A License to Censor? The Fierce Fight Over the GEC’s Renewal

Todayville

Published

1 day ago

19 minute read

What happens when an agency meant to protect Americans from foreign propaganda starts tiptoeing over the line into the realm of domestic censorship? Enter the Global Engagement Center (GEC), a charming creation of the US State Department that was originally tasked with combating foreign disinformation. It sounds like something out of a spy novel: shadowy entities sowing chaos through whisper campaigns and disinformation dumps. But now, the real drama lies in how this agency has extended its reach beyond foreign threats and into the murky waters of the internet’s free speech landscape.

Of course, the GEC would prefer to be seen as a benevolent referee, helping social media giants like Facebook and YouTube play the good guys in the battle against digital deception. In theory, this agency is all about countering Russian bots and Iranian trolls. But somehow, along the way, its mission stretched to a point where the average American scrolling through a feed can almost feel the government’s fingers tapping on their shoulder, cautioning them about what’s “trustworthy.” It’s no wonder people are starting to worry.

“Protecting” Free Speech with Blacklists and Bans

Let’s break down how the GEC manages to defend democracy in ways that look suspiciously undemocratic. The agency works directly with social media platforms, advising them on what narratives might be feeding the foreign propaganda machine. Sounds reasonable—until it doesn’t. The GEC has dipped into its federal piggy bank to fund initiatives creating online blacklists and flagging content for removal. Some say it’s about “maintaining integrity” online; others say it looks a lot like censorship on the taxpayer’s dime.

To critics, this looks like the first few moves of a chess game where the GEC is lining up for a checkmate on free expression. And they’re not alone.

Skeptics of the GEC’s approach argue that these actions open the door to a sanitized internet, where only approved opinions make the cut. Who gets to decide what’s misleading or manipulative? Turns out, it’s not entirely clear, and this vagueness is what has civil liberties watchdogs gnashing their teeth.

Paul Nakasone: Former Spy, Current AI Board Member, and GEC’s Biggest Fan

Amid the ruckus, the GEC does have a few high-profile cheerleaders. One of them is none other than Paul Nakasone, a former NSA Director who now sits on the board of OpenAI. He’s come out swinging in favor of the GEC, showering praise on its efforts to shield American audiences from outside influence. For someone who once helmed the NSA, Nakasone knows a thing or two about surveillance, and his endorsement feels like a tacit nod from the intelligence community itself.

But even as he applauds the GEC, some are asking the obvious question: why is a former NSA chief, now positioned at the bleeding edge of AI technology, so invested in this government office’s future? Could it be that he sees a future where government-sponsored “truth” filters bleed into the algorithmic architecture of social media platforms? The GEC’s methods may have started with a noble purpose, but Nakasone’s involvement shines a light on the agency’s proximity to power and influence, making many wonder if the GEC is merely a cudgel for elites to enforce their narrative.

Bipartisan Endorsement: The Ultimate Shield

Then there’s the bipartisan protection the GEC enjoys, courtesy of Senators John Cornyn and Chris Murphy, the Republican-Democrat duo that co-parented the agency into existence back in 2016. In the world of American politics, finding anything both sides agree on is as rare as a unicorn, so when they do align, it’s usually worth a closer look. Cornyn and Murphy are now pushing for the GEC’s reauthorization, hoping to give it another seven-year lease on life. Their logic? Keep the GEC’s scope foreign-focused and off-limits when it comes to domestic politics.

The proposal includes a “strict ban” on US political meddling and tighter financial oversight—measures meant to steer the GEC back toward its original, “noble” mission. Yet, those promises don’t seem to be allaying fears. After all, what constitutes meddling, exactly? And how far does “foreign-focused” go on the internet where “foreign” is about as easy to define as air? If there’s one thing Washington excels at, it’s drawing the line right where it’s convenient, then redrawing it when no one’s looking.

The GEC’s Real Legacy: Democracy or Control?

