Reviewing mis and disinformation rules

This week CMT made a submission to DIGI, the industry association representing digital platforms responsible for the Australian Code of Practice on Misinformation and Disinformation.

The code was first launched in early 2021, in the wake of the ACCC’s Digital Platforms Inquiry, and reviewed in 2022. In some ways the stakes have been raised since then because the government’s attempt to introduce a co-regulatory model – which would have replaced or at least enhanced the DIGI code and given ACMA enforcement powers – collapsed at the end of last year. That left DIGI’s self-regulatory code as the single instrument governing mis- and disinformation in Australia.

Our submission to the 2025 review was led by Michael with contributions from Alena, Karen Lee and myself. Our first response was to DIGI’s proposal to remove misinformation from the scope of the code. In our view, platforms do have a responsibility to take action about misinformation, which can be harmful even where harm is not intended. This includes its impact on human rights and broader societal harms. And as platforms will most likely respond in at least some cases, the actions they take should be governed by common industry standards, not left solely to the discretion of the platform itself.

We agreed with DIGI on the benefits of an eco-system approach to combatting mis- and disinformation. A systems-based approach is something we have promoted in the online safety context. Promoting shared responsibility, however, does not mean platforms should scale back their own contributions. Like the code in place in the EU, the Australian code should require signatories to form formal collaborative partnerships with experts, related industries and other stakeholders to develop best-practice systems. We also think it should encourage platforms more strongly to promote access to news and other high-quality information. 

Another question raised by DIGI in its Discussion Paper was whether it’s achievable for platforms to come up with a common set of metrics for reporting progress against the obligations in the code. This is a point on which regulators and civil society organisations here and overseas have focussed their attention, arguing for more comparability in transparency reports and more granular country-level reporting. Rather than pull back on the level of reporting, we think it’s important for DIGI and the platform signatories to step up their efforts to provide meaningful metrics. We presented some ideas on how the platforms could expand and contextualise data reporting, strengthen fact-checking transparency and improve research access and collaborations.

Finally, we offered some comments about the operation of the code complaints system and its administration committee. We noted the gap that exists between “reports” users make to flag content and the complaints made under the code about systems that do not comply with the code obligations. We think the code should include complaint handling provisions for escalated reports not resolved at first instance, and that the signatories and DIGI should pursue the development of internal and external complaint handling arrangements. And we urged DIGI to resist a proposal to regard its administration committee as a purely advisory body. Instead, the committee should retain oversight of the administration of the scheme, with public members who are appointed through a transparent, public process and remunerated for their work.