The Australian and EU codes of practice CMMN3012

The Australian and EU codes of practice

Our focus will be on regulatory attempts to deal with disinformation (in its broad sense, encompassing the other forms of information disorder). The Australian Code was developed by industry group, DIGI. In particular, we'll look at:

how the current Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation works as an act of self-regulation

how the code was developed in response to recommendations from the Digital Platforms Inquiry and the government's Implementation Roadmap

the extent to which the Australian code built on an existing EU code, and what has happened in Europe since then

the options for the Australian government into the future.

• Disinformation - intentionally false and designed to cause harm

• Misinformation - false information spread mistakenly

• Malinformation - genuine information shared with an intent to cause harm.

See Wardle and Derakhshan (2017)

Links to an external site.

and Kruger et al (2022).

https://canvas.uts.edu.au/courses/25442/pages/topic-7-disinformation?module_item_id=1256797

Attempt one of the following questions. In your essay, have regard to the views of industry/community/government stakeholders along with local and international critical commentary.

2. Disinformation

The Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation 2022 , fostered by the European Commission, improved upon the 2018 EU Code in a number of ways. Review the concerns expressed about aspects of the 2018 EU Code and critically assess the revised version of the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation published by DIGI in December 2022 with reference to the improvements made to the EU Code.

The 2018 EU Code of Practice on Disinformation faced criticism in several areas, including lack of flexibility, data protection issues, impact on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), implementation challenges, and effectiveness. In response, the European Commission fostered the Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation 2022, which improved upon the 2018 EU Code in several ways.

The revised version of the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation, published by DIGI in December 2022, also improved upon the previous version of the code. With reference to the improvements made to the EU Code, the revised Australian code addresses several key areas, including:

1. Definition of Disinformation: The revised code provides a clearer definition of disinformation, which is more in line with the EU Code. This helps to ensure that the code is more effective in addressing the problem of disinformation and is less likely to lead to censorship or the suppression of legitimate speech.
2. Responsibility of Online Platforms: The revised code places a greater emphasis on the responsibility of online platforms to combat disinformation and misinformation. This is similar to the EU Code, which also places a high level of responsibility on online platforms to address these issues.
3. Transparency and Accountability: The revised code includes provisions that promote greater transparency and accountability in the online advertising ecosystem. This is an improvement over the EU Code, which does not address these issues in as much detail.
4. Collaboration with Stakeholders: The revised code emphasizes the need for online platforms to collaborate with other stakeholders, including governments, civil society organizations, and media outlets, to address the problem of disinformation and misinformation. This is similar to the EU Code, which also emphasizes the importance of collaboration in addressing these issues.
5. Monitoring and Evaluation: The revised code includes provisions for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the code, which is an improvement over the EU Code, which does not address this issue in as much detail.

Overall, the improvements made to the EU Code and the revised Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation represent a step forward in addressing the problem of disinformation and misinformation. The codes address the concerns raised about the 2018 EU Code, while promoting transparency and accountability and respecting freedom of expression and other fundamental rights.

The 2018 EU Code of Practice on Disinformation was criticized for not being enforceable and for lacking teeth in terms of holding platforms accountable for their role in the spread of disinformation. The revised version of the EU Code, the Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation 2022, addressed these concerns by introducing new measures to enforce the code, including regular monitoring and reporting, and the potential for fines for non-compliance.

As for the revised Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation, published by DIGI in December 2022, it is not possible to fully assess its impact without more information on its specific provisions and how they compare to the improvements made to the EU Code. However, it can be assumed that if the revised Australian Code aims to address the same issues as the EU Code, it would need to similarly focus on enforceability and holding platforms accountable for their role in the spread of disinformation.

The EU Code of Practice on Disinformation is not a legally binding instrument, but rather a voluntary agreement between the European Commission and the signatory companies (primarily internet platforms). However, the Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation 2022 introduced new measures to enforce the code, including regular monitoring and reporting, and the potential for fines for non-compliance.

In terms of legislation, the EU has taken several steps to address disinformation, including the proposed Digital Services Act and the proposed Regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online. These pieces of legislation aim to hold internet platforms accountable for the spread of illegal content, including disinformation, by imposing strict obligations on them to monitor and remove such content, as well as to implement effective measures to prevent its reappearance.

Similarly, in Australia, the government has introduced legislation such as the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code, which requires internet platforms to enter into negotiations with news media businesses over payment for the use of their content. This legislation aims to address the power imbalance between internet platforms and news media companies and to ensure that news media businesses are fairly compensated for their content.

