Do you believe what you’re reading? Chances are, a bot wrote it

October 28, 2026 — 5:00am

You have reached your maximum number of saved items.

Remove items from your saved list to add more.

No gift articles left

You've used all of your gift articles. 3 more will become available on the 1st of every month.

There are entire generations of Australians who have never known life without the internet. Basically, anyone born from the mid-’80s onwards. For most of us, the normal state of affairs is to live between two interconnected worlds, the online and the offline, each governed by wildly divergent and often contradictory rules and norms. Nowhere has this schizophrenic duality been starker than when applied to freedom of speech.

What’s become standard speech in online spaces would be seen as shockingly rude offline, punishable perhaps by social ostracism or public shaming. The routine comments of now-ubiquitous trolls, say of a racist, misogynistic or defamatory nature, could constitute a criminal offence in the analogue world, yet most of us have accepted this as the price of being online. Stop for a moment to consider how deeply weird that is.

In ordinary life you might call your lawyer, or the police, or at the very least put physical distance between yourself and anyone hurling abuse. Online however, we’re given to believe that nothing can be done. Everyone from Pauline Hanson to Elon Musk will tell you that regulating the internet is an unacceptable infringement on freedom of speech.

Keep this in mind as we watch politicians and commentators, following the shocking attack on MP Helen Haines, once again implore each other to bring the temperature down. While the sentiment is noble, they are kidding themselves if they think the language used on the ABC or during Question........

© The Age