In recent years, we’ve seen the term “misinformation” evolve from a descriptor of false claims to a tool used by authorities to shape public discourse. Whether during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic or the recent Indigenous Voice referendum, regulating information has become an increasingly powerful lever for governments, but at what cost?
The proposed Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill in Australia aims to combat harmful falsehoods, giving sweeping powers to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to regulate content on digital platforms. However, as governments expand their oversight, concerns arise about the chilling effects on the pursuit of truth: freedom of speech, the potential for political misuse, and negative impacts on finance, investment, and personal autonomy.
A Brief Overview: Regulating the Truth
In Australia, efforts to regulate information surged during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health directives were met with skepticism by some, prompting governments to counter what they deemed dangerous misinformation. While promoting accurate health information is important, many critics, including Claire Lehmann, argue that the approach often dismissed legitimate questions and opinions. This tendency to conflate genuine concerns with dangerous falsehoods created an environment where dissent was treated as misinformation.
The same trend is now emerging with the proposed misinformation bill, particularly in the wake of the Voice referendum. Many “Yes” campaigners attributed the referendum’s failure to the spread of misinformation, blaming false claims about the referendum’s legal risks and its implications. In response, they have backed tighter control of public narratives.
However, as Lehmann highlights, the problem lies in trying to regulate public opinion as if it were a scientific fact. An opinion—no matter how controversial—is not inherently misinformation, and regulating opinions as such is a slippery slope that could restrict freedom of expression.
The Problem of Defining Misinformation
Misinformation refers to false information spread without harmful intent, while disinformation involves deliberately deceptive information. The distinction matters, yet the current discourse tends to blur these lines. Throughout the pandemic and the referendum, dissenting voices were often categorized as sources of misinformation without nuanced discussion.
For example, during COVID-19, concerns over vaccine safety or the effectiveness of lockdowns—although not always scientifically sound—often represented people’s genuine fears. Similarly, during the Voice referendum, arguments about the constitutional implications of the proposal were labeled as misinformation, even if they reflected real uncertainties.
This conflation of opinions with deliberate falsehoods reflects a growing tendency by authorities to use the term “misinformation” as a tool to control the narrative. This trend risks dismissing valid criticism and may have a chilling effect on open discussion, a fundamental part of any democratic society.
Negative Impacts on Finance, Investment, and Personal Autonomy
While the misinformation bill is rooted in good intentions, it could have profound implications for financial freedom and decision-making, impacting how people gather information for investment, personal finance, and tax matters.
Financial Information and Investment
The finance world relies heavily on shared knowledge, diverse perspectives, and open discussion. Investment, by its nature, is speculative, and risk assessments often include a mix of verified data and subjective interpretation. If platforms become overly cautious, classifying non-mainstream financial viewpoints as misinformation, the availability of alternative analyses could dwindle.
This has a direct impact on how everyday Australians make financial decisions. Limiting public access to financial discussions, particularly on platforms like YouTube or Reddit where much of this dialogue happens, could harm individual investors. People often rely on these platforms for insights and strategies, including new opportunities and risk evaluations.
Furthermore, crowdsourced financial information, such as community discussions on emerging assets like cryptocurrencies or renewable energy investments, could be targeted under such regulations. If digital platforms face penalties for hosting what is deemed financial misinformation, they may simply suppress discussions altogether rather than attempt to navigate complex content moderation.
Personal Finance and Taxation Matters
Another area that could see a negative impact is personal finance and taxation. During the pandemic, many Australians sought advice on navigating government stimulus programs, tax relief measures, and the economic downturn. They turned to accountants, advisors, and independent creators online for interpretations that went beyond government-issued guidelines.
With new regulations, tax and financial advice may become constrained. Taxation topics—especially around deductions, business grants, or compliance—are nuanced, and independent experts often provide vital context. If such information is restricted to what authorities classify as “official,” individuals may be deprived of helpful guidance that doesn’t fit neatly into government-approved narratives.
Small business owners and individual taxpayers could be particularly affected. The legislation might discourage experts from sharing nuanced strategies or alternative approaches to tax planning due to fears of falling foul of misinformation laws. A tax strategy that challenges conventional wisdom, even if entirely legal, might be flagged as misleading.
A Chilling Effect on Free Speech
The proposed bill grants the ACMA broad powers to regulate digital content, including approving binding codes for platforms to follow. Platforms, which are neither experts in finance nor in constitutional law, may simply opt to silence discussions that could be perceived as risky, rather than assessing the validity of content.
This results in an environment where dissent and debate are stifled. During the Voice referendum, legal concerns about the constitutional changes were labeled as misinformation by some outlets. By regulating what can be said about national policy changes, the government risks creating an echo chamber—one in which dissenting perspectives are pushed out.
The chilling effect is particularly worrisome for the finance industry, where differing opinions are key to innovation. Investment is inherently uncertain, and discussing risks, opportunities, and alternative views is crucial. Suppressing dialogue, especially around emerging sectors like nuclear energy or cryptocurrencies, could hold Australia back from exploring new avenues that are not yet part of the mainstream.
Conclusion: The Balance Between Caution and Control
There’s no question that misinformation can be harmful, especially in a hyper-connected society. False claims about vaccines or election processes can lead to dire consequences. However, giving the government sweeping powers to regulate what counts as truth introduces a different kind of danger—one that can undermine democratic principles and individual freedoms.
Efforts to curb misinformation should be balanced with the need to protect open dialogue. Particularly in finance and personal decision-making, diverse perspectives enrich public understanding and empower individuals. Regulating these discussions too heavily could leave Australians with only sanitized, government-approved information—information that might not address their specific needs or concerns.
The misinformation bill, if not carefully implemented, risks being more about controlling the narrative than protecting citizens. As history has shown, when governments try to regulate public opinion, the true casualty is often the freedom to think critically, speak freely, and, ultimately, to make informed choices about one’s own life.
Regulation is necessary, but it must not come at the cost of stifling debate, especially on matters that affect every facet of life—be it public health, policy, or personal finance. For Australia to thrive, it needs a population capable of critical thought and a government that respects the freedom to disagree.
It’s up to us to make a stand and make sure our opposition to this government overreach is heard and acted on.