The internet was supposed to be the great equalizer—a place where anyone could share ideas, learn new things, and connect with people across the world. But over the past decade, that promise has become tangled with a darker reality: the rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation. False health advice, manipulated videos, fake news stories, and conspiracy theories can travel around the globe in seconds, often reaching millions of people before the truth has even had a chance to catch up. In Australia, this problem has been taken seriously enough that the government and digital platforms have tried to do something about it, at least on a voluntary basis. The Australian Communications and Media Authority, better known as ACMA, has been watching these efforts closely. In its latest annual report to the government, ACMA has made it clear that while progress is being made, there is still a long way to go—especially when it comes to how digital platforms report on what they are actually doing to combat harmful content. The regulator is calling for more consistent reporting under Australia’s voluntary disinformation code, pointing out that there are still significant gaps in the way metrics are standardised and in how Australian-specific data can be compared across different platforms. It’s a technical-sounding issue, but at its core, it’s about accountability, transparency, and whether we can really trust the companies that shape so much of our public conversation.
The report in question is the fifth annual report on the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation, a voluntary framework that major digital platforms have signed onto. The code is meant to encourage platforms to be more transparent about how misinformation spreads on their services, what steps they are taking to reduce its reach, and how effective those steps are. In this latest assessment, ACMA found that most of the seven signatories did provide a substantial proportion of Australian-specific data. That sounds like good news on the surface, and in some ways it is. It suggests that platforms are at least paying attention to the Australian context and are not simply relying on global figures that may not reflect what Australians are actually seeing. But the regulator also found that there are continuing problems with the consistency of that reporting. Different platforms use different definitions, different measurement methods, and different ways of presenting their data. Some report on the number of pieces of content removed, while others focus on the number of times users were shown warnings, or the number of accounts suspended, or the number of fact-checking partnerships they have. Without a common framework, it becomes almost impossible to compare one platform to another, or even to track a single platform’s progress over time. And that, ACMA argues, undermines the whole purpose of the code.
Why does consistency matter so much? Because without it, the public and the government are left with a patchwork of information that is difficult to interpret and even harder to act on. Imagine trying to compare the safety records of different airlines if each airline used a different scale to measure incidents—one reporting near misses, another reporting only crashes, and another reporting passenger complaints. You would have no real sense of which airline was safer. The same logic applies to online platforms. If one platform reports that it removed 10,000 pieces of misinformation, and another reports that it demoted 10,000 posts, those numbers are not comparable. One might be far more aggressive in its response, while the other might be taking a much softer approach. The lack of standardised metrics also makes it difficult to understand what is actually happening in Australia specifically. Misinformation is often localised—it spreads in particular languages, communities, and cultural contexts. A global metric might show that a platform is doing a great job overall, but that could hide serious problems in Australia. For example, a platform might be very effective at tackling misinformation in the United States or Europe, but less attentive to Australian political content, local health misinformation, or region-specific conspiracy theories. Without consistent Australian-specific data, we cannot know whether the platforms are truly protecting Australian users or just going through the motions.
The voluntary nature of the code adds another layer of complexity. Because the code is not legally binding, platforms are not required to participate, and they are not subject to penalties if their reporting is incomplete or inconsistent. This has led to a situation where the signatories are largely setting their own rules for what to report and how to report it. ACMA has acknowledged that the platforms have made some genuine efforts, and it would be unfair to suggest that they are simply ignoring the problem. But the regulator has also noted that the voluntary approach has inherent limitations. When reporting is inconsistent, it is hard to tell whether the gaps are due to a lack of technical capacity, a lack of resources, or a lack of willingness to be fully transparent. There is also the question of incentives. Digital platforms are businesses, and their primary incentive is to keep users engaged. Misinformation, unfortunately, is often highly engaging. It provokes strong emotional reactions, encourages sharing, and keeps people scrolling. This creates a fundamental tension between the platforms’ commercial interests and the public interest in reducing the spread of harmful content. A voluntary code, by its very nature, relies on the goodwill and self-regulation of the platforms. And while goodwill is not absent, it is not always enough to overcome the powerful economic forces at play.
So what does ACMA want to happen next? The regulator has stopped short of demanding immediate mandatory regulation, but it has made it clear that the current situation is not sustainable. One of the key recommendations is the development of more standardised reporting templates and metrics. If all signatories were required to report the same types of data, using the same definitions and measurement methods, then the resulting information would be far more useful. It would allow ACMA, researchers, and the public to see exactly how each platform is performing, where the gaps are, and which issues require urgent attention. The report also suggests that platforms should be more transparent about their algorithms and the way they amplify content, because misinformation often spreads through algorithmic recommendations rather than simple user sharing. There is also a call for greater attention to Australian-specific issues, including misinformation in languages other than English, misinformation targeting Indigenous communities, and misinformation related to Australian elections and public health campaigns. ACMA has hinted that if the platforms do not improve their reporting voluntarily, the government may need to consider stronger measures. This is not an idle threat. Around the world, governments are moving toward more robust regulation of online content, and Australia has already shown itself willing to take a tough stance on digital platforms in other areas, such as news media bargaining and online safety. The question is whether the voluntary code can be strengthened enough to avoid the need for legislation, or whether the time for voluntary action has passed.
At its heart, this is not really about spreadsheets, metrics, or reporting templates. It is about the kind of information environment we want to live in. Misinformation does not just confuse people; it can damage public health, undermine democratic processes, and tear apart communities. It can convince people to avoid life-saving vaccines, vote against their own interests, or turn against their neighbours. In a country like Australia, where people pride themselves on fairness, honesty, and a shared sense of community, the spread of harmful falsehoods is a serious threat. The platforms that host and amplify this content have a responsibility to do more than just pay lip service to the idea of fighting misinformation. They need to be accountable, not just to their shareholders, but to the public. That means being transparent about what they are doing, how they are doing it, and whether it is actually working. It means providing data that is consistent, comparable, and specific to the communities they serve. ACMA’s call for more consistent reporting is a call for that kind of accountability. It is a reminder that transparency is not just about releasing numbers—it is about releasing numbers that mean something. And it is a challenge to all of us, as users of these platforms, to demand better. We may not be able to read every report or analyse every metric, but we can support the idea that the companies shaping our digital lives should be open to scrutiny. The fight against misinformation is not a battle that can be won once and then forgotten. It is an ongoing effort that requires constant attention, honest reflection, and a willingness to adapt. The ACMA report is a step in that direction, but it is only a step. The real work lies ahead—for the platforms, for the regulator, and for all of us who care about the truth.