Dear Australians, we only have until Monday to lodge a submission against the proposed  amended Misinformation bill.

It's a bill so bad warnings are coming from the far side of the world
The Cato Institute warns that if Tech companies take the simple route and comply with the Australian proposal Americans using mostly American companies may be effectively subject to misinformation rules set by foreign governments (and that may be the point, eh?) The great leftist global machine gets "help" with every country conquered by censorship glue.

Why do the guys with galactic megaphones need to shut you up?
Suppose misinformation was harming Australians, what stops the government giving us the correct information? They have the billion-dollar ABC, the billion-dollar CSIRO, the entire tamed academic sector, every school in Australia (they're all funded and controlled by the government) — and yet somehow against this, an unfunded mum or dad writing on Facebook or a blog might harm trust in government institutions and therefore must be shut down, before any harm even occurs?

Think about what this says about the Australian ABC? It must be pretty useless if it can't save Australians from verified lies? Things could only be this absurd if it doesn't have any truths to refute "the lies", or it doesn't have an audience because it's an odious propaganda machine no one wants to watch. Or both.

The Labor government claims that they won't be censoring content, which is a lie, the media "platforms" will be forced to do it for them. If the platforms don't comply, the government will send men with guns to their door to take away 5% of their global income. Even if the fine is never issued, the instant this law comes into effect, the threat of being savagely fined will mean platforms will be censoring Australians.

How would we keep comments open on this blog? Ask everyone to write satirically?

Ban anything that may be contributing to harm that might happen, maybe
The legislative bomb is a multifunctional octopus. It pretends to prevent "serious harm" but the proposed legislation defines misinformation as  anything "reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm". So there are three legalistic qualifiers there for any sympathetic judge to crush dissent. What's "reasonable" — depends on whether you can afford a QC. What's "likely" to cause harm (but hasn't actually done it) is anyone's guess or the work of seers and soothsayers. And a "contribution" to serious harm might be just about anything. Did you retweet that scientific study showing that Antarctica isn't warming? You're harming the planet, the government energy policy, killing the spotted quoll, and damaging financial prospects for solar manufacturers. Stop that now!