Spinach Soup or Propaganda Stew?
The Taste of Truth in Australia
In November 2024, the Communications Legislation Amendment, which sought to combat misinformation and disinformation, was withdrawn. The retreat of the bill brought a significant relief and victory for free speech, following months of intense public debate. Despite its initial progress, when way too many members, 330 specifically, of the Australian House of Representatives voted in its favour, the bill’s potential to allow government control over what constitutes ‘truth’ raised widespread concerns, suggesting a slide towards totalitarianism.
The mere consideration of this legislation prompts a critical question:
In a society that calls itself free, how could the notion of the government as the arbiter of truth ever be entertained?
Even with the bill now off the table, this dialogue on the implications for freedom of expression and the potential for authoritarian oversight must persist.
It is the price we pay for convenience: living in a digital society requires endlessly separating nonsense spreading through the binary network from the truth, so to some ears, a guide on what misinformation is and what it is not, may sound like the most harmonious melody. Because it can get truly tiresome to live in a post-truth society. And that is, in effect, what this bill promised — protection from pain.
But is pain free life possible? Is pain, i.e. lies and misinformation ever to be eradicated from society and should we ever try to outsource this job to a central authority?
The Spinach Myth
For instance, up until recently we’ve had little clarity on the nutritional profile of spinach. When I was growing up, school canteens served spinach dishes weekly, promoting its health benefits. Spinach soup, spinach kish, spinach dumplings… But it turned out as kids we were tortured because of misinformation. The ‘Spinach, Popeye and Iron Decimal Point Error Myth’ article explains that spinach’s iron content was vastly overstated due to a supposed decimal error by Erich von Wolf in 1871, yet this was just another layer of misinformation — the error was actually from iron contamination in lab equipment, not a decimal point mistake. Either way, spinach is not an effective source of nutritional iron also due to oxalic acid, which inhibits iron absorption.
The Sugar Industry and the Triumvirate of Information
This spinach saga might seem trivial. Indeed, it is, as it resulted in mere lifelong distaste for spinach among many, not serious health consequences. The harmless spinach story contrasts with the sugar funded lobby downplaying the risks of consuming what we now know as the ‘white poison’ causing severe health problems. The portrayal of sugar as beneficial has largely been an industry-driven narrative rather than a direct endorsement by governments, who, however, were slow to counteract these dangerous claims.
The danger of sugar lies among others in its ability to stimulate of the reward centres in the brain, releasing dopamine, which makes it highly addictive. I suggest we rather trust the physical signs like inflammation, obesity, and dental decay over advertisers because…
…long gone are the times when we could say, “What is written, is given”.
In the information age, we must employ healthy level of scepticism. We cannot completely rely on others for truth — be it media, government, or anyone on the internet. This type of manipulation occurs within a framework controlled by the Triumvirate of Information — media conglomerates, profit-driven corporations, and power-hungry governments. These entities often manipulate narratives not just for re-elections but also to maintain control or push specific ideologies. We must accept that information is tinted by the drive for money, the quest for power, and sometimes even ideological battles over what constitutes ‘truth’.
Interestingly, the Australian government’s proposed Misinformation Bill appears to focus less on addressing misinformation from established and influential sources. The legislation primarily targets the spread of misinformation by individuals or smaller entities online, seemingly overlooking the potential for misinformation or disinformation from the established and powerful entities such as:
- Legacy media: Traditional news outlets, which play a pivotal role in shaping public opinion, have not been highlighted as a focus under this bill.
- The government itself: There’s an apparent oversight or inherent bias in the bill, as it does not consider how the government might also be a source of misinformation, despite being the bill’s initiator.
- Corporations: Major companies, particularly those with media holdings or substantial sway over public discourse through marketing and public relations, are also not emphasised, despite their potential to disseminate misleading information.
Leaving the more influential sources relatively unchecked whilst supervising individuals or small groups on the internet creates a significant power imbalance and poses a question:
Who is being protected by the legislation — people or power losing entities in the world where decentralised information became an alternative option?
Tubular Labs, the leader in global social video intelligence, has released its latest Audience Ratings data for October 2024, showing traditional media declining popularity over decentralised, citizen journalism.
The Misinformation and Disinformation Bill was designed to empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to enforce transparency and accountability on digital platforms concerning the spread of false information. The legislation ostensibly aimed to mitigate risks to public health and democratic integrity. However, it remained ambiguous as to whether these regulatory measures would extend to scrutinising misinformation disseminated by government entities themselves. This lack of clarity is troubling given the government’s own checkered history with misinformation.
The push towards this bill has been significantly influenced by concerns over misinformation affecting the health choices of Australians, especially in light of public scepticism during the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns.
Hello!