At its core, the GEC’s story isn’t one of pure villainy or virtue; it’s the all-too-common tale of mission creep. Born to protect, it evolved into a protector so zealous it could become the very thing it claimed to fight. In a landscape where free speech is already under constant siege, the GEC’s growth raises the age-old question: who watches the watchers?

So, here we stand, with two powerful senators asking us to trust that the GEC’s next seven years won’t resemble the questionable track record of the last. Whether you see this as a necessary shield or a potential weapon against dissent, one thing is clear—the GEC’s presence in the digital ecosystem is likely to remain contentious, polarizing, and above all, inescapably tangled in the web of modern-day propaganda wars.

The Global Engagement Center, with its sleek mission of unmasking foreign propaganda, has certainly racked up its share of victories abroad, unearthing disinformation from the usual suspects—Russia, China, and other state-sponsored actors. But back home, it’s a different story. While the GEC might like to see itself as an indispensable line of defense, a growing number of Americans see it as something altogether more insidious: a tool for quashing dissent under the shiny guise of “security.”

The backlash isn’t just coming from the fringes; it’s led by Republican lawmakers who accuse the GEC of overstepping its mandate, straying from a mission to combat foreign influence and dabbling instead in something far more contentious: influencing American political discourse. Conservatives argue that the GEC has a cozy relationship with major social media platforms, where it’s allegedly advising them to tag and downrank content from right-leaning sources, all under the sanctified banner of “disinformation.” In a country already primed to erupt over issues of free speech, it’s an explosive allegation that’s landed the GEC in the crosshairs of national outrage.

The Conservative Media Strikes Back

Fed up and ready to push back, some of the biggest conservative media names have banded together with the state of Texas to launch a lawsuit against the Department of State. Platforms like The Daily Wire and The Federalist are taking aim at what they claim is a calculated attempt by the GEC to label their content as “disinformation,” a charge they argue has made them radioactive for advertisers and throttled their visibility on social media.

Their argument is simple but searing: a federal agency is directly infringing on the First Amendment by blocking or burying conservative viewpoints in the very same channels it was established to keep open. This accusation has given conservatives a rallying cry, a David-vs-Goliath scenario where state-backed censors go after political speech under the flimsiest pretexts.

Leading the legal crusade is Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who’s never one to mince words. Paxton has openly accused the GEC of being on a crusade of its own—one aimed not at safeguarding democracy, but at suffocating it. In Paxton’s view, the GEC has gone rogue, turning from a shield against foreign interference to a battering ram against American freedoms.

Enter Congress: The Great Reassessment

The uproar has made its way to Capitol Hill, where figures like Rep. Darrell Issa are pounding the drum for a major reassessment of the GEC’s practices. Issa, along with a cadre of similarly concerned lawmakers, has raised the alarm about how far the GEC’s operations have expanded. It’s one thing to combat the well-oiled disinformation machines of Moscow or Beijing. But it’s something else entirely to be monitoring, blacklisting, and deplatforming opinions within US borders under the same disinformation protocols.

For Issa, this isn’t just mission creep; it’s an outright defiance of the GEC’s mandate. The agency, he contends, has blurred the line between legitimate counter-disinformation efforts and outright censorship, especially when that censorship just so happens to lean in one political direction. Issa and others argue that under the pretext of fighting foreign influence, the GEC is developing an appetite for policing thought—a role Congress never intended it to fill.

Reform or Dismantle: The Fight Over the GEC’s Future

And now, Washington is embroiled in a growing debate over what to do with the GEC. On one side are those who argue that the center just needs a tighter leash, and a few accountability measures to ensure it sticks to foreign threats and foreign threats only. On the other side are those who say the GEC’s existence is a danger to American principles — perhaps a well-intentioned experiment gone horribly wrong. They’re pushing for its complete dismantling, arguing that no amount of reform can protect an agency with such sweeping power from abusing it.

