They Never Let a Tragedy Go to Waste for the Agenda, By James Reed

As argued by journalist, Rebekah Barnett, the Albo government is using the social media video reporting of the stabbings in Sydney as a tool for its internet censorship drive, for its "misinformation" Bill, which would push internet censorship in exactly the direction the World Economic Forum wants, since this year the Davos elite proclaimed that misinformation, that is anything opposing their position, is humanity's greatest threat, perhaps more than nuclear war.

While this issue has been covered extensively at the blog, the new item of concern is that the Opposition now has a reason to cave in with the government and support the misinformation Bill. Peter Dutton has swallowed the mainstream media narrative that Elon Musk is putting himself above the law, without considering if the law, which makes Australia able to censor the internet of other countries, is legally valid at international law. Dutton is "happy to look at anything the government puts forward." Anything?

As I see it, Dutton as well needs to be replaced. I have suggested Senator Price to become Australia's first Aboriginal prime minister, and after the Voice, she would be far superior to what we have in these guys.

https://news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/australian-government-hijacks-knife

"In the wake of two violent stabbings in Sydney, one of which claimed six lives at a shopping mall, and the other of which was live-streamed during a church service, senior politicians and bureaucrats are promising to ramp up social media censorship to protect Australians from misinformation and violent content online.¹

Two narrative threads dominating the media cycle underpin the renewed calls for censorship.

The main plot is a stand-off between Elon Musk's platform X and Australia's eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant over footage of the non-fatal church stabbing. The incident was classed as a terrorist incident by the New South Wales police, giving Inman Grant the legal power to order the footage removed from social media sites within Australia.

X says it has hidden the footage from Australians, but refuses to comply with a further demand to withhold the footage globally. Apparently the order for a global ban is to prevent Australians from using VPN technology to circumvent an Australia-only geo-block. eSafety says X isn't doing enough to protect social media users from the violent content, and has obtained an injunction from the Federal Court to force X's hand.

The subplot is the mis-naming of the Bondi Junction mall attacker, spread first on social media, then amplified with apparently zero attempt at verification by major news station Channel 7, with the wrongly named man now suing the station for defamation.

At a press conference on Monday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese blamed social media companies entirely for spreading the damaging rumour, omitting mention of the corporate media's role.

From these events, Australia's top politicians and bureaucrats have drawn the following conclusions:

• Inman Grant should be backed 100% in her attempts to censor content globally (says Deputy Opposition Leader Sussan Ley)
• Social media platforms have a "social responsibility" protect Australians from content that might "cause division" (says Prime Minister Anthony Albanese)
• Elon Musk is "totally out of touch with the values that Australian families have" and is causing Australians "great distress" (again, Albanese)
• Social media companies are "pouring accelerant on the flames" of misinformation and extremism (says Australian Federal Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw)
• In fact, social media is responsible for "just about every problem" in society, leaving governments to "pick up the pieces" (says Home Affairs Minister Clare O'Neil)
• Therefore, the only responsible action for the government to take is to revamp its shelved misinformation bill in the hope of preventing "dangerous falsehoods" from spreading "at scale and speed" (says Communications Minister Michelle Rowland)
• Indeed, our politicians are "prepared to take whatever action is necessary to haul these companies into line" (says Albanese)
• Even the opposition party, which until now had vigorously opposed the misinformation bill, is prepared to back the laws and "happy to look at anything the government puts forward" because social media companies "see themselves [as] above the law" and we need to show them they're not (says Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton)

Currently, the main way the Australian government controls the internet is under the remit of the eSafety Commissioner, who is empowered to minimise online harm. The Commissioner can order the removal of child abuse content, revenge porn, or a recently added category, 'adult cyber abuse,' which has resulted in the removal of gender-critical posts on social media. Read more about the eSafety Commissioner and her role in the global censorship network in my recent collaboration with Network Affects, here.

However, the government has little control over online content outside of eSafety's remit. During the pandemic, the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Health exploited the emergency to co-ordinate the removal of content on social media sites, including memes, true information, and vaccine injury testimony, but that gravy train has ended.

This year, the World Economic Forum (WEF) named mis- and disinformation as the world's most pressing threat - more than more than war, more than hunger, more than poverty.

Governments are increasingly looking for ways to solve the problem that global elites have decided tops the list of all possible problems. In Australia, the solution put forward is a misinformation bill that would give the government new powers to set and enforce industry standards for digital platforms.

The problem is, the bill was deeply unpopular when it was floated for public consultation last year, attracting 23,000 comments, including 3,000 submissions. Many of the submissions were critical of the proposed laws, which would have the effect of censoring a staggering range of speech on issues from the weather, to elections, to public health, to gender ideology, and so on.

Notably, the government and mainstream media are exempt from the proposed laws.

Even the Human Rights Commission, which completely dropped the ball during Covid, claimed that the bill was a risk to democracy. Human Rights Commissioner, Lorraine Finlay said of the bill,

If we fail to ensure robust safeguards for freedom of expression online, then the measures taken to combat misinformation and disinformation could themselves risk undermining Australia's democracy and freedoms.

An article I wrote for Umbrella News last year, titled, 'Australia on 'Dangerous Ground': Is the New Misinformation Bill a Threat to Democracy?' echoes Finlay's concerns.

But flick through news coverage over the past fortnight and you'll find that dissent over the bill is just a distant memory, because no one is safe until we're all safe.

Corporate media are gleefully playing the story as Australia vs. Musk, throwing their full weight behind the government, while politicians and top bureaucrats are taking every talk-to-the-press opportunity to spruik the bill as a necessary measure to bring errant social media platforms to heel."