It is ironic that governments trying to protect people were the same governments that, with the intent to promote adherence to public health mandates, circulated misleading information such as:
- Spreading untrue narratives about the origins and transmission of the virus
- Overstating the effectiveness of vaccines
- Creating confusion around mask-wearing and lockdown benefits
- Downplaying or ignoring potential side effects like myocarditis and pericarditis until much later
Those who questioned the establishment narrative were often silenced or marginalized. The pandemic environment saw widespread efforts to eliminate public distrust through punitive measures like:
- Job loss for those refusing vaccination
- Social ostracisation and cancellation
- Denial of medical services, including surgeries, to those not adhering to vaccine mandates
In his recent podcast episode, Joe Rogan brought up yet another fib diffused by the Triumvirate of Information. Rogan highlighted how claims of below 1% of COVID death rate was actually more accurate than the media’s initial 3.4% figure.
Niklas Luhmann, a prominent sociologist, includes both trust and distrust as fundamental aspects of a democratic society. Distrust serves as a mechanism to keep power in check. Scepticism can prevent the concentration and abuse of power, encouraging a balance where the public remains vigilant over those in authority. During the COVID-19 pandemic, distrust was deinstitutionalised by the Triumvirate of Information.
The Australian government was censoring the main principle and tool of democracy — distrust, while now pledging to ensure democracy via the Misinformation Bill, which is like the fox guarding the henhouse while simultaneously writing a book on poultry safety.
Building on the insights from my earlier article, ‘Illusions of Protection: Lessons from the Nazi’s Perversion of the Protector Archetype,’ governments often position themselves as protectors, akin to a parent figure, which history has shown can lead to overreach, stifling of individual freedoms and tyranny. With the proposed Misinformation Bill, regulators would elevate themselves to a near-divine status, having the monopoly to decide what constitutes truth or falsehood. This model is dangerous not only because it centralises power in the hands of a few but also because it erodes the public’s ability to think critically. To some, such a model may be appealing as it reduces pain, mistakes and uncertainty that freedom brings.
Inner Protector/Persecutor
Donald Kalshed, a prominent analytical psychologist, has developed the concept of the inner protector or persecutor within our psyche. This inner protector emerges as a response to trauma, acting as a psychological defense mechanism. Initially, this protector provides a sense of safety, reducing the pain and anxiety associated with the trauma. However, what begins as a shield against pain can morph into a persecutor, restricting freedom and growth.
For instance, consider individuals who suffer from social phobia. Their fear of social interactions, a protective mechanism against potential rejection or ridicule, can become so overpowering that it severely limits their daily life, turning what was meant to be a defense into a form of imprisonment. This illustrates how a protector, whether internal or external, can eventually stifle development and autonomy.
In a similar vein, when governments assume the role of protector in the realm of information, they might initially seem to offer relief from the chaos and confusion of misinformation. Yet, like Kalshed’s inner protector, this role can evolve into one of control and persecution. By designating themselves as the sole arbiters of truth, governments risk not just safeguarding the public but also curbing the intellectual and emotional growth of society. They might shield us from the discomfort of misinformation, but at the cost of diminishing our capacity for independent thought and critical engagement with the world.
Instead of striving for a utopia free from the pains of misinformation, we should aim for an environment that encourages learning, questioning, critical media literacy. We need to recognise that life is complex. Truth isn’t black and white; it’s layered with shades of grey, allowing for a richer, more nuanced understanding, humour and parody. Especially the latter is a critical component of a free society and the risks for this tool of democracy being censored through attempts such as the Misinformation Bill are too high.
We must accept we cannot completely eliminate discomfort but understand that growth often comes from navigating through it. We will make mistakes. And from those, we will learn. Errors are not just setbacks; they’re stepping stones to greater wisdom. Disagreement is vital: It’s not just a right but a necessity. Through the clash of ideas, we refine our understanding, challenge our preconceptions, and push forward. Our freedom, including the freedom to err and to explore new ideas, is fundamental and should stay above our need to avoid pain.
So how can governments help?
Governments should strive to be allies, not parents or deities. They should create and nurture an open source environment, be transparent about their operations, letting the light of scrutiny shine on their actions, funding, and conflicts of interest. This empowers citizens to make informed choices. If anything, regulators should equip the public with the tools and knowledge to think critically, to navigate the information age with confidence, by showing who funds what, allowing people to see the strings that might pull at the consumed narratives.
But let’s not forget, we don’t need to correct every single utterance. Life is filled with metaphors and that’s part of its charm. When someone on social media calls Ozempic the “most dangerous drug” and gets a community note for it, we might chuckle at the evident hyperbole.
But do we really need this level of oversight? Rather not. We should trust in our collective discernment to see through the layers of speech, to recognise humour, to understand context, and to find our way to truth.
The first law of government is self-preservation.
Governments, like any other entity, might initially present themselves as protectors, ostensibly safeguarding public interest. However, their true priority often lies in preserving their own power. By claiming the authority to define what is true and what is false, they effectively control dissent, opposition, and can essentially do as they please, much like Donald Kalshed’s inner protector that, over time, becomes a persecutor, stifling personal growth and freedom.
If you have enjoyed this article, please click the link to subscribe.
