Unlock the Power of Online Signature Legality in Australia with airSlate SignNow

How to eSign a document: online signature legality for Public Relations in Australia

[Music] hello and welcome to another edition of Australia sensored I'm your host John story director of Law and policy at The Institute of public affairs today I'll be talking to Andrew lenthal Andrew is an investigative journalist and executive director of lionet a digital civil liberties initiative Andrew as I know you're aware um the Australian government is proposing to introduce um internet censorship laws the so-called disinformation and misinformation Bill and these laws would Empower a government agency uh the Australian communication and media authority to to impose fines or other punishments on the social media companies if they fail to censor misinformation to to amma's satisfaction now this has raised freedom of speech concerns because it would if Amma has the power to impose fines what's stopping it from saying hey guys um we think you should take this down um or else um and it would effectively give a government agency and the agents and and the government itself control over social media now of course that's a concern but one of the things that um people should be aware of is that this sort of thing is already happening um maybe not without the backing of law but as the Twitter files revealed there has already been collusion between government agencies and social media to to take down certain content including in Australia now you were part of the Twitter files investigations can you tell us a bit about what the Twitter files were and what your role in them was sure um and and just firstly I think the way you're thinking about is quite right that people are thinking well okay this thing is in the future this bill is coming it might have an impact down the track but actually it's happening now and it's been happening for quite some quite some time and that was revealed through um through the Twitter files and also other other investigations so the Twitter files were essentially a project or investigative journalism initiative that came about as a result of Elon mask purchasing Twitter and then releasing uh internal documents or the Twitter itself releasing internal documents to uh a series of journalists including um Matt TBE Michael shellenberger Barry WIS Le Fang others that people may have heard of so I came on board to work with Matt TBI um about a year or so uh ago specifically as he was trying to understand this web of of anti- disinformation Nos and academics and essentially this kind of blob that had grown up in the last four five six years um under this rubric of anti- disinformation some of which was legitimate but a lot of which was essentially um being weaponized as a way to um you know enact a kind of new 21st century version of censorship so I worked with him uh looking at particularly the role of NGS and Academia and philanthropy because that's my background my background is actually very much from a kind of progressive uh NGO world I kind of founded and directed my own NGO for almost 18 years that did some amount of anti- disinformation work uh in Southeast Asia southeast Asia was our main focus there was a role the work the work that we were doing was around um the Philippines particularly where you know the government sponsor kind of trolls and other things were very much a real uh political phenomenon um but uh what has happened is that this kind of you know small well small modest problem which is growing has essentially been hijacked by people with you know essentially shouting news at their opponent become essentially kind of political cudle rather than a kind of independent uh search for the truth which which would be difficult in its own right yeah one one of the things about your investigations that sort of rang alarm bells for me was the the involvement of the the military in in this sort of anti- disinformation movement um ordinarily there's a bit of sensitivity to the the crossing of civil and Military um of matters you know that the military are there to defend our Borders or or operate overseas um not to influence um things within the country we normally associate that with sort of tinpot dictatorships where the the military um runs things but your investigations revealed that the military um have quite a large involvement in this so-called anti- disinformation space absolutely well military and I would say perhaps more so intelligence services but where where where's the line around that so for example the the Australian Twitter files revealed that it's actually the department of Home Affairs which you know which houses things like AO and and Border Force were um flagging uh content for that they were suggesting politely I guess you could it was the the nicest way to say to Twitter and you would only have to presume to other social media as well content that they they think violated Twitter's terms of service that they believe should be taken down the things that they were flagging though um this this is a so-called extremism division right that was working on on covid related issues jokes you know jokes about Dan Andrews wearing a mask uh political commentary on on the health Minister you know how long jokes about how long you had to like line up to get a PCR test things that were just like you know maybe course maybe not you know exactly the person you'd like to sit down and have a drink with at the pub but entirely uh speak that should be un protected and also sometimes you know medical questions that were quite legitimate to be asked one one uh account was targeted had only 20 followers and so if you think about what is what is what are they doing that they're targeting and looking around for uh accounts that only have 20 followers that obviously have Absolut zero uh you know social influence and they were tracking non austral austan accounts under the under the idea that somehow because they were operating I think