 million chatter away on Snapchat.
The largest group online are those aged 14-24. They represent the next political movement.
America, under the direction of Donald Trump and Elon Musk, embraced freedom of speech and allowed the noise of discussion to overthrow the Woke and weary Democrats.
I hear so many conservatives ask, ‘How do we get rid of this left-wing control nonsense?’
We have been shown the way. We have watched free speech destroy propaganda and dismantle one of the most well-funded political campaigns in history.
If the Democrats couldn’t survive an open forum online, it’s no wonder the Uniparty of Australia are running scared.
What does the future of Australia look like if new talent is allowed to grow up with the old spirit of Western Liberty resurrected in the digital square?
If the Under 16 ban passes, we will never know.
The temptation of each generation is to approach technology with an air of suspicion. Twenty years ago, we thought video games were the great evil. Before that, it was television. Then movies. Then radio. Then teaching the peasants how to read. As a society, we are often afraid of technological leaps, yet stifling progress is counter-productive to the Enlightenment and human progress.
Social media content is much like a library where the ideology of the authors is what defines their genre. Poisoning our children with activism while denying them wholesome family values and a safe school environment is the chief reason why some children misuse social media. It is a mirror, and we should look long and hard at what activists have done to our children.
The sensible response is to assist parents (if they want it), appropriate punishments for bullies in the real world and in the digital sphere so that bullies are properly deterred, and to nurture the curiosity and creativity of those children who have healthy relationships with their friends around the world.
After all, we keep being told that we are global citizens. What better way to forge a more peaceful and collaborative world than simply allowing our children to talk across borders and create friendships in every corner of the world? These are the pen pals of the modern age.
And then, we must dismantle the corruption within the education system.
One Nation believes in protecting free speech, for all citizens, including children. We believe that there are important changes that families can make ensuring that children have balance in their lives.
Banning social media serves one purpose, and one purpose only – the government’s gatekeeping of social media to ensure that each and every one of us has to beg permission to speak.
