Tech giant Meta to 'safeguard' Australian referendum integrity, arbitrate truth
Meta platforms are a primary source of news for most Australians
Meta, Facebook’s parent company, is the latest international mega-company to get involved in Australia’s upcoming referendum regarding an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, after Pfizer pledged its support for the Yes campaign earlier this year.
Meta will provide an undisclosed amount in funding to ‘fact-checkers,’ will provide specialised ‘social media safety training’ to MPs and advocacy groups, and will block fake accounts in its bid to, “combat misinformation, voter interference and other forms of abuse on our platforms.”
Meta’s platforms include Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, Whatsapp and new Twitter competitor, Threads.
‘Fact-check’ or lefty opinion?
Of particular concern is the funding of fact-checkers to arbitrate what are ‘true facts’ versus ‘misinformation’ on a matter of such import (the referendum proposes the alteration of the Australian constitution). As reported by the New York Post, Facebook admits that its fact-checks are ‘opinions’.
Due to the political leanings of the employees of social media companies and affiliated organisations, these opinions overwhelmingly lean left. This was confirmed in the Twitter Files, in which journalists found that while both sides of the political aisle were subject to censorship on Twitter, conservative views were more likely to be censored.
Fact-checkers named as recipients of Meta money include the Australian Associated Press (AAP) and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) ‘fact-checking’ unit, both of which have been responsible for publishing false claims as ‘facts.’
For example, AAP falsely claimed that the Australian Government had not tried to hide reports of Covid vaccine adverse reactions. Documents released under FOI request have revealed that the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) did in fact hide child deaths reported following vaccination, due to concerns that disclosure, “could undermine public confidence.”
In another document release, the Department of Health was shown to have actively sought for the removal of Facebook posts describing users’ adverse reactions to Covid vaccines.
RMIT’s ‘fact-checking’ unit falsely ‘debunked’ claims that Covid vaccines were affecting women’s menstruation. RMIT also falsely claimed that, “evidence overwhelmingly shows that masks and lockdowns do work,” failing to address the many peer-reviewed studies and reports finding the ineffectiveness of masks and lockdowns.
Over and over again, AAP, RMIT and other ‘fact-checkers’ have misrepresented contestable topics as ‘settled science.’ They have conflated the absence of evidence (due to undone science) with categorical evidence of absence. They have ‘debunked’ emerging science based not on alternative findings, but on the mere opinion of their favoured experts. They have consistently parroted government and Big Pharma media statements, even when it was dangerous and insupportable to do so.
Blocking ‘bots’ to crush fake news has previously resulted in proliferation of fake news
Mia Garlick, Meta’s director of public policy for Australia, says, ”We’ve also improved our AI so that we can more effectively detect and block fake accounts… Meta has been preparing for this year’s voice to parliament referendum for a long time, leaning into expertise from previous elections.”
This is not comforting, given the successful weaponisation of such systems to influence public opinion and elections.
High-profile bot conspiracy theories facilitated and perpetuated by social media platforms include the Hamilton 68 dashboard, which falsely accused legitimate right-leaning Twitter accounts of being Russian bots, leading to an avalanche of fake news items about Russian influence on US elections and attitudes.
There is also the disinformation operation 'Project Birmingham’, which created fake Russian Twitter social media accounts to follow Republican candidate Roy Moore in the 2017 Alabama election, resulting in news stories that Russia was backing Moore in the race. In both of these cases, Twitter’s bot-detection and blocking capacities were weaponised to silence legitimate voices, and to influence public opinion and behaviour.
On the weaponisation of AI for political gain, Facebook’s algorithm was instrumental in burying and discrediting the true story of incriminating content found on Hunter Biden’s laptop, a move that many believe influenced the outcome of the 2020 US election. This particular case exemplifies how conspiracy theories seeded by government agencies and think tanks can be amplified by social media platforms.
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, said that the FBI initially approached Facebook with a warning about ‘Russian propaganda’ before the laptop story broke, leading Facebook employees to think that the story was fake, and to therefore use AI tools to suppress it. The above-mentioned Russian bot hoaxes provided context that likely reinforced this belief. Whistleblowers have since testified that the FBI was aware of the truth of the story before it seeded fake ‘Russian propaganda’ advice to Facebook.
Meta will foreground youth voices - most likely to vote Yes in the referendum
Meta will foreground youth voices by providing charities including UNICEF with advertisement credits to “raise awareness of voice-related media literacy” and help “raise the voices of a range of young people in support of the voice to parliament including Aboriginal youth”.
Current polling by The Australia Institute suggests that young people are far more likely to vote Yes in the referendum, with 73 per cent of 18-29 year olds currently backing Yes, compared to only 38 per cent of those aged 60 and over.
Experts anticipate that the youth vote is likely to determine the outcome of the referendum after this age group helped to swing the 2022 Federal election.
Funding the foregrounding of youth voices on the Voice may inadvertently privilege the Yes point of view on Meta’s sites, with the potential to influence the referendum outcome.
Meta platforms primary source of news for most Australians
Meta’s social platforms unavoidably form a collective online public square in which much of the debate over the upcoming Voice to Parliament referendum will play out.
