The "misinformation/disinformation" bill

currently before our federal parliament is not designed to "protect" but "prevent". It is not there to ensure we cannot get "harmful" information but to try and prevent us from getting information the government does not wish us to have.

Yes, there is a lot of harmful material on the internet. The legislation is not going to stop that. There can be an attempt to prevent it by trying to make "big tech" responsible but it won't stop the dissemination of such information. You can get a story around the globe in seconds now. The story can be taken down at the source but the damage will have been done. Like the old game of "Chinese whispers" the story will grow and/or change the more prevention is tried. The only way to stop such things will be to prevent people from accessing the internet. This is what happens in North Korea and like regimes. 

Where the government controls the "internet" then the free flow of information is restricted. It allows the government to "inform" people and tell them what they "need to know".  Is there anyone who really believes a government, any government, does not have an interest in doing that? This is bureaucracy at its finest. 

This country has a very high rate of "literacy" - around 99% - but literacy can mean many things. It is no longer considered to be "the ability to read and write". It can also mean the ability to understand and use images, use a computer or use an ATM or more.  In other words it now considers whether someone can actually do what is required of them by government entities like Centrelink. By no means everyone can. More and more organisations are "going digital". My health fund recently did this. It means many older people who are not comfortable with computers are struggling to do what was once an easy paper based task. They are being told "get used to it".

I read newspapers "on line" now. For years it was delivered each morning. There were actually two delivered. The state newspaper and the national newspaper. Delivery is now rare. It is expected people will read the paper on line. I note there are still many people who read the printed papers in the library. How much longer will that go on? 

I know more and more people who rely on commercial television news services for their "information". It is alarming how poorly informed many people are. They will "believe" something simply because they "heard it on the news". Is that really enough? I think not but they are "time poor". It is becoming increasingly easy to "educate" people about issues like "climate change", "renewable energy", "racism" and "gender diversity". Attempting to prevent discussion of these issues will simply lead to more people with little or no knowledge of these things. They will believe they know and that they can make an informed choice. What will really have happened is something different. They are being told what to think in ways over which others have control.

If we really want at least some people to be better informed then we would perhaps do much better to teach real literacy in school - literacy which leads to comprehension and critical thinking. The government's proposal is in direct contradiction of this. It needs to be condemned for that reason.