Key facts
- Australia's proposed digital duty legislation focuses on platform design and operation, not individual content items.
- The aim is to regulate the overall system of social media platforms, including account creation and content discovery.
- This approach differs from traditional media regulation, which targets specific content.
- The legislation is intended to be content-neutral, though it may impact certain types of speech more than others.
- Some harmful content, like child sexual abuse material, may require separate content-specific measures.
- The architect argues that claims of censorship are overstated and based on a narrow view of free speech.
Australia's proposed digital duty legislation is designed to regulate social media platforms by focusing on their overall design and operational systems, rather than holding them liable for individual pieces of content. The architect of the legislation emphasized that the aim is not perfection and that platforms could still host 'bad content' while complying with the new rules.
This approach marks a departure from traditional media regulation, which typically scrutinizes specific content for accuracy or fairness. The new proposal seeks to examine how the entire system functions, including aspects like account creation, content discovery mechanisms, user interaction tools, and moderation processes. While content-specific regulations might be layered on top for certain types of harmful material, such as child sexual abuse content, the primary duty of care would be directed at the platform's systemic design.
The architect defended the legislation against claims of censorship, arguing that such criticisms stem from a limited perspective on free speech and a misunderstanding of the system-based approach. The regulation is intended to be content-neutral, although it may disproportionately affect certain forms of speech. The legislation could allow platforms to restrict the virality of less harmful content rather than removing it entirely, a response that has been acknowledged by UN rapporteurs on freedