‘Global reckoning’ is coming for big tech, says Australian minister
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
Australia's government has unveiled draft legislation to impose a "digital duty of care" on tech companies, framing it as basic safety regulation akin to standards for cars, food and appliances. Communications Minister Anika Wells said the law would end an era of platforms "running real-time, unregulated product testing on Australians", while Prime Minister Anthony Albanese presented it as a natural successor to Australia's existing ban on social media accounts for under-16s and pledged that children would "no longer be treated as commodities".
Under the proposal, marketed as "my feed, my way", users could opt out of algorithmic recommendations to see only content from accounts they already follow, and switch back at any time. The bill would also let the responsible minister, after consulting the e-Safety Commissioner and securing a parliamentary vote, ban categories of content including material that glorifies crime, promotes terrorism, or relates to eating disorders, pornography, sexual violence and misogyny. The "duty of care" label nods to the 1932 UK case Donoghue v Stevenson, a cornerstone of tort law establishing that providers must avoid foreseeable harm; critics have raised concerns about censorship, which Albanese rejected, insisting the plan hands control to people rather than government.
- Sources
- 2
- Outlets
- 2
- Left · Centre · Right
- 1 · 0 · 0
In short
- Australia proposes a "digital duty of care" law for tech platforms.
- Users could opt out of algorithmic feeds under "my feed, my way".
- Ministers could ban harmful content categories after e-Safety review and parliamentary vote.
How this story developed
- 2 months 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.
- 2 months ago Australia's government has unveiled draft legislation to impose a "digital duty of care" on tech companies, framing it as basic safety regulation akin to standards for cars, food and appliances.
- 2 months ago Australia's government has unveiled plans for a "digital duty of care" law, which Communications Minister Anika Wells says will impose basic safety standards on tech platforms similar to those already applied to cars, food and appliances.
Steelman: 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.
Explained simply
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.