in Australian inform the Australian information space I think is the the term they use that somehow it was legitimate for the Australian government to comment on Twitter on accounts from India or the US Etc so the overreach here is already prior to this bill is already you know out of control and Beyond the remit of what those agencies should be doing and also beg the question of well there is a job for those agencies which is to protect Australia and so why are they kind of focusing on counts of 20 followers rather than potentially looking at actual threats to Australia security yeah it's I mean it seems like this um what you've called anti- disinformation but this sort of approach of you know we need to sensor things on the internet really exploded during Co that's where people just felt that there's so much disinformation and there's so many lies and governments need to crack down and there's a role for law enforcement and intelligence agencies but the the the sad irony as far as I'm concerned is that it was actually during Co where the need for fullsome debate freethinking alternative viewpoints was never more needed and I I'll I'll just quote something I read in one of your articles I just think it summarizes it perfectly disinformation does of course exist and does need to be addressed however the biggest source of disinformation are governments corporations and increasingly anti- disinformation experts themselves who have through covid-19 and many other issues gotten the facts wrong and that to me seems to be the biggest problem with things like Australia's misinformation laws it requires someone a body a group fact Checkers an organization to determine what is the truth if and so that you know what is false and therefore can be sensed and how can we entrust that role to a government who themselves so often and so recently got so much wrong absolutely I mean who I think if you made a list of who are the the people I would least like to trust with the truth I imagine politicians would be right up the top there if not absolutely number one so a government appointed body which it turns out as I understand the minister can also Direct on occasion specifically to um think about or investigate particular issues is absolutely the last group of people that should be um in charge of determining the truth even if they were absolutely expert at it which they are not you still would wouldn't want want it to to happen so you talk about Co you know the absolute Litany of things that the government got wrong That vaccine wasn't going to stop transmission that it was going to stop transmission and it absolutely did did not end the pandemic you know keep seeing stories on the ABC about sth wave eighth wave you know whatever wave we're up to um it didn't didn't end as we were as we were told questions about how effective masks were in the end the lockdowns um which you know particularly people in in Melbourne suffered rather brutally through as well and where the origins of the the virus all these things were not allowed to be discussed and bizarrely it was you know I come from historically the kind of political left it was actually the left who turned on Free Speech the most and this is another kind of bizarre political phenomenon of our new era and so I you the work that I did in my previous organization was all around fre of expression in often autocratic and authoritarian regimes in the Philippines in Thailand in in Indonesia and the last thing any of the people I was working with there wanted was for the government to have more control over determining what was true and false they were fighting for a kind of Civic space online where they could discuss robustly the kind of problems of of the day and the kind of kind of caring of the mind that seems to have happened AC you know across the board it's not only the left it's also a kind of General Social phenomena where people I think have gotten confused they don't know what what to think they're not trusted to think as well um that that cultural phenomena needs to be radically pushed back because it failed and Co is the biggest example of the failure of trying to shut down debate and discussion because we got very bad outcomes um as a result what what why do you think there has been that shift I mean you mentioned how the the sort of progressive left has now turned on freedom of speech what do you think's changed what why is freedom of speech almost seen as a sort of Fringe right you know dog whistle um which hasn't always been the case I I think it's because it kind of change in the who is in the leadership of the of the left and its concerned so I think if shifted from a kind of working class you know Union driven kind of quite robust rough and tumble kind of um left that maybe you know par back well existed there until the the 90s or early 2000s and I think you have a much more kind of University educated middle class left now that is um much more sensitive to different issues some some of which is legitimate um as well but is is um um finds it much more difficult to have robust discussions and is much more kind of easily um offended and some ways actually sees its activism as managing dis social discourse in society rather than say ameliorating um economic um inequality or you know people's rights at work which used to be kind of the main thrust um of of the left in days gone by so I think you've seen a kind of major kind of cultural demographic um shift in terms of who is the left now much of which much of that is quite positive but they they now I saying they we I'm not sure where I am today um have going to throw the baby out with the bath water and there seems to be a absolute lack of foresight that you know actually these These are original the original misinformation bill was introduced by the Morrison yeah government yeah right I mean now the Liberals are kind of saying oh this is really bad we don't like it which is good but you know you might be sort of have a little