In an ironic twist, the very tools created to protect democracy now stand accused of eroding it, launching a bitter tug-of-war over the American ideal of free speech versus the unquantifiable need to “protect” citizens from supposedly dangerous ideas. Are we safer for it? Or are we on a slow slide into a digital age where the government, deciding what counts as legitimate speech, becomes the very propagandist it claims to fight?

At the least, the GEC seems to have lost its way, now accused of extending its mission to target domestic media—particularly conservative voices. Its partnerships with organizations like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) have turned into a flashpoint for accusations of bias, with critics arguing that these alliances are driving the GEC’s work right into partisan territory.

The GDI, a non-profit that presents itself as an impartial watchdog against misinformation, has its own critics, many of whom argue that its “disinformation” classifications are less about protecting the public and more about ensuring the “right” voices dominate the information landscape.

Conservative media outlets have consistently found themselves on the wrong end of these classifications, flagged as threats to the sanctity of truth while more progressive-leaning sources, somehow, skate by. This raises questions about how these ostensibly neutral organizations are choosing their targets and how much influence the government-backed GEC has on these classifications.

An Ethical Tug-of-War: Security, Truth, or Free Speech?

As the debate heats up over the GEC’s impending renewal, we’re not just talking about a procedural rubber stamp. The reauthorization of the GEC is emerging as a proxy battle over far deeper questions: What role should the government play in policing information? And where is the line between safeguarding the public and controlling it?

On one hand, there’s the argument that a body like the GEC is essential for a world where foreign states meddle with domestic politics through armies of bots and fake accounts. Without it, we’re told, Americans would be defenseless against the unrelenting tidal wave of foreign-sponsored fake news designed to sow chaos and division. Yet, that same narrative has an underbelly—a creeping encroachment on civil liberties, a kind of censorship wearing the costume of patriotism, where political biases steer the GEC’s focus.

Congress at a Crossroads: To Renew, Reform, or Repeal?

Congress now faces a critical decision: Do they rubber-stamp the GEC for another seven years and trust that reforms and restrictions can keep it in check? Or is it time to dismantle a mechanism that critics argue is increasingly indistinguishable from the very disinformation campaigns it claims to fight? Senators are debating an array of reforms, from tighter financial oversight to strict prohibitions on domestic content moderation. But skeptics aren’t convinced that a few added layers of oversight will suffice; the GEC’s history suggests that mission creep may be inevitable, and with it, the erosion of free expression.

If the GEC’s renewal goes through with little structural change, the implications will reverberate far beyond Washington. It could set a precedent where government-sanctioned “disinformation” monitoring becomes normalized as part of the American media landscape, allowing those in power to define and punish “disinformation” with little accountability. The potential for abuse here is staggering.

Setting Precedents for a Digital Battlefield

The GEC saga is a window into the heart of a much larger debate over information warfare and the role of government in a digital age. If the GEC continues to exercise its authority as both referee and player in the information space, it could pave the way for similar agencies to wield censorship as an arm of policy. We might soon find ourselves living in a digital landscape where what’s considered “misinformation” conveniently aligns with what’s politically inconvenient for those in power.

Ultimately, the GEC’s future will set the tone for how the US balances national security with its commitment to free speech. As the Senate weighs its options, the stakes couldn’t be higher. This decision will define the boundaries of governmental influence over the public’s access to information, shaping the next chapter of American engagement in the digital world. The choice to renew, reform, or repeal the GEC is no small moment—it’s a defining one, with repercussions for every American’s right to think, speak, and decide for themselves what is truth and what is manipulation.

Reclaim The Net needs your help

Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.

Make a one-time donation

Up Next

Garbage in = Garbage Out…The issues with censorship and AI.

Don't Miss

Trump Effect: No One Gretz Off Easy Backing The Donald

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Conservatives urge Canadians to reject mandatory digital IDs proposed by Liberal gov’t

National / 4 hours ago

Liberals, NDP admit closed-door meetings took place in attempt to delay Canada’s next election

COVID-19 / 7 hours ago

Blue Cross Blue Shield forced to pay $12 million to Catholic worker fired for refusing COVID shots

Artificial Intelligence

Garbage in = Garbage Out…The issues with censorship and AI.

