The High Price of Regulating the Feed

Can Canberra engineer a clean, safe internet by decree? The Albanese government certainly seems to think so, though its ambition to discipline social media platforms is currently running into the stark realities of parliamentary arithmetic. With the Coalition firmly in opposition, Labor requires the support of the Greens to pass its flagship digital duty of care legislation. Predictably, the minor party has no intention of granting its votes without extracting a heavy toll.

Under the new leadership of David Shoebridge, who has promised a noticeably more aggressive tactical approach than his predecessor Larissa Waters, the Greens are demanding a dramatic expansion of the proposed framework. Communications spokesperson Sarah Hanson-Young argues that state regulatory bodies alone are insufficient. Instead, the party insists that individual Australians must be granted a private right of action, allowing citizens to haul tech companies into court for personal financial compensation. To ensure multinational corporations actually feel the pain, the Greens are also demanding that administrative penalties be calculated as a percentage of global revenue rather than fixed statutory sums.

Labor’s original blueprint was already substantial in its regulatory ambition. Communications Minister Anika Wells framed the initiative as a necessary intervention after platform operators failed to self-regulate across fifteen years of voluntary guidelines. Under the proposed rules, popular platforms, mobile applications, online games, and artificial intelligence chatbots would be legally required to mitigate specific harms, including misogynistic material, eating disorder content, cyberbullying, and videos glorifying crime or dangerous stunts. Companies would face penalties exceeding A$100 million for failing to comply, while the eSafety commissioner would receive statutory powers to issue removal notices. Users aged sixteen and older would also gain features allowing them to turn off algorithmic recommendation feeds.

Yet for the Greens, a A$100 million penalty is mere operational noise for Silicon Valley. Hanson-Young maintains that only the dual threat of turnover-based fines and widespread litigation will force platforms to proactively protect users. Whether opening a new frontier for class-action lawsuits actually fosters a healthier online environment remains a question ministers appear hesitant to explore.

This legislative squeeze comes amidst a broader tactical offensive by Shoebridge, who is also introducing separate legislation to ban the importation of wearable surveillance devices, often referred to as pervert glasses. Meanwhile, the Coalition views the entire endeavor with deep skepticism. Shadow communications spokesperson Sarah Henderson warned a CPAC audience that the duty of care laws threaten fundamental free speech, cautioning against erosion of the right to challenge authority and express dissent.

As Wells prepares to outline her strategy at the National Press Club, Labor finds itself caught between free-market free-speech critiques on the right and trial-lawyer enthusiasm on the left. Regulating algorithms was never going to be simple, but allowing balance-of-power negotiators to redesign civil liability risks turning online safety policy into an unworkable regulatory thicket.

Written by Sandy van Dongen sandy.vandongen@alpineweekly.com