Albanese says law empowers users, not government
The U.S. Embassy in Canberra on Sept. 23 expressed “serious concerns” about Australia’s proposed Digital Duty of Care legislation, saying the bill would lead to “viewpoint-based censorship.” The embassy asked Australia to “clarify how exactly ‘harm’ and ‘risks’ shall be determined … ensuring these definitions do not encroach on protected speech.”
The proposed law would require technology companies to allow users to opt out of the algorithms that curate what appears on their feeds. Companies that fail to comply would face fines.
The legislation would also require companies to block content that promotes self-harm or eating disorders, limit their artificial-intelligence chatbots, and cap addictive features in online games and applications.
In its statement, the embassy said the bill could allow the government to enforce vague definitions of “harm” and that the opt-out provision would “allow regulators to impose rigid, one-size-fits-all platform design requirements” on tech firms.
The embassy also warned of extraterritorial effects. “Mandated platform design features, especially when applied to algorithms, may affect what users see, say, and hear not just in or from Australia, but globally,” the statement said.
The statement added that the laws may risk “reducing the reach of independent journalists or other voices whose content touches on sensitive or controversial topics.” It also said the laws could affect Australia’s “reputation as a jurisdiction that enables innovation.”
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, speaking to reporters in New York where he is attending the United Nations General Assembly, pushed back on the embassy’s framing. “It’s not about giving government control,” Albanese said. “It’s about giving people back control over what they receive on their devices.”
Dali Kaafar, a professor at Macquarie University and executive director of its Cyber Security Hub, told The New York Times that it was unusual for the United States to intervene so directly using “language this strong.” Kaafar said the algorithms governing what Australians see are “largely designed and controlled overseas” and that “Australia has a legitimate interest in deciding what protections and choices should apply to people using those systems in Australia.”
Tama Leaver, a professor of internet studies at Curtin University in Perth, told The Times that most users likely will not opt out of algorithmic feeds. “It is strange for the administration to take such a strong position on this when the likelihood is that even if it was implemented, it wouldn’t do much damage to the company’s bottom line,” Leaver said.
Australia introduced a social-media ban for children younger than 16 last December, a measure other countries have since moved to replicate.