Published on November 11, 2024

Todayville

What happens when you shift from education in the basics – Math, English, Science, Social Studies and health…and shift that to progressive ideologies supporting DEI, Transgenderism, Climate Alarmism and Social Justice?

We’re seeing it.

A world full of neurotic nut cases, screeching at the top of their fingertips on the internet…soapboxes in public.

Of the most confused seem to be these people:

Queers for Palestine” and the Death of Irony — Queer Majority

Whose fundamental ideologies are in direct conflict with those they are supporting.

But it really doesn’t end there, does it?

Because along with this, we now have generations who’ve been confused into thinking that this is a healthy lifestyle…

My Big Fat Fabulous Life: Whitney Way Thore Talks About PCOS

Censorship on science has led us to believe that:

Eggs are bad – when they are almost the most perfect food;

Meat Causes Cancer – where it is the foundation of fitness, nutrition and energy for our bodies;

Margarine is preferred over Butter – where it turns out that hydrogenated seed oils are ten times more likely to cause heart disease than standard fats…

The list goes on.

Misinformation promotion and true information censorship, really isn’t that new of a concept…but with the onset and increasing use of AI technologies, will become an even larger detriment to the fabric of our education and understanding.

Throughout the last 4 years…we’ve never seen more rampant attacks on our Freedom of Expression and in sharing knowledge…all to push lies, inflating the risks from COVID, through to lies about the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines.

You could be removed, suspended and banned for wrong-speak…and if you’re reading this now, it’s because this is exactly what had happened to me. YakkStack was started out of a need to preserve information that kept being removed from other social media platforms, video streaming services.

After about a year of posting…having seen accounts completely wiped out with no chance of recovery and at the suggestion/guidance from others, had me start an account here…write in longer form and post links along with supporting information.

It’s been an amazing experience, building up a lot of support and spanning the globe with thousands of subscribers and millions of reads/impressions:

With my largest hurdles being…

Trying to keep up with everything &

Trying to remember what I’ve even written or talked about…taking hours to re-research topics I’d already even covered.

There is a fantastic amount of information that we are exposed to on a daily basis…but considering the sources and the selection of language…it’s not all real and definitely not all good.

We hear from the media and progressives about Anti-Trans Legislation…where the legislation is set out not much different than other legislation to protect children from making harmful decisions that are irreversible. In Canada, you cannot smoke cigarettes nor even buy nicotine products, consume alcohol or even be in establishments (pubs, bars) where serving is their primary function, get a tattoo, vote, join the military…without being being at least 18. Throughout these tender years, you are held in the responsibility of your parents or surrogate guardians in coaching you through these times – so that you don’t make tragic mistakes because your mind isn’t fully developed.

We hear from the media and politicians about Toxic Supply of narcotics, that are still illegal to posses in most provinces…where “Safe Supply”, is the option…&

Where shooting up in public was frowned upon, we now have “Safe Injection Sites”, where the ideas are…

If you provide safer narcotics and support to drug addicts, this will reduce the strain on healthcare and “Save Lives”.

These ideas have led to the deaths of more than 47,000 overdoses throughout the last decade(ish) of progressive liberalism, pushing the fantasy that addicts can recover by feeding them more of what they are addicted to.

It’s nuts!

On this Remembrance Day, looking back at World War 2, there were approximately 44,000 Canadians that died.

47K from Overdoses, marking a 300% increase in drug related deaths since Justin Trudeau has been in office.

We hear about the atrocities committed in Residential Schools – run by the Catholics, where there are supposedly thousands of unmarked graves. We are told that there needs to be “Truth and Reconciliation”, over these deaths…by the same people who’ve been fed Millions of Taxpayer Dollars to investigate, find and recover bodies…where not a single one has been uncovered…

And even if one were…

The vastest majority of the population was either not alive during this period nor did they have anything to do with what may or may not have gone on, in these schools.

