2024/05/03 by Michael Davis, Sacha Molitorisz · 1 voice
Social Sciences · #Ukrainian Legal and Forensic Studies #Freedom of Expression and Defamation #Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
paper · pdf · doi:10.1080/1323238x.2025.2466862
openalex publication_date 2024/05/03 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/06/15
Online misinformation is one of the most fraught problems in contemporary policy, not least because any attempt to regulate misinformation must contend with the need to protect freedom of expression. This is complicated by the fact that digital platforms themselves restrict expression through their own content-moderation policies, and often do so in a way that lacks transparency and consistency. Limiting state power to protect freedom of expression can, therefore, leave platforms unaccountable for their own power to limit expression. This paper examines Australia's failed Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill as a case study of how this tension can play out in regulatory design. The bill rightly focused on making platforms accountable for their systems and processes. But to avoid regulatory overreach, it granted platforms complete discretion over content moderation and unduly limited the range of platform activity subject to regulation. In doing so, it undermined the ability of the regulator to hold platforms accountable. Ultimately, we argue that this regulatory tension can be eased only by empowering a body independent of both government and industry to adjudicate platforms’ content-moderation decisions and by taking a more comprehensive approach to rights than that provided in Australian law.