Great piece, Chris — this feels straight out of 1984. I didn’t even know what “misinformation” was until we were accused of spreading it. To me, it’s just a modern way to discredit anyone who holds a different view. Instead of encouraging open debate on energy and the transition, they shut it down. It’s a sad reflection of those that use this label. Under these rules, Galileo would’ve been thrown in prison for daring to question the consensus. Free speech and healthy debates must always be the cornerstone of a society.
I live in hope that this green-left festival of climate alarmism will prove an own-goal. Handfuls of submissions make it clear that when it comes to ’disinformation’, no one beats governments.
Curtailment of freedom? Could it happen in Australia? The tone was set in the convict era. Seems to me that we Australians have become about as submissive as one can get. Eureka was just a flash in the pan.
Your voice is essential Chris. Its a pity that it stands out in a desert of knee-jerking compliance driven by fear of the consequences if one challenges the narrative.
In the past, unions of employees would take a stand. Now neutered it seems.
Excellent work, Chris. You know they have lost the argument when they have to forcibly shut you down!
These crackpots are certain that ‘man’ made climate change is real yet can’t tell you the difference between a man and a woman.
One thing I am certain of … our fossil fuels will dug out of the ground regardless … it’s just a question of who will benefit … Australia or some other Nation.
There has never been a time when the "book burners" were right. Sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant and preventing discussion is the remit of those that cannot win a logical argument. Why were only those supporting the decimation of regional communities called - not anyone representing those directly affected by this environmental and economic government directed disaster? PS bonus points for anyone that can reveal what the top secret Capacity Investment Scheme is costing us, and for how long.
A sad indictment indeed of how the science surrounding 'climate change,' also known as global warming, has evolved. No longer grounded in the tried-and-true principles of the Scientific Method, it has become pseudo-science, so politicized, as evidenced here, that it holds little credibility.
“1930s fascism,” yes. Our view is we are witnessing Marxism in its purest form now in this unrecognisable country. Keep on kicking them in the head, Chris. Great stuff.
Great points raised here, especially about the dangers of politicians policing “truth” when they themselves are credible sources of misinformation.
However, history shows that efforts to control disinformation, whether through government regulation, platform policies, or fact-checking, have never really worked in any durable or comprehensive way. The problem is incredibly complex: it involves legal limits on speech, platform incentives that reward engagement (often sensational content), and political weaponization of “disinformation” claims.
Attempts to regulate often backfire, leading to accusations of censorship and further erosion of trust. Disinformation evolves faster than enforcement efforts, and globally there’s no one-size-fits-all solution.
So while calls to silence dissent are rightly worrying, it’s also true that the status quo of misinformation creeping unchecked hasn’t been solved by past heavy-handed controls either.
To sum it all up, people lie, and worse, sometimes they don’t even know they’re lying.
Honestly, in all of my research, no govt has got it right when tackling disinformation and protecting free speech, especially when governments take the lead in regulating misinformation. It raises important concerns about how political biases may influence inquiries and regulatory bodies, sometimes targeting inconvenient voices while shielding favoured narratives.
The risk that efforts to curb misinformation could suppress dissent or unpopular opinions and, in doing so, undermine open democratic debate is a crucial warning. In fact, I would say this is happening today.
Maybe the way forward isn't with laws on laws? Maybe, the issue is human nature? And maybe speaking to that, rather than trying to control it would be a way to solve it?
Great piece, Chris — this feels straight out of 1984. I didn’t even know what “misinformation” was until we were accused of spreading it. To me, it’s just a modern way to discredit anyone who holds a different view. Instead of encouraging open debate on energy and the transition, they shut it down. It’s a sad reflection of those that use this label. Under these rules, Galileo would’ve been thrown in prison for daring to question the consensus. Free speech and healthy debates must always be the cornerstone of a society.
I live in hope that this green-left festival of climate alarmism will prove an own-goal. Handfuls of submissions make it clear that when it comes to ’disinformation’, no one beats governments.
Curtailment of freedom? Could it happen in Australia? The tone was set in the convict era. Seems to me that we Australians have become about as submissive as one can get. Eureka was just a flash in the pan.
Your voice is essential Chris. Its a pity that it stands out in a desert of knee-jerking compliance driven by fear of the consequences if one challenges the narrative.
In the past, unions of employees would take a stand. Now neutered it seems.
They are horrors indeed. A worse than useless industry fed on the public tit. Why would anyone want to pay taxes to support these bs groups?
Excellent work, Chris. You know they have lost the argument when they have to forcibly shut you down!
These crackpots are certain that ‘man’ made climate change is real yet can’t tell you the difference between a man and a woman.
One thing I am certain of … our fossil fuels will dug out of the ground regardless … it’s just a question of who will benefit … Australia or some other Nation.
Chris, you are so awake you can give up coffee.
There has never been a time when the "book burners" were right. Sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant and preventing discussion is the remit of those that cannot win a logical argument. Why were only those supporting the decimation of regional communities called - not anyone representing those directly affected by this environmental and economic government directed disaster? PS bonus points for anyone that can reveal what the top secret Capacity Investment Scheme is costing us, and for how long.
A sad indictment indeed of how the science surrounding 'climate change,' also known as global warming, has evolved. No longer grounded in the tried-and-true principles of the Scientific Method, it has become pseudo-science, so politicized, as evidenced here, that it holds little credibility.
“1930s fascism,” yes. Our view is we are witnessing Marxism in its purest form now in this unrecognisable country. Keep on kicking them in the head, Chris. Great stuff.
1930's Germany is upon us
Great points raised here, especially about the dangers of politicians policing “truth” when they themselves are credible sources of misinformation.
However, history shows that efforts to control disinformation, whether through government regulation, platform policies, or fact-checking, have never really worked in any durable or comprehensive way. The problem is incredibly complex: it involves legal limits on speech, platform incentives that reward engagement (often sensational content), and political weaponization of “disinformation” claims.
Attempts to regulate often backfire, leading to accusations of censorship and further erosion of trust. Disinformation evolves faster than enforcement efforts, and globally there’s no one-size-fits-all solution.
So while calls to silence dissent are rightly worrying, it’s also true that the status quo of misinformation creeping unchecked hasn’t been solved by past heavy-handed controls either.
To sum it all up, people lie, and worse, sometimes they don’t even know they’re lying.
Honestly, in all of my research, no govt has got it right when tackling disinformation and protecting free speech, especially when governments take the lead in regulating misinformation. It raises important concerns about how political biases may influence inquiries and regulatory bodies, sometimes targeting inconvenient voices while shielding favoured narratives.
The risk that efforts to curb misinformation could suppress dissent or unpopular opinions and, in doing so, undermine open democratic debate is a crucial warning. In fact, I would say this is happening today.
Maybe the way forward isn't with laws on laws? Maybe, the issue is human nature? And maybe speaking to that, rather than trying to control it would be a way to solve it?
Disinformation is an irregular verb. I am right, you are wrong.