bit of a uh thinness ISM there uh as well but but at the same time it's like well yes and then if Peter dutton's in will you will you be happy with Peter Dutton or the the commun communications Minister that pet Peter Dutton appoints saying well we need to have a look at our climate misinformation and what these leftwing people are saying about are the climate it's all wrong they're spreading Discord amongst Society you're not going to want that and so you should not set up an apparatus where anyone liberal labor greens One Nation whoever it might be can establish this kind of framework in society you need to kind of neutral as neutral as as it's possible to create Civic space to repas robustly discuss society's problems and come up with the best possible solutions some sometimes that's not well sometimes most of the time it's not a kind of smooth orderly polite process but that's democracy yeah I think um I think there there is a bit of cynicism it it seems that whoever's in power is more um drawn towards um censorship because they're the ones getting getting criticized but yeah I would I would implore people today it's something I I tell people on the the political left I just say okay whatever you're advocating now just imagine Donald Trump was in charge you know the the boogeyman of the left you know the most despised person just imagine Donald Trump was running the government and he was in control of Amma are you still happy with this Arrangement um I I think I think um that that's a good way of looking at all laws just imagine you lose power you know are you still happy with these arrangements and that I do find that Comm to some people I think one of the issues is though that I think progressives assume they will maintain control of the bureaucracy and therefore they will still have a certain amount of kind of Leverage and protection in this regard but again actually I feel like I'm trying to help help them and say this this could be really bad for you you should you should not be into this that said I mean the response to the misinformation bill I believe there was 23,000 uh submissions corre me if I'm wrong um and so it was overwhelming and I don't think it was only people coming from the right as well and there was some kind of modest uh criticisms that I saw from some kind kind of more progressiv minded journalism uh outfit as well the put submitted so I think more and more people are getting getting the message the the bandwagon is still there like the bandwagon has you know lost a few spokes in a in a wheel or too but they're still really trying to drive it hard uh as well but I think it's been dented and you know even you see a lot of these Miss and disinformation organizations changing how they speak talk about information Integrity now or other kind of um nomenclature that they're trying to come up with that disguises what they were doing because I think the brand have missing different disinformation has um has taken a hit yeah I I think um I mean Mark Zuckerberg and and some of the tech CEOs were were brought before Congress recently and um and and and chided for failing to protect children from from from dangerous content which is something that I would support but I can see that being used as a see that's why we need to regulate the the internet and the problem is that something like you know um stopping exploitative material atal or graphic material whatever sounds fine but but soon the same bureaucracy and the same legislation is involved in silencing genuine political debate yeah I think another aspect of um the sort of you mentioned you know sort of the the left is now your sort of educ University educated middle class um I'm I'm a lawyer myself and I I certainly see this within the legal profession I think once you've been to UNI and you've got piece of paper explaining that you're you're an expert I do think it makes people more inclined to to believe in you know an expert class to to to solve problems um rather than relying on you know the more as you s the cut and thrust of you know of of ideas and and proving things it's no no no this can be this can be left to the the experts to to solve this um I think that might be playing a role as well um getting to that point of you know the I think Co proved that well I think demonstrated that the the best way to get to the truth is through exposing everything both sides of a debate um exposing it to to to debate but we didn't necessarily have that in the social media space until Elon musk's takeover of Twitter now X and we wouldn't have had the Twitter files exposing a lot of this um I certainly applaud Elon Musk for being more of a a a free speech um Advocate and and and turning Twitter into that sort of forum but I also find it in a in a way a little bit sad that um the internet was meant to sort of be this you know decentralizing process we wouldn't rely on mainstream media and governments to to get our information we can talk to each other um every person has an i an a phone a smartphone every every smartphone has a a camera and we can get news ourself but what it seems is that it's actually become highly centralized and if it wasn't for the fact that there was a particular billionaire had a a particular thing for free speech and and thought he'd spend $44 billion or whatever the hell it was on buying Twitter we wouldn't have that um I think it's actually quite alarming that if it wasn't for the the good graces of a particular billionaire we wouldn't really have a a free um free speech platform absolutely I mean there are a kind of constellation of small things out there kind of the rumbles and the and the saer video Etc but yeah essentially We've Ended up back in this extremely actually more centralized situation than we were 20 or 30 years ago with media where all the conversation who knows exactly what percentage I'm sure it's in the 80 or 90% is happening on half a dozen major platforms and the media in Australia wasn't that centralized um in the in