US activist warns Australia’s online safety bill could restrict news access
Free speech activist Michael Shellenberger has criticised the Albanese government’s proposed Digital Duty of Care Bill, warning that its powers could be used to restrict access to news about major incidents. He argues the proposal risks giving the government broad censorship powers, while the government says the reforms are intended to reduce serious online harm.
Introduced by Communications Minister Anika Wells, the bill would require digital service providers to proactively reduce users’ exposure to harmful content. Large companies such as Meta and X could face fines of up to $100 million for failing to do so; specified harms include bullying, pornography and eating disorder content for under-18s, and violence, threats and criminality for adults. After objections to an earlier plan giving the minister authority to define serious harm, that decision was assigned to parliament.
- Shellenberger says the bill risks enabling censorship.
- Platforms could face fines of up to $100 million.
- Parliament would determine what counts as harmful content.
New here? Start with this
Australia’s federal government is proposing rules requiring online services to take steps to reduce people’s exposure to harmful content. The bill names different kinds of content for children and adults, and could impose large fines on major platforms that fail to meet their duties.
Communications Minister Anika Wells introduced the proposal under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government. Free speech activist Michael Shellenberger says the powers could be used to limit access to news during major incidents; the government says the aim is to reduce serious online harm. After concerns about ministerial control over which harms count, the proposal gives parliament that role.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that online services should take reasonable steps to limit users’ exposure to serious harms, particularly where children face bullying, pornography or eating disorder content. Requiring platforms to act proactively, with parliament defining the relevant harms, could make safety obligations clearer and provide accountability while reducing risks that voluntary measures leave unaddressed.
The case against
Critics argue that broad duties to reduce exposure to harmful content, backed by very large fines, could encourage platforms to remove or restrict lawful material too readily. Because decisions about what users see may affect reporting on major incidents and other public-interest news, they warn that the bill could chill access to information even without an explicit government order to censor it.
Americas Business Celebrity Entertainment Markets World
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “US free speech activist’s stark warning for Australia as he slams Albo’s online safety bill over ‘censorship’”.