We’re being told that denialism of this is racist and could soon become a criminal offence…

By the same people, over the last 4 years, made up the facts…where science could never substantiate, change the definitions on vaccinations and immunity, lie about the statistics to continue on the narrative, create policy around emotion – “if we can only save one life”, have your business deemed ‘Non-Essential’ and closed, worked with social media platforms to have you censored, wanted to see you fired, removed from Employment Insurance that you’d paid a lifetime into, restricted from finding new employment, have your children/grandchildren restricted in extracurricular activities, taxpayer sponsored and affordable tutoring, summer camps and even sitting inside of a McDonalds to have a Happy Meal Combo…because this was another one of the social situations that neither you nor they could be tolerated in…without listening to their instructions and reiterating their lies.

They make up the truth and your only option is to toe the line.

You are supposed to care and understand atrocities that may or may not have happened in residential schools, that began in 1831 – Brantford, Ontario…where and when, throughout this period the reservations were plagued with poverty, virus and firewater – children taken from homes where parents were dead or deathly ill, provided for, fed and educated…when a single body hasn’t been recovered…

While at the same time, forget about what happened to 8 Million Canadians over the last 4 years…Did you or do you know of others who;

Lost their jobs, savings, businesses and houses?
Couldn’t visit a loved one in hospital, long-term care or hospice?
Watched a family member die, alone and afraid, through a window in a bricked up exterior wall of one of these places?
Miss family celebrations, graduations, birthdays, seasonal holidays, religious holidays, funerals?
Watch the setback of education in children forced to learn off of a computer or be restricted from colleges or universities, because of their vaccine status?
Have family and community members break ties with you, because you understood that you were never at risk and didn’t want to become a lab rat?

Tough shit…is what they’re saying…because they control the conversation and with this, you will believe in fiction to erase fact, or you will be punished – because Actions Have Consequences.

Not for those who created and stocked these fires…for YOU!

Certain platforms and search engines – Google being a Prime Example, have shifted their metrics to hide or completely erase information that is available…so when you do a search, you end up with results that are either historically untrue, unsubstantiated or that are deemed content you are allowed to read…where, people such as Bill Gates have already suggested that the internet needs to be cleansed of False Information – False being anything that he decides is false…where this has actually already started to happen.

Read the full article here →Link

But in the first paragraph, you will find some of what we already know:

Instances of censorship are growing to the point of normalization. Despite ongoing litigation and more public attention, mainstream social media has been more ferocious in recent months than ever before. Podcasters know for sure what will be instantly deleted and debate among themselves over content in gray areas. Some like Brownstone have given up on YouTube in favor of Rumble, sacrificing vast audiences if only to see their content survive to see the light of day.

And when you think of where Artificial Intelligence gets it’s information from…you have to appreciate that on your query, you’ll either receive dosed information or inaccurate to the point of absolute lies.

Are Eggs bad to eat?

As per ChatGPT, yes:

Here’s a breakdown of why eggs are sometimes considered “bad” to eat:

1. Cholesterol Content

High in Cholesterol: Eggs, particularly the yolk, are high in dietary cholesterol. One large egg contains about 186 milligrams of cholesterol, which is more than half of the recommended daily limit for cholesterol intake (300 mg for most people). This has led to concerns that eating eggs could raise LDL (“bad”) cholesterol levels in the blood, increasing the risk of heart disease.

Impact on Heart Health: While some studies suggest that dietary cholesterol has a smaller impact on blood cholesterol levels than previously thought, research has shown that for certain individuals—specifically those who are “hyper-responders”—eating eggs may lead to an increase in LDL cholesterol and may negatively affect heart health.

2. Saturated Fat

Saturated Fat Content: Eggs contain a small amount of saturated fat, which can raise LDL cholesterol levels when consumed in excess. A large egg has about 1.6 grams of saturated fat. High intake of saturated fat is linked to increased risks of heart disease and stroke, though eggs contribute relatively little to this risk when consumed in moderation.