the 80s and 90s and that every country had its own you know um media landscape as Central ized as it often still as it often still was um so yeah this is not where we want to be because you know there are problems with the way musk is running Twitter um as well it's still Shadow Banning uh going on uh on X uh so it's not the problem has has been ameliorated I would say but it's certainly not solved the solution is that we need to have decentralized open protocol based commun Communications channels that cannot be censored so think of your email right no one owns your the platform that enables you to send email it's a protocol where you can email whoever you want I mean there are ways that say a government or your you know um your internet provider could get in the middle and stop that but if you want to send an email to 500 people you can't you don't have to ask anyone's um permission or or have your data collected or tracked or whatever order to to do that so I think those kind of more protocol based ways of sharing and managing information is where we should be going so that it takes it out of the hands of particular billionaires or governments whatever their politics of the day might be um obviously we're up against quite a Goliath in that regard because losing that amount of control I think where a lot of the panic comes from losing control essentially of the The Narrative space is what is being feared by the kind of expert and and a political class that you know people are going to run away and go in a different direction and that different direction is you know called a conspiracy theory or whatever it be might be but most of the time it's just where they don't want you to go yeah I think um I mean Elon Musk takeovers been been positive and and maybe there there can be other developments but I think another positive development is just I think there is some International Focus um and more concerted focus on the fact that this this isn't sustainable we we can't have a a situation where certain voices can be silenced certain people can be driven out of the the Town Square at the whim of you know unelected NOS or or or or government agencies and I think uh one of the most positive developments was this Westminster declaration which I know you were were part of preparing and um were are a signature to and one of the things I found um well I'll ask you in a second to sort of explain what the Westminster declaration is but one of the things I found good about it is reading through the list of signatories is it's very very much people you would call freeth thinkers but of the left and and the right you have people like um Chris Hedges and Steven Pinker and people who are would definitely associate themselves with being on the political left along with you know your Jordan Petersons and and that sort of thing on on the right have you want to tell tell us a bit about the Westminster declaration sure so this is a declaration that came out of a meeting that was um put together by myself Michael shur and Matt T in London uh June of last year and that brought together both people from the left and the right um who maintain their commitment to you know free free speech and expression out of that meeting essentially we decided that what we need was a new I know there have been Free Speech declarations before but we felt the moment in terms of particularly this way in which anti- disinformation and also uh debates around hate speech were being used as a CLE to to silence voices um required a new kind of statement for for this new kind of this new moment that we're that we're in so from that we put together this declaration as you know as noted particularly focusing on the overuse and and weaponization of of anti- disinformation and anti-hate speech to to silence voices and then had a very broad spectrum uh group of people sign up and and endorse it as you said both from the left and the right because this that's you know that's the most important well one of the most important aspects of it is trying to reach the sections of the left whatever that means today to kind of convince them that this you know that that they've gone down a c sack and we need to come back out and that's why you say there's there's Julian Assange there's Oliver Stone there's xek there's others who are very much associated with the left along with a whole host of of people from the right um and I think that the impact was like quite quite good we've got quite a lot of media around it I think that it's an ongoing document that people can kind of reference and back to about what do we actually want there is this there is a problem out there but we need to be very very careful in how we manage it we need to essentially look at all of the ulterior motives of the people who are driving this industry um which is not about protecting most of it it's not about protecting democracy it's essentially about narrative control you mentioned that I mean there I don't think anyone would deny that um there can be some harm or that it's not ideal if people can be manipulated through false messages that are easily circulated online but I tend to think and I I'd be interested to get your thoughts I tend to think that that the actual harm and downside of that is is overblown um that or or at least it's it's it's very unquantifiable um if if there's a liar spread online does it really change does it really turn someone from voting for one thing for another thing or getting a vaccine or not getting a vaccine or what whatever the the issue is I I tend to personally believe um that that it that it is overblown but it's this concept that no no we need to protect people and yeah we need to protect people it's quite a it's quite a paternalistic Viewpoint that people are you know they're a little bit too stupid they're a little bit too G able we we need to protect them um from this and I actually think that that concept is highly undemocratic because if people can't be trusted to analyze