The Albanese government’s release this month of its draft “digital duty of care” laws has sparked a growing backlash.
The Coalition opposes the laws as a “blank cheque for political censorship”.
One Nation calls it “Orwellian”.
And even the US government has called the proposed law “extraterritorial censorship of political speech”.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has now confirmed the link between these laws and his government’s failed 2024 misinformation bill. On 23 September, spruiking the digital duty of care at an event at the United Nations, he suggested that the proposed laws are about “misinformation, disinformation and increased polarisation” and the role of online services in people “moving away from the centre and more and more to the extremes”.
His comments depart from earlier claims, when both the PM and Minister for Communications Anika Wells insisted that the law is merely about “putting choice back into the hands of Australians” and the need to “protect our kids online”.
Albanese is finally just saying what is plain to anyone who reads the draft laws: they create a wide-ranging censorship regime.
First, the digital duty of care would apply not just to social media but all online services, including news and general interest websites, search engines, streaming services, hosting services and app stores.
Secondly, it would also cover a vast array of alleged or hypothetical “harms”.
All online services would be required to provide users with a “safe online environment”. This means protecting all users from serious harms, and children from other specific harms.
The harms cover “material and conduct” but also “design features”, and the services will also be required to assess “all foreseeable risks”.
The law will be backed by massive penalties, with breaches of the duty leading to fines of up to $109m, and an activist regulator, eSafety, that is already pursuing social media platforms under the under-16s social media ban laws.
This scheme has very little to do with choice for users. Whatever settings users may choose, online services must still be safe, as defined by the government.
You cannot opt out of the digital duty of care.
Moreover, the draft laws would give the minister for communications power to add new harms from which users, both adults and children, must be protected.
The minister would be under no obligation to consider evidence or even be satisfied that a harm is real. This may include, as the PM admits, new harms linked to political speech or so-called misinformation.
It is also worth noting that the draft laws overlook the way recommendations and other features often expose users to useful content, including journalism and political opinion.
It is hugely significant that there are no exemptions in the laws for news, opinion, art, or satire. No light or shade. No areas for subjectivity or interpretation.
Nor is the law just about, as Minister Anika Wells says, “protecting our kids online”. The policing of child-related harms will also affect adults.
Just as with the under-16s social media ban, online services will often have to take steps to check user ages.
Many services may make users verify their ages to access their full range of functions.
Others may simply adopt the broader child-friendly definition of “safe” for everyone.
Finally, both the government and the Greens have signalled that these laws will be abused for political purposes – because they blame the “algorithms” for boosting One Nation and other content they don’t like.
It may go too far to say that these proposed laws are entirely motivated by politics.
But politics is clearly part of the story.
The government committed to the digital duty of care in November 2024 – the same month it withdrew its misinformation laws.
The idea is being rolled out now following Labor’s defeat to One Nation in a critical state by-election in Western Australia.
Federally, the Prime Minister’s approval rating continues to decline, and recent polling has Labor’s first preference vote at below 30 per cent.
It should not pass without notice that this government has also previously blamed “misinformation” for Australians overwhelmingly voting No to the Voice to Parliament.
In a way, then, it is welcome that the PM has admitted what his government is up to – swapping the algorithm for the Alborithm, a government-approved internet.