In conclusion, while the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation and the revised Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation are not legally binding, the introduction of new measures to enforce these codes, as well as relevant legislation, demonstrate a growing effort to address the spread of disinformation and to hold internet platforms accountable for their role in it.

https://digi.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2022-ACPDM-Review_-DIGI-response-to-submissions-FINAL-22.12.2022-1.pdf - good to steal references from

https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-11/Adequacy of digital platforms disinformation and news quality measures.pdf -

The Australian Governments response to the DPI asked digital platforms to draw on learnings from the EU Code to inform the development of the Australian code(s).

The EU Code is a voluntary, outcomes-based code that sets out a list of high-level commitments and principles that signatories agree to follow to protect users from disinformation. The code was introduced October 2018 as a pioneering self-regulatory code to address disinformation. Current signatories include Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Mozilla, TikTok, and several advertising industry groups.

Since its inception, there have been significant developments to evaluate and redress the EU Code. An overview of these developments is listed below and a timeline is provided at Figure 21.

Review the concerns expressed about aspects of the 2018 EU Code of Practice on Disinformation

https://carnegieendowment.org/files/Pamment_-_EU_Code_of_Practice.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_22_3665

https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/perils-legally-defining-disinformation

https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/self-regulation-20-a-critical-reflection-of-the-european-fight-against-disinformation/

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/EU_Code_Practice_Disinformation_Aug_2019.pdf

file:///Users/apple/Downloads/eclr-article-p481_005.pdf

The EU Code of 2018 has faced criticism on several fronts. Some of the concerns expressed are:

1. Lack of Flexibility: Some critics argue that the code is too rigid and does not allow for flexibility in decision making. This has led to concerns that it may limit the ability of authorities to respond to emerging security threats.
2. Data Protection Issues: The code has been criticized for its data protection provisions, particularly with regards to the sharing of personal data between EU member states. Critics argue that this could lead to human rights violations, such as the violation of privacy rights.
3. Impact on Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs): The code has been criticized for imposing too many requirements and restrictions on SMEs, making it difficult for these businesses to access the EU market.
4. Implementation Challenges: There have been concerns raised about the implementation of the code, particularly with regards to the infrastructure and resources needed to effectively implement it. Some have argued that the lack of resources and infrastructure could lead to delays and inefficiencies in the implementation process.
5. Effectiveness: Critics have also raised concerns about the effectiveness of the code in achieving its stated goals. Some argue that the code may not be sufficient to address the security challenges facing the EU and that more robust measures may be needed.

These concerns highlight the need for continued engagement and dialogue between the EU and stakeholders to ensure that the code is effectively addressing the security challenges facing the EU, while also respecting the rights and freedoms of individuals and businesses.

The EU Code of Practice on Disinformation, adopted in 2018, has received criticism in several areas. Some of the concerns expressed are:

1. Effectiveness: Critics argue that the code is not sufficiently effective in addressing the problem of disinformation, particularly given the rapid pace at which disinformation spreads online. Some believe that more aggressive measures are needed to combat disinformation.
2. Freedom of Expression: The code has been criticized for potentially stifling freedom of expression, as it requires online platforms to remove certain types of content that are deemed to be disinformation. Some argue that this could lead to censorship and the suppression of legitimate speech.
3. Implementation Challenges: There have been concerns raised about the implementation of the code, particularly with regards to the difficulties that online platforms face in effectively identifying and removing disinformation. Some argue that the code is overly prescriptive and may not be feasible to implement.
4. Responsibility of Online Platforms: Critics argue that the code places too much responsibility on online platforms to combat disinformation and that this responsibility should be shared with other actors, such as governments, civil society organizations, and media outlets.
5. Definition of Disinformation: There has been criticism of the definition of disinformation used in the code, with some arguing that it is too broad and could lead to the removal of legitimate speech.

These concerns highlight the need for continued dialogue and engagement between the EU, online platforms, and other stakeholders to ensure that the code is effectively addressing the problem of disinformation while respecting freedom of expression and other fundamental rights.

critically assess the revised version of the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation published by DIGI in December 2022 with reference to the improvements made to the EU Code.

https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/2022-08/CMT submission on Disinformation Code Review 18 July 2022.pdf

The revised version of the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation, published by DIGI in December 2022, is a significant improvement over the previous version. With reference to the improvements made to the EU Code, the revised Australian code addresses several key areas, including:

1. Definition of Disinformation: The revised code provides a clearer definition of disinformation, which is more in line with the EU Code. This helps to ensure that the code is more effective in addressing the problem of disinformation and is less likely to lead to censorship or the suppression of legitimate speech.
2. Responsibility of Online Platforms: The revised code places a greater emphasis on the responsibility of online platforms to combat disinformation and misinformation. This is similar to the EU Code, which also places a high level of responsibility on online platforms to address these issues.
3. Transparency and Accountability: The revised code includes provisions that promote greater transparency and accountability in the online advertising ecosystem. This is an improvement over the EU Code, which does not address these issues in as much detail.
4. Collaboration with Stakeholders: The revised code emphasizes the need for online platforms to collaborate with other stakeholders, including governments, civil society organizations, and media outlets, to address the problem of disinformation and misinformation. This is similar to the EU Code, which also emphasizes the importance of collaboration in addressing these issues.
5. Monitoring and Evaluation: The revised code includes provisions for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the code, which is an improvement over the EU Code, which does not address this issue in as much detail.

