The following information is what would be censored by this Bill.

"This is a victory of SCIENCE over CENSORSHIP!! Incredible perseverence by first author Nicolas Hulscher who didn't give up after LANCET pulled our paper within 24 hours after 100,000s of downloads for no legitimate reason.
Dr. William Makis MD
We found that 73.9% of deaths were directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination."

https://x.com/MakisMD/status/1804209104879042772
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073824001968

Nice place.  On the far side of the island Russian billionaires quietly have houses there.  

did all the unvaxxed die?

Nah. Just ten times as much. 

worldwide?

The trusted sources and experts told me the virus would hunt down the unvaccinated. ...even if they're living in the middle of the outback

did that happen?

TBH I could not care less if you are an anti vaxxer or what you think of them. 

Take it or don't, nobody gives AF anymore 

I believe the point here is about misinformation coming from 'trusted sources' not what you think of vaccines.

Like the old trustworthy Dr. William Makis MD

who?

Exactly 

I could easily write 10,000 words about this bill, but in the interests of myself and the dozen or so people (and their multis) who frequent this forum, I'll keep it short. 

In a nutshell, the main problems I have with this bill are the following: 

1) What exactly is the definition of "misinformation"?
2) Who gets to decide if information is "truth" or "misinformation"?

I’m still yet to find an adequate definition of the word "mis(dis)information" from the political classes and media. It seems to be more about protecting narratives than protecting the public. The lack of clear definitions for “misinformation” and “disinformation” creates the potential for misuse. This ambiguity could allow for the suppression of dissenting opinions under the guise of combating false information. Who determines what constitutes “misinformation” or “disinformation”? This is extremely subjective and allows for potential political and corporate interference in the democratic process. The democratic process is already compromised enough by lobby groups to be brutally honest, but this bill would only make things worse. 

If people perceive that information is being controlled or censored, it could lead to greater distrust in both the media and the government (already low as it is), exacerbating the very problem this bill allegedly seeks to address. 

The fact that they 'allowed' such a short timeframe for public input is also extremely suspicious, particularly during grand final week. Hmmm.
It's about time the establishment stopped treating us like children.

I mean.. I don't particularly agree nor disagree with this - all valid points (except for the grand final week thing - no one realistically gives a shit outside Melbourne, and that's with two non-Melbourne teams competing)

In terms of this bill though, I would say it's been intentionally left vague as a catch-all if needed.

"(a) the content contains information that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive"

Could theoretically say, Twitter/X notes is a good example of how this would work.

Generally with things like this, if you get "too" specific, people who are actively up to the wrong thing, will find a way around it.

Nice points 

Agree about how they define misinformation 

There is a big problem at the moment though with twitter for example being used to influence the democratic process for one person's personal gain (Musk trying to influence the over throw of the elected Brazilian government so he can mine for minerals that his products need)

Oh wait, hang on a second so it's just like what the mainstream/murdoch media is already doing here.....

Extremely balanced response . I agree with you that freedom of the press should be paramount...  there ARE governmental guidelines though as to what is verifiable "news" and what is unverifiable "opinion" ...  

https://www.nla.gov.au/faq/what-is-fake-news-misinformation-and-disinformation#:~:text=Misinformation%3A%20%E2%80%9Cfalse%20information%20that%20is,narrative%20or%20facts%3B%20propaganda.%E2%80%9D

big lol

you're one of those 'govern me harder daddy' types aren't you

Why is it that the least intelligent and the least to offer in dialogue are the smugest? 

Wow, you got me there, I wish I had your courage. Did the bikie that tattooed the swastika on your forehead spit in your mouth first?

^
and there you have it ladies and gentlemen

neurolinguistic programming has captured your mind

Big chemtrail energy with him

another air swing

I don't think it's up to you to decide how you come across. That's for all us to judge. 

Last week it was revealed the ABC doctored footage that made it falsely appear an Australian soldier had committed war crimes. The ABC had to settle a defamation case against that same soldier for separate lies reported previously.  But let the government decide what is truth and fiction in media.

No, it's not merely potential. We can see the consequences of this law by seeing how other larger democracies are heading down the path of totalitarianism-in-action, where the jack boot is to stamp out anything that goes against what those in authority deem to be truth. -- Canada, U.S., U.K. western Europe etc. Australia is already Far Left in its Media and Education system, so it is a given that the products of that society will make laws based on Far Left ideology, chief among which is stamping out any information that goes against their ideology.

e.g. In the U.S., if conservative parents object to sexualised books being given to young children in school, those conservative parents are deemed as domestic terrorists.

We see in virtually all the western world how Far Left (masquerading as Centre-Left) are showing their true colours of the type of people who were attracted to Soviet Communism and CCCP style so-called democracy-in-name-only.

We are now in a culture that cancels (dystopian re-branding of censorship) anything they disagree with, and so it is a natural consequence that people like that will want to enshrine censorship in the law.

Young people no longer believe in the famous maxim, "I might disagree with you, but will fight for your right to speak your opinion".

Australia deserves this fate, because they voted Labor/Greens.

There's only one side of politics banning books and, spoiler alert, it's not your commo, pinko, lefty mob.

Maybe you need to sit on the room of mirrors for a while chump.

Are you for this bill or not?

I'm in Corsica so this might be an anathema to you but I haven't been following it closely enough to comment with 100% certainty.

I'm still waiting for you to make your case. (To be fair I may have missed it.)

Care to comment on which side of politics is banning books and why that's OK?

You have the internet.  We don't use smoke signals anymore so this excuse for avoidance of the question doesn't fly.

Sure. Let me pause my holiday to get myself familiar with a highly complicated tranche of government policy.

Sounds like fun.

Should I familiarise myself with any other goings on that you think are important?