If the Prime Minister believes

he can legislate to somehow control the "big tech" companies and tell them how to run their businesses then he is an even bigger fool than he makes himself out to be. It won't work.

There are around twenty-seven million people in this country. There are around thirty-nine million in California, the place where so many of the big tech companies began business. The reach of big tech is international. It is only regimes like those of the Kim family in North Korea which try to prevent people from accessing the services provided by big tech. It is only when governments have something to hide they attempt to limit access.

Our Prime Minister is saying that the proposed legislation to limit access by under sixteen year old students is intended to hold big tech responsible for everything that goes on there. It is apparently not intended to hold those who (ab)use the internet responsible. No, big tech can do much more to prevent it. 

Yes, perhaps big tech can and should do more but it is clear that the Prime Minister's proposed legislation has very little to do with this. He is taking on big tech because he believes he can. He believes he can actually prevent access to information he decides is "misinformation" or "disinformation". The proposed legislation is actually written in such a way that shows it is intended to prevent access to information with which the government does not agree. Despite claims to the contrary it will have the capacity to wipe out discussion about climate change, sexuality and gender, racism, nuclear power, migration and any other issue where is a strong view which opposes government policy. 

As it is currently written the proposed legislation has the potential to influence the conduct of elections in this country. That is of particular concern when attendance at the ballot box is compulsory.  Does he also propose to ban the use of VPNs? 

It is all very well to make claims about what legislation is or is not intended to do or what it will mean we can or cannot do but the reality may be very different. When it has been passed and there is a challenge to it, perhaps in the High Court, then unintended consequences might arise. The case "Commonwealth v Tasmania" (or the "Tasmanian Dam" case as it is popularly called) showed just how the Commonwealth government was able to manipulate the law in order to suit their own agenda. We might applaud that outcome on environmental grounds but the power given to the government as a consequence has had far reaching consequences. 

The idea that the government of a country with a very small population like ours can hope to control big tech is nonsense. However they may attempt to dress it up this is not about being able to control those companies. It is about being able to control us.