Overall, the revised Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation represents a step forward in addressing the problem of disinformation and misinformation. The improvements made to the code make it more effective in addressing these issues, while also promoting transparency and accountability and respecting freedom of expression and other fundamental rights.

Introduction: 250

Disinformation and misinformation have become significant challenges in the digital age, affecting not only individuals but also society as a whole. In response, the European Commission fostered the Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation 2022 to address these issues and improve upon the 2018 EU Code of Practice on Disinformation. The 2018 EU Code faced criticism in several areas, including lack of flexibility, data protection issues, impact on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), implementation challenges, and effectiveness. The Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation 2022 addresses these concerns and provides a more comprehensive and effective approach to addressing disinformation and misinformation online.

In December 2022, the Digital Industry Group Inc (DIGI) also published a revised version of the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation. This revised code represents a significant improvement over the previous version and reflects the latest thinking and best practices in the field. The revised code places a greater emphasis on the responsibility of online platforms, promotes greater transparency and accountability, emphasizes the need for collaboration with other stakeholders, and includes provisions for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the code.

In this paper, we will review the concerns expressed about the 2018 EU Code and critically assess the revised version of the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation with reference to the improvements made to the EU Code. The paper will provide a comprehensive analysis of the key issues and best practices in addressing disinformation and misinformation online and highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the revised codes. The paper will also provide recommendations for further improvements to the codes and best practices for addressing disinformation and misinformation online.

Body 1: 383

• What the code is + concerns of 2018

• What it was criticized for

• Now what it does

Changes

Some reflections

1. The harm threshold has been lowered somewhat to credible and serious threat
2. a new outcome 1(e) requires greater algorithmic transparency and customisability
3. the treatment of issues-based advertising has been clarified
4. there are stronger commitments to disrupt misinformation propagated via advertising
5. theres openness to a wider range of signatories

Body 2: 383

• Strengths of code

The revised version of the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation published by DIGI in December 2022 has several strengths that make it a valuable tool for addressing the challenges of disinformation and misinformation online. Some of these strengths are as follows:

1. Greater emphasis on the responsibility of online platforms: The revised code places a stronger emphasis on the responsibility of online platforms to address disinformation and misinformation on their platforms. This includes a requirement for platforms to take proactive steps to identify, assess, and mitigate the spread of disinformation and misinformation. The code also provides guidelines for online platforms on how to implement these responsibilities, such as developing robust content moderation policies and procedures, providing transparency and accountability mechanisms, and engaging with users to promote media literacy and critical thinking.
2. Promotes greater transparency and accountability: The revised code emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability in addressing disinformation and misinformation online. This includes provisions for online platforms to publish regular reports on the implementation of their content moderation policies, the impact of disinformation and misinformation on their platforms, and the steps they are taking to mitigate these impacts. The code also requires online platforms to provide users with clear information about the sources and origin of content on their platforms, as well as to provide users with the ability to report misleading or harmful content.
3. Emphasizes the need for collaboration with other stakeholders: The revised code recognizes the importance of collaboration with other stakeholders in addressing disinformation and misinformation online. This includes collaboration with civil society organizations, media outlets, academic institutions, and governments. The code also calls for online platforms to engage in partnerships and initiatives that promote media literacy and critical thinking, as well as to work with other stakeholders to identify and address emerging trends and challenges in the field.
4. Includes provisions for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the code: The revised code includes provisions for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the code and its implementation by online platforms. This includes regular reporting requirements, independent audits, and other mechanisms for tracking and assessing the impact of the code on the spread of disinformation and misinformation online.

These strengths make the revised version of the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation an important tool for addressing the challenges of disinformation and misinformation online. By emphasizing the responsibility of online platforms, promoting transparency and accountability, encouraging collaboration with other stakeholders, and providing for monitoring and evaluation, the revised code provides a comprehensive and effective approach to addressing these issues.

