As funding declines for the ABC and as artists increasingly worry about how AI will affect their jobs, people are reaching out to Fusion to ask, "will you raise your voice for Australia's storytellers?"
So let's explore how Fusion's policies will assist in this space.
Some artists may wish for AI to be heavily curtailed or even banned from generating imagery. But the thing is, we live in an era where anyone can connect to a virtual private network (VPN) and where they can access satellite Internet, so restricting Australians from accessing various online services is futile. We made the case in our senate submission on adopting artificial intelligence that Australia urgently needs to compete against foreign and corporate-sponsored AI which have an inherent disregard for Australia's needs. We need to be developing our own AI capability.
If we're talking about banning AI to protect artists, the other thing worth noting is that not all AI imagery was ever intended to be "art". Someone with a limited artistic vision might be trying to browse themes and ideas like they would flick through a catalog. They could be generating hundreds of images as they expand their own imagination. In a similar experience to Pinterest, they could be looking for inspiration before deciding on a home décor they like or a fashion style they'd like to wear. They might then take these inspiration boards to an interior decorator or a tailor. So then who is the victim here? Whose job has been replaced, and how much would these scenarios really impact the revenue of interior decorators and tailors?
If anything, tailors might end up with more business with the rise of AI, as people can more easily express their ideas and take it to be created in the physical world.
This wouldn't be the first time that new technology spurred on a tsunami of style − the invention of the Jaquard loom meant that intricate patterns could be encoded as a series of punch cards, then these patterns could be mass-produced, giving everyone access to beautiful garments.
In this conversation with Brendan Clarke (our candidate for Berowra), I further discusss this invention and how it was resisted by a group that came to be known as the Luddites. They were upset that they were losing their highly specialised job of weaving patterns in clothes.
Sure the weavers had some amount of art in their work, but so too does art exist in the task of creating the patterns for the loom. Most jobs today have some amount of demeaning, unnecessary bullshit which can and should be replaced by robots.
Human dignity can be maintained by the provision of a universal basic income − giving people enough money for basic housing and food without all the excuses and application processes − JobSeeker, the age pension or any of that.
This would see people pursuing what gives them the most fulfillment.
Humans enjoy telling stories, and we're already seeing that ever since the widespread availability of cameras and audio equipment, there's been an abundant influx of "non-artists" producing interesting photos, documentaries and podcasts. Should we ban consumer-level cameras and microphones? I'd argue that we should continue leaning into technologies that free people from demeaning drudgery, and also technologies that enable everyone to tap into their inner creative spirit.
Thinking about the rise in user-generated content, it also informs our approach to media regulation in Australia. In 2023, the Labor government committed to legislating local content quotas for streaming services, however the proposed 1 July 2024 commencement date has come and gone. When there were only a handful of television channels and these were the most popular way of accessing video entertainment, then saying that 20% of content had to be "Australian" was something that could feasibly be enforced.
But now anyone can create a YouTube channel, and if Australians get hooked to eg a Korean game show, then can we really use the might of the Australian government to try blocking this content and telling some Koreans, "you have to show more Australians on your channel"? It's an absurd premise.
Where the idea of local content thresholds starts to make sense is when we think about news − it's a public service if people are spending time reporting stories that assist the lives of Australians. In this sense, we can say there's some merit in the Australian government forcing Google to pay news publishers. One of the problems in this arrangement though is that it's hard to define what's really "news". You can visit a site literally called news.com.au and see a gossip article about the hidden meaning behind Megan Markle’s dress.
Where is the line between journalists and gossip bloggers? These are not the sort of people who are going to put on a bullet-proof vest and visit the Middle East.
So if the Australian government feels that we need news for Australians, then organisations like the ABC and SBS are well-placed to deliver. They can have specific mandates of what sort of content they're meant to create, rather than getting distracted and trying to compete with MrBeast for having the most clicks.
It's problematic though if we put all our eggs in one basket and expect the ABC to forever be the gold standard of journalism. We saw during the 2023 Aston by-election for instance, this story by the 7:30 Report twice featured the phrase "both parties". Indeed, only 2 of the 5 candidates were covered, and it was never even acknowledged that Fusion existed as a party in this race. This sort of reporting biases elections.
When parties spend all their advertising money, look at what the ads actually say − it's not much. Its most important function is clearly just to say "here is our candidate. They exist."
A billboard claiming that Roshena Campbell would be a "strong voice". Source: ABC.
This reality of what the ABC has become is why, in our AI recommendations, we recommended funding a broader (potentially foreign) group of media organisations, not just the ABC and SBS.
A further concern about funding too few organisations is that they might stifle free speech − Fusion has always been a big proponent of free speech, as seen in eg our submission on misinformation and disinformation.
So when it comes to championing storytellers, the conclusion is clear: Fusion supports government enablement for all Australians to create content and we support explicit, targeted support for the creation of news. Our policy for universal basic income would see people being able to live a dignified life with all the essentials taken care of while they pursue their passion for artistic creation.
Our policies would unlock a new wave of artistic flourishing in Australia that would see us amplifying our cultural relevance and our soft power around the world, helping to protect us from invasion and suppression.
If you similarly value the voices of Australia's storytellers and you'd like to help us in achieving this vision, then please reach out to your local candidates 🙋