The headline is a comfortable win for Yes, but the real story sits in the age profile: the youngest voters and pensioners were the most convinced platforms should carry legal responsibility, almost unanimously among the under-25s, while the middle-aged generations most likely to have built careers or businesses on social platforms were evenly split or leaning No. That U-shaped pattern hints at two different instincts converging on the same answer — digital natives alarmed at the scale of harm, and older voters wary of institutions they trust less, both landing on the side of regulation.
The middle years tell the opposite story. The 45-54 group was the one clear bloc to reject liability outright, and the 35-44s and 55-64s split down the middle — the cohorts arguably most exposed to platform power in their working and civic lives seem the most reluctant to hand courts and regulators a new lever over speech online.
The vote lands squarely on the fault line the Online Safety Act was built to straddle: forcing platforms to police harm without turning them into arbiters of truth, a tension EU regulators are wrestling with too under the Digital Services Act, and one no amount of legislative drafting has yet dissolved.
What swayed the floor was less a debate than two irreconcilable analogies. The top Yes voice framed misinformation as a moral failure needing consequences — "if you have to lie then your point of view doesn't exist" — while the most-respected No case reached for the classic carrier defence: "who says the thing is responsible, not the operator of the channel carrying the message."
A chamber that mostly agrees platforms should answer for lies still can't agree on who the liar actually is — the poster, or the platform that let it fly.
7 Opinions
Should a telephone company be responsible for what is said on a phone? Should a paint or brush manufacturer be responsible for what is painted on a protestor's sign? We must be clear that who says the thing is responsible, not the operator of the channel carrying the message.
Utterly ridiculous. A social media company cannot be held responsible for the voices of its userbase. Last time I checked, we were all responsible for our own autonomy.
What is misinformation? Misinformation is what the State or establishment disagree with or want to cover up.. Anything that challenges the establishment view is labled "misinformation" when as has eventually been proved many times to be true facts that the Govenment or establishment want covered up. Just look at the narative from the pHarmacutical companies about the covid jabs being "safe and effective" now shown by the data on vaccine injuries to have been anything but
Other users are the most effective moderators of misinformation. We don't need a nanny. We're adults.
Lying and manipulating facts or stories to sound worse or better just to garner support or views is totally immoral and if it causes issues then it’s even worse There’s no need to lie to show a point of view. If you have to lie then your point of view doesn’t exist or your a scumbag
Who determines what is or isn't 'misinformation'? The global elite, usually. The same elite who hate the West and all it stands for. 'No.', in the least polite way possible.
As newspapers have to check info so should unsocial media