Australia’s communications regulator is developing a new set of metrics to boost visibility of the actions social media giants like Meta and TikTok are taking to combat harmful misinformation and disinformation.
The metrics are yet to be finalised but could provide greater transparency and a ‘like for like’ comparison of signatories to the voluntary industry code, which is administered by the Digital Industry Group (DIGI).
Instances of misinformation that have been flagged by users or whether a digital platform provider took any action to address the misinformation, including through the use of takedowns, are among the metrics being considered.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority revealed the metrics, part of a draft framework being developed to “assess the effectiveness of signatories’ efforts under the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation”, in a tender.
It is calling for independent expert advice to “validate” up to 67 quantitative metrics, which would apply to the code’s current eight signatories – Apple, Adobe, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Redbubble, TikTok and, as of Wednesday, Amazon’s Twitch.
Metrics have also been designed so that it can apply to non-signatories, such as X (formerly Twitter), which was booted from the code in November for removing user reporting tools, Snap, Reddit and Spotify.
The ACMA has held major concerns with the yearly misinformation reports produced by signatories of the code since it was introduced in 2021, and last year warned that they are “not working to provide transparency”.
“After more than two years in operation, there is still no accessible way for a user to determine what a signatory’s commitment is to each outcome of the code and the measures they have committed to achieving,” the ACMA said in its report last year.
Under the European Union’s Code of Practice on Disinformation, digital platforms – most of which are also signatories to Australia’s code – have committed to developing ‘structural indicators’ designed to assess the effectiveness of the code, the tender said.
But in Australia, none of the signatories or DIGI have “identified or implemented a performance framework for the code that provides consistent metrics and key performance indicators”, which the ACMA deems necessary for the code to be effective.
The framework now being developed by the ACMA sets out a “set of measures and metrics against which signatories can report their efforts to meet the code’s objectives”. Information collected against metrics will be quantitative, such as data points.
“It is intended that these measures and metrics will allow for both more meaningful information about individual efforts but also greater ‘like for like’ comparison of signatories’ efforts and enable signatories to develop their own internal KPIs,” the ACMA said.
The metrics would focus on two objectives of the code: providing safeguards against harms that may arise from dis-and misinformation (objective one) and ensuring the integrity and security of services and products.
Data points could include user-flagged, human-moderated or algorithmically identified instances of misinformation, as well as takedowns or other actions taken by the platform. The metrics could also cover the effectiveness of these actions.
The ACMA said it plans to consult with DIGI, signatories of the code and other interested digital platforms, industry and academia to finalise the framework, including the proposed metrics and measures.
The proposed metrics comes just months after the government delayed controversial legislation to bring more oversight and enforcement against online information to better define terms and add a carve out for religious expression.