3. Potential Risk for Type 2 Diabetes

Some studies have shown a potential link between high egg consumption and an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. For example, research suggests that people who eat a lot of eggs (more than 7 eggs per week) may have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, particularly in older adults. The reason for this is still not fully understood, but it may relate to the combined effects of cholesterol and the presence of certain inflammatory compounds in eggs.

4. Foodborne Illness (Raw or Undercooked Eggs)

Salmonella Risk: Eggs that are not properly cooked can carry a risk of salmonella infection, which can lead to food poisoning with symptoms like nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal cramps. Raw eggs, such as those used in some recipes like homemade mayonnaise or eggnog, pose a higher risk of salmonella, although the overall incidence of contamination has declined with better food safety practices.

To reduce the risk, it’s advised to avoid raw or undercooked eggs and to buy eggs from a trusted source, preferably pasteurized eggs, which are heat-treated to kill any harmful bacteria.

5. Allergy Concerns

Egg Allergy: Eggs, particularly egg whites, are a common allergen, especially in children. People with egg allergies may experience a range of symptoms from mild to severe, including skin reactions, respiratory issues, or even anaphylaxis (a life-threatening allergic reaction).

6. Environmental and Ethical Concerns

Animal Welfare: The production of eggs, particularly from large commercial farms, raises significant ethical concerns related to the treatment of laying hens. Many hens are kept in confined conditions (like battery cages), which restrict their ability to move freely and engage in natural behaviors. This has led many consumers to choose eggs from more humane, free-range, or pasture-raised sources.

Environmental Impact: Like other animal-based foods, egg production has a carbon footprint and contributes to environmental issues, such as land use, water consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. However, compared to red meat (especially beef), eggs have a smaller environmental impact.

7. Risk of “Overconsumption”

Excessive Consumption: While eggs are nutritious, consuming them in very large quantities on a regular basis—especially when paired with a diet high in other sources of saturated fat and cholesterol—could contribute to poor heart health over time. The key, as with most foods, is moderation. Consuming 1-2 eggs per day as part of a balanced diet is generally considered safe for most people.

Does red meat cause cancer?

As per ChatGPT:

The link between red meat consumption and cancer risk has been studied extensively, and there is evidence suggesting that eating large amounts of red meat, particularly processed meat, may increase the risk of certain types of cancer, particularly colorectal cancer.

Here are some key points:

1. Red Meat and Cancer Risk

Red meat generally refers to beef, pork, lamb, and goat meat. It contains compounds like heme iron, which may contribute to cancer risk.

Studies have shown that consuming large quantities of red meat (especially over long periods) can increase the risk of colorectal cancer. The mechanism is not fully understood, but it may involve the formation of carcinogenic substances during the cooking process (e.g., through grilling, frying, or smoking) or through the breakdown of heme iron, which can produce harmful compounds in the gut.

What makes Margarine a safer alternative:

As per ChatGPT:

Margarine can be considered a safer alternative to butter for several reasons, especially in terms of heart health. The key factors that make margarine a potentially better choice include its fat composition and the way it is typically made, though not all margarines are created equal. Here’s a breakdown of why margarine can be a safer alternative to butter:

1. Lower in Saturated Fat

Butter is high in saturated fat, which has been linked to increased levels of LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol, also known as “bad” cholesterol. High LDL levels are a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke.

Margarine, especially the soft or liquid varieties, tends to have lower levels of saturated fat. Many margarines are made from vegetable oils like canola, sunflower, or soybean oil, which are high in polyunsaturated fats, including omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, which are beneficial for heart health.

You see…

Because of the censorship and information that you are being allowed to view in your research…what was once an amazing tool – the internet, feeding into what should be the next level in educational tools – AI…has become an abomination.

