デジタル注意義務法案で政府の情報操作は可能か

For example, critics like Michael Shellenberger, you'd be aware, and others say that it will give a government the power to control the flow of information.

The power, for example, to effectively spread propaganda.

I know you say that's not the intent, but I'm wondering if you could address those concerns explicitly of why this could not be used in that way, and why those powers would need to exist if that is a capability.

Well, there is nowhere in the bill that gives the government, and by the government, in this instance, the independent regulator, that power.

It's just not there. Does it prevent that from happening?

Well, you can see in the section introduced, there is, there is nothing in what you've just set out there as a worst-case scenario that is in the bill.

That sock puppet power says that there aren't limitations around how that can be used in the bill.

Yeah. Uh, looking at the eSafety Commissioner 'cause the, the look that she's giving you, I don't accept the premise.

I, I do not accept the premise of this argument.

I don't think the eSafety Commissioner or I accept that that is something that could happen as a result of the way that the bill has been drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.

Um, yes, these people claim to know what is deep within my heart better than myself or, or the government or the eSafety Commission or the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.

That's their right, and they will cont- they will still have the right to make those points online after a digital duty of care is legislated.

Would you just say in the bill they can't be used for those purposes, government propaganda and so forth?

It can't. In a worst-case scenario. It can't.

The worst person you imagine gets the power of, of the eSafety Commissioner one day, for example.

It cannot. I don't know how to be more emphatic. It, it doesn't exist. It is not possible.

Thank you. All right. You're welcome. Nick Newling from the Sydney-