‘Global reckoning’ is coming for big tech, says Australian minister
Developing story first seen 3 hours ago
Australia's government has detailed the specific types of content its planned "digital duty of care" law would allow ministers to ban, building on the previously announced plan to let users opt out of algorithmic social media feeds. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the draft bill targets content that glorifies crime, promotes terrorism, or relates to eating disorders, pornography, sexual violence and misogyny, with the law framed as a successor to Australia's existing ban on social media accounts for under-16s.
Under the proposal, a ban on a category of content would first require the relevant minister to consult the e-Safety Commissioner, who could recommend it be declared harmful, before the recommendation is put to a parliamentary vote. Communications Minister Anika Wells named the policy after the 1932 Donoghue v Stevenson case, a foundation of tort law establishing a duty to avoid foreseeable harm, to root the proposal in established legal tradition. At a press conference announcing the plans, ministers were joined by parents of children who died after using social media, while critics have raised concerns the law amounts to government censorship, a claim Albanese rejected by describing the aim as "my feed, my way".
- Bill would let ministers ban content on crime, terrorism, eating disorders, sexual violence
- E-Safety Commissioner recommends bans; parliament must vote to approve them
- Law named after 1932 tort case establishing a "duty of care" precedent
New here? Start with this
Australia's centre-left Labor government, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, is proposing a new "digital duty of care" law aimed at forcing social media and other tech platforms to meet basic safety standards, in the way that products like cars and food already have to. The plan is being led by Communications Minister Anika Wells and builds on Australia's earlier move to ban under-16s from having social media accounts, positioning the country as an early mover in tech regulation.
The core idea is to give users more control over what they see online, including a right to switch off algorithm-driven feeds and view only content from accounts they follow. It would also create a process for banning certain categories of harmful content, such as material promoting terrorism, eating disorders or sexual violence, with any such ban needing parliamentary approval after a recommendation from Australia's online safety regulator, the e-Safety Commissioner.
The proposal matters because it could set a precedent other governments look to as they weigh how far to regulate large tech platforms, and because it touches on a long-running debate about where the line falls between protecting users and restricting free expression online.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates argue that platforms have operated for years without the basic safety obligations applied to almost every other consumer product, and that a duty of care simply closes that gap by holding companies accountable for foreseeable harms such as algorithmic amplification of eating-disorder content, terrorism material or misogynistic abuse. They see the opt-out from algorithmic feeds as a genuine empowerment measure, restoring user agency over what they see rather than leaving curation entirely to engagement-driven algorithms. Routing specific content bans through a parliamentary vote, rather than leaving them to ministerial discretion alone, is presented as a democratic safeguard that keeps decisions accountable to elected representatives rather than tech executives or unaccountable regulators.
The case against
Critics worry that empowering a minister to propose content bans, even with parliamentary approval, creates a mechanism for political majorities to restrict lawful speech under the banner of safety, with categories like material that could be deemed to glorify crime or relate to sexual content being broad and open to shifting interpretation over time. They caution that a duty of care framework borrowed from tort law, designed for physical products with predictable harms, sits uneasily with the far more subjective and context-dependent judgements involved in policing online expression. There is also concern that placing such sweeping enforcement power in the hands of platforms, under threat of penalty, will incentivise over-removal of legitimate content as the safest compliance strategy, chilling speech well beyond the law's intended target.
More coverage