Where your previous reliance on figure heads, politicians and legacy media sources has been decimated through their lies and omissions…

Your new reliance on super brains that have the ability to process more information in mere seconds to summarize…are becoming just as bad.

Consider the source, because as we move on…the issues with AI will be the same censorship as has always been.

They decide the garbage that gets put in…

You’re the one left holding the bag, when it comes out.

Censorship Industrial Complex

New Australian law, if passed, will make the gov’t the sole arbiter of truth’

Published on November 11, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

The main purpose of the legislation is to silence critics of the Australian government’s response to the Covid-19 crisis. What they have done instead is demonstrate that Australia does not have adequate protection for free speech, nor is it a democracy.

In a crushing blow to free speech in Australia, the lower house of federal parliament has passed an amendment, known as the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. It imposes obligations on digital communications platform providers to prevent the dissemination of content “that contains information that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive, and is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm of a specified type (misinformation and disinformation).”

Several dissenting politicians have expressed outrage and incredulity at the legislative move. Nola Marino, a member of the right-wing opposition Liberal Party said that she did not think that Australia, a liberal democratic society, would ever be “debating a bill that is explicitly designed to censor and silence the Australian people.”

National Party member Keith Pitt described the legislation as a “yawning chasm that is incredibly … dangerous to this country.” He expressed shock that the amendment was being put forward, adding that Western democracies such as Australia have been built on freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Such principled objections were ignored, however. The legislation now has only to pass in the Senate (the upper house) to become law.

The first and most obvious criticism of the law is that it puts the government authority, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) in the ridiculous position of deciding what is and isn’t “false” information. That is not only absurd – how could ACMA, for example make judgements on subjects like vaccines or viruses – it means that the law cannot be applied universally.

Governments routinely put out false information, arguably more often than they put out true information. Will they be penalized? Of course not. Advertisers present information that is false. Will they fall under his law? No. It will only be directed at people who are saying things that the government does not like, especially in relation to health policy. It is politics, not law.

When governments distort the law for political ends, it inevitably ends up in badly crafted legislation, and that is what has happened here. The law depends for its integrity on clear semantics, words whose definition is clear. But two key words, “misinformation” and “disinformation” are misleading at best.

They are variants of the word “information”; the prefixes “dis” and “mis” have been added to create the impression that what is at issue is objective truth (“information” being something objectively observable). It is a diversion. What is happening instead is that the law will target the intent of the writers.

Disinformation is defined as information that is “intended” to mislead and to cause harm. With misinformation there is no such intent; it is just an error, but even there it requires determining what is in the author’s mind. The aim is to outlaw thinking that is not congruent with the governments’ official position.

Pointing out this definitional slipperiness could be the basis for an effective rebuttal of the legislation. Courts are very poor at establishing intent.

A second problem: How do we know what meaning the recipients will get? Glance at the comments on social media posts and you will see an extreme array of views, ranging from approbation to intense hostility. To state the obvious, readers think for themselves and inevitably derive different meanings. Anti-disinformation legislation, which is justified as protecting people from bad influences for the common good, is not merely patronizing and infantilizing, it treats citizens as mere machines ingesting data – robots, not humans. It is legislation that is not just aimed at controlling the thoughts of the producers of the content, it is targeted at the thoughts of the recipients: two layers of absurdity. The result would be like targeting the “thought crimes” depicted in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four.

Censorship regimes operate on the assumption that if a sufficient proportion of the available content is skewed towards pushing state propaganda, then the audience will inevitably be persuaded to believe the authorities. But what matters is the quality of the content, not the quantity of the messaging. Repetitious expressions of the government’s preferred narrative eventually become meaningless, while sound analyses will cut through.

The main purpose of the legislation is to silence critics of the Australian government’s response to the COVID-19 crisis. The aim is to ensure that in future health authorities and the political class are immune from scrutiny and criticism. It is unlikely to be effective. What they have done instead is demonstrate that Australia does not have adequate protection for free speech, nor is it genuinely a democracy.