Researchers from Canberra University found that, during the pandemic, Facebook was the most used social network site, with 73 per cent of Australians reporting that they had used the platform in the past week. 42 per cent of Australians regularly used Facebook Messenger, and 39 per cent regularly used Instagram. 52 per cent of Australians go to social media for news, and more than 90 per cent of Australians use at least one type of social media or online platform regularly.
The fine line between appropriate moderation and overreach
Meta has the unenviable task of walking the line between necessary moderation (removal of child abuse content) and overreach (de-platforming vaccine injury support groups). This is complex, and not easy to achieve. A scathing exposé by the Wall Street Journal explains just some of the difficulties.
However, profit motive, fear of litigation, government pressure, and sheer size (in 2021, Facebook reported having 40,000 people working on safety and security alone) provide strong counter-influences to Meta making necessary changes.
Censorship and opinion-steering are the easy way out. Big Tech companies can please their major stakeholders, stay on the right side of regulators, profit off users’ data, and expediently silence the rabble who think their speech matters.
To wit, we are lately seeing a trend towards Big Tech companies partnering with governments in ways that prevent robust debate of contestable ideas online, that privilege certain voices over others, and that infringe on the free expression of ordinary Australians.
Vows from big social media platforms to ‘safeguard’ referendum and election integrity, to privilege some voices over others, and to adjudicate what is and is not misinformation and disinformation should be met with deep skepticism. Meta should concentrate on improving its response to human rights abuses facilitated by its platforms. ‘Fact-checkers’, should be exposed for the dishonest grift that they are, to be done away with altogether.
A number of subscribers have asked for a way of contributing to DDU without necessarily having to sign up for the monthly subscriber fee. I have now created a Kofi account, via which readers can contribute any amount, any time. Thanks!
Let’s face it, those of us who already know can’t “unsee” and those who can’t see will likely never believe us anyway … interestingly for those of you paying attention to the government’s proposed “misinformation” legislation, the UN in June released its “Brief 8” of its Common Agenda policy, purporting to be a guide to combating misinformation, disinformation and hate speech … demonstrating that Aus is simply following in lock step with its globalist partners in Geneva. But the fact that the government is having to try this hard to flog this turkey of a Voice tells me that they don’t have high confidence in the underlying value of the message … they have to cheat.
I noticed this new regime of "fact checking" last night on Instagram.
An Aboriginal lady's opinion was censored on a post on Instagram last night... "Fact checked", because it goes against the narrative... How is her opinion something to fact check? Luckily still the option to click through the warning and watch her, and listen to her perspective.
Once that ACMA bill passes, we won't even see her... There is no argument that her "opinion" re the voice could be dangerous, or misinformation, it's an opinion...
We've now poured taxpayer money into censoring Aboriginal voices, re their voice to parliament?? WTF?? Think about that!
Someone said it earlier, those asleep will remain asleep unfortunately... Or not even care, dumbed down populations in the west, who've never known totalitarianism, will be a walkover with the "for your safety" bullsh!t excuse that oppressive regimes force on their victims...
I fear we've lost the Australia we once knew, and may never get it back... I try and wake people up, many are, but not awake enough... Writing to my local politician, I get a message back from that MP's gatekeeper saying that everything is fine, they certainly don't say that my letter or concerns will be put to the MP.
I took a stand for future generations, and lost my job (don't really care to work for tin pot tyrants anyway), but I do what I can to try and make the process of takeover as hard as possible for those in bed with this plan.
We've lost our judicial system, either through corruption, scientific stupidity or fear... So whatever has happened they're on board with unthinkable transgressions of basic human rights, bodily autonomy and freedom of speech... So we can't count on them...
Confirmed by fair work experience, which was a total farce, I even got called an "antivaxxer" by work's lawyer in my mediation just to top it all off (even though prior to this, I did take vaccines, I won't now though, I know better!).
Despite well referenced material on my behalf - I studied biology at uni - and no material on my workplace's behalf (or for that matter, Fairwork itself... The mediator was just desperate for me to agree works direction was "fair and reasonable" despite knowing the direction is fundamentally illegal) I lost, knowing full well that I would... So many others had.
I wasn't there to keep my job of course, I was there to make sure that this process was a time consuming painful letter writing, legal sh!t fight for my workplace, long letters to read full of peer reviewed science, lawyers needed to be engaged to write every response, I included previous legal rulings from fair work, the fact an employee was already mRNA injured, so further pursuit of a mandate policy is criminal negligence in OH&S terms (especially given doesn't prevent spread) etc etc... Can't even begin to imagine what that cost in lawyers fees... I represented myself, and didn't spend a penny...
But six people at my workplace either had a relative dead or injured following the jab so didn't want it, they were allowed to wait for Novavax (knowing that even that has a high myocarditis risk with it), if they'd all been like me and said "no"... Work would have been in a desperate position... But of course they all caved.... Prisoners to a mortgage... Basically their "life" was threatened, as the modern world is a sea of debt... But if they said no, as a collective, work almost certainly would have to cave, as their skills are very hard to come by... I can only imagine their fear as they lined up for a medication they didn't want (or need)...
I've probably gone on long enough, but this country has been lost it seems, the WEF deception has fooled many, and I can only hope we turn this slippery slope around, as a united population... If more wake up, look at our would be masters and say "No".