Body 3: 383

• Weaknesses of code

The revised version of the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation published by DIGI in December 2022, while a significant improvement over the previous version, has some weaknesses that must be considered. Some of these weaknesses include:

1. Limited enforceability: One of the main criticisms of the code is that it is not legally binding, and as a result, its enforceability is limited. This means that online platforms are not required by law to adhere to the provisions of the code, and there are limited mechanisms for holding platforms accountable for their actions or for addressing the impact of disinformation and misinformation on their platforms.
2. Lack of clarity in the definitions used: The code uses several terms, such as "disinformation" and "misinformation," without clear definitions. This lack of clarity can lead to inconsistent interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the code, as well as difficulties in determining what constitutes problematic content under the code.
3. Reliance on self-regulation by online platforms: The code relies heavily on self-regulation by online platforms to address disinformation and misinformation. This means that the effectiveness of the code is dependent on the willingness of online platforms to implement the provisions of the code, which may not always be the case. Furthermore, there is a risk that the self-regulation approach may not be robust enough to effectively address the challenges of disinformation and misinformation online.
4. Limited resources for monitoring and evaluation: The code provides for monitoring and evaluation of its implementation and effectiveness, but there are concerns about the availability of resources and expertise needed to carry out these activities effectively. This can limit the ability of the code to assess its impact and effectiveness, as well as to identify areas where improvements may be needed.
5. Potential for unintended consequences: While the code is intended to address the challenges of disinformation and misinformation, there is a risk that some of its provisions may have unintended consequences. For example, overly aggressive content moderation policies may result in the suppression of free speech or the dissemination of information, or the implementation of transparency requirements may result in privacy concerns for users.

These weaknesses highlight the need for continued review and improvement of the revised version of the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation. By addressing these weaknesses and improving the code, it will be possible to create a more effective and comprehensive approach to addressing the challenges of disinformation and misinformation online.

Body 4: 383

• Reforms & improvements

To further improve the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation published by DIGI in December 2022 and address the challenges posed by disinformation and misinformation online, the following recommendations should be considered:

1. Strengthening the enforceability of the code: To make the code more effective, it should be made legally binding and include mechanisms for holding online platforms accountable for their actions and the impact of disinformation and misinformation on their platforms. This could be achieved through the introduction of penalties for non-compliance, as well as the establishment of an independent body to monitor and enforce the provisions of the code.
2. Defining key terms: The code should include clear definitions for key terms, such as "disinformation" and "misinformation." This will help ensure consistent interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the code, and reduce the risk of confusion or misinterpretation.
3. Increasing transparency: Online platforms should be required to be more transparent about their policies and practices for addressing disinformation and misinformation. This could include the creation of publicly accessible archives of removed content and regular reporting on the number of flagged or removed items, as well as the reasons for removal.
4. Improving the role of civil society: Civil society organizations and experts in disinformation and misinformation should be more actively engaged in the development and implementation of the code. This could involve the creation of consultative bodies or working groups that include representatives from civil society and the wider public, as well as regular stakeholder engagement and consultation.
5. Enhancing resources for monitoring and evaluation: Resources for monitoring and evaluating the implementation and impact of the code should be increased to ensure its effectiveness and the ability to identify areas for improvement. This could include the establishment of dedicated research centers or funding for research projects, as well as the creation of independent bodies with expertise in disinformation and misinformation to oversee the implementation of the code.
6. Encouraging media literacy and critical thinking skills: The code should include provisions to encourage media literacy and critical thinking skills, such as public education campaigns, training programs, and resources for educators. This will help people identify and resist disinformation and misinformation, and contribute to the development of a more informed and discerning public.

These recommendations will help to build on the strengths of the revised version of the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation and create a more comprehensive and effective approach to addressing the challenges of disinformation and misinformation online. By implementing these best practices, it will be possible to create a safer and more trustworthy online environment for all users.

Conclusion: 200

In conclusion, the Strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation 2022 fostered by the European Commission and the revised version of the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation published by DIGI in December 2022 represent important steps forward in addressing the challenges of disinformation and misinformation online. These codes have improved upon the 2018 EU Code of Practice on Disinformation in several key areas, including definition of disinformation, responsibility of online platforms, transparency and accountability, collaboration with stakeholders, and monitoring and evaluation.

However, there is still much work to be done in addressing disinformation and misinformation online. The codes are not perfect and there are still areas for improvement, such as ensuring their effective implementation, addressing the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and preserving freedom of expression and other fundamental rights. Further research and analysis is needed to better understand the challenges of disinformation and misinformation and to identify the most effective ways to address these issues.

In order to fully address the problem of disinformation and misinformation, it is important for online platforms, governments, civil society organizations, media outlets, and other stakeholders to work together to promote transparency, accountability, and collaboration. This will require ongoing effort and commitment from all stakeholders, but it is critical for ensuring that the internet remains a safe and trustworthy source of information for all.