In short:
The federal government has proposed new rules regulating social media algorithms and expanding eSafety’s powers over online content. The plan has sparked debate over censorship, political expression and how much discretion the Communications Minister should have over categories of online harm.
eSafety Could Gain More Powers
The federal government’s proposal to regulate social media algorithms has sparked debate about how much power the Communications Minister and eSafety should have over the rules governing online content.
Draft legislation including the “My Feed, My Way” initiative was formally released by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Communications Minister Anika Wells on 8 September.
If passed, big tech operators would be required to notify users and give them the choice between a default feed containing personalised algorithmic recommendations and one limited to friends and creators they choose to follow.
Further, digital services like online games, apps and AI chatbots would be required to protect under-18s from design features that have negative behavioural impacts, like addictive features or those deemed to have an effect on a young person’s self-esteem.
Platforms would also be required to restrict under-18s’ exposure to content involving eating disorders, pornography, hostility towards women and gender equality, crime, dangerous stunts, abuse and bullying.
(Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.)
Albo: It’s Not About Government Control
The draft laws would give eSafety the power to issue removal notices for nudify apps or websites, while also broadening when the regulator can order content removed under child cyberbullying and adult cyber abuse rules.
Digital platforms would be made to document the measures taken to address identified risks of harm to Australian users and ensure these measures remain effective over time.
Failure to comply with the duty of care could attract penalties of up to $109.2 million, with the independent eSafety Commissioner responsible for compliance and enforcement.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said, “This is not about giving government control, it is about giving people control.”
“Australia is leading the world with our social media age ban and online safety approach. This work has been led by parents and advocates and we have backed them. We will continue to do so.”
(Communications Minister Anika Wells.)
Minister Would Have Discretion Over Harm Categories
Communications Minister Anika Wells said it was no different to regulating other products and services.
“Just as we have basic safety standards for cars, toys or food, the duty of care applies basic standards for the online products we use every day,” she said.
“The duty of care goes beyond social media to ensure children are protected from harmful content and features, including on chatbots and gaming platforms, apps and messaging platforms.”
Not everyone is on board with the idea, with the Coalition raising fears journalism, free political expression and religious and cultural debate could be caught in the crossfire.
It has also raised concerns over the Communications Minister’s broad powers to define additional categories of online harm, including around socially contentious concepts such as misogyny.
(Victorian senators Jane Hume and Sarah Henderson.)
Coalition Strongly Opposed To Draft Legislation
Senator Sarah Henderson, who is also the Shadow Minister for Communications and Digital Safety, accused Communications Minister Anika Wells and Labor of seeking powers that went too far.
“Protecting children online is one of the most important jobs we have, but it does not give Anika Wells a blank cheque to determine what lawful material Australians should be protected from seeing,” she said.
“These powers are far too broad and the safeguards are simply not good enough.
“We need to protect children, empower parents, force greater transparency from Big Tech and protect free speech. Labor’s approach is to give unfettered powers to the Minister and ask Australians to simply trust that it won’t be abused.”
Similar Regulations Exist Across The World
Nationals Leader Matt Canavan went further, warning the laws could open the door to political censorship.
“I don’t trust Big Tech, but the answer is not to trust the Labor Party instead. No politician should get to decide for themselves what lawful speech is harmful and then pressure platforms to make it disappear.”
Australia is often derided for being a nanny state, but it is not trailblazing by any stretch, with the European Union already regulating personalised algorithms, while the UK and California have imposed their own rules on what platforms can show minors and how online services can be designed.
With the legislation still to come before Parliament and the debate over who gets to set the rules of Australia’s online world only set to ramp up, the digital frontline is well and truly open.