information and come to a decision then I mean that's the entire project of of of democracy is that you entrust Ordinary People to to pick their leader and they've got agency over that and if we're all too dumb and gullible to make sensible decisions it's only a small leap to say well well maybe we shouldn't really give people the vote either because you know look how look how silly they are or is that is that too dark a view of no no no I think that's well I mean it could go that way but I think you've kind of um hit one of the main points which is the fundamental fundamentally elitist nature of this project which is that the population an anti-democratic nature of of this Enterprise which is that the people as a whole cannot be trusted to make informed decisions I mean that's what people that's what the people in the you know 16 17 1800s 1900s even were making arguments around in terms of why they shouldn't open up the vote to people who weren't Property Owners to women to other groups oh well you know they can't be trusted you know they were not going to be properly informed and it's extremely anti-democratic um way of viewing the world and it's coming from the people who see themselves as the Defenders of um democracy and so there is this new kind of elitist guardianship uh movement I guess you could call it that is essentially trying to push back I think because it deeply fears populism because populism is an absolutely huge threat to the rule of the expert class uh and that you and and you know the status of the expert class was massively dented during Trump and also during brexit and Co I think was a way for the expert class to reclaim Authority in society um and had they done a really good job maybe they could Coast for the next 10 or 20 years but they did a terrible job during Co and so and and on other issues and so I think they're in Desperate um trouble and I think it's why you see a lot of this flailing uh around to maintain political control and I think this misinformation Enterprise is part of that uh initiative to try and maintain um political control uh at the end of the at the end of the day no I think I think you've um I've hit some some good points there um I I think if we are um if it is true that we're rather susceptible to to to misinformation and and we're opposed to um um you know dealing with that problem by imposing censorship or a government knows best expert body that says this is the official truth and you should believe that the alternative um so you if we are a little prone to to misinformation can't trust government the Alternatives I can think of two Alternatives would be one is a genuinely free an independent media where so much of our mainstream media are now um well politically polarize themselves and it's about narrative control not genuine um journalism it doesn't surprise me that you know the Twitter files they didn't Elon Musk didn't open up Twitter to CNN or even Fox News it was independent investigators like yourself and Matt toii and others um so the media I think have really let us down the other is education in that um critical thinking um is a way to to immunize yourself from falsehoods online yet it seems so much of our education is um uh about indoctrination rather than critical thinking about this is how you should think not uh not not teaching people the critical critical thinking skills is is that um a potential solution here more critical thinking uh more empowering people better journalism so that the truth is easier to find and and we we can determine what the truth is more clearly yeah it say so I mean the the best counter to disinformation is free speech that is the protection measure that has actually been the protection measure for a very long time from lies from governments or powerful actors big corporations Etc was the demand for free speech and expression was there to protect the little people um and that's again one of part of this bizarre flip that we're that we're looking at and for that you need a robust and independent um media you need an excellent education system that is going to teach people how to think rather than what uh what to think um and you need a culture that open opens is open and Embraces um those kind of robust um discussions and so we don't have any of those things well we have them to a degree but we don't they're not in charge of the culture of those ideas right now it's much more about safety and protection and I don't want to hear ideas that you know might hurt me or whatever it it might be uh and that that kind of cultural change is in some ways I see the first step but there is also one of the things I find so bizarre I talked to a lot of different people in journalist about is that there is so much out there if you want to be a journalist right now there's so many things that uh most journalists will just will not touch because they're kind of coded as you know uh toxic you can't talk about uh don't talk about the vaccine don't talk about M don't talk about the lockdown don't talk about the of the virus don't talk about Ukraine don't talk about Etc um the the journalism become incredibly conformist whereas I actually think that it used to be a place where unconforming to investigate and understand the truth now people essentially just um litigating for their side and that's not journalism that's activism that has a place um as well but if you want to do that you should go and work at an NGO and if you want to do truth seeking then you should be a journalist and you I think your quote there um the best solution to disinformation is free speech is fantastic probably a a great way to to finish up um thank you so much for your time um if people are interested in in the work you do um how how can they reach you or find more found find out more about you uh so they can go to network aex sub.com with an a uh or they can go to Lia dn. that's the digital civil liberties initiative that I run Andrew lenthal thank you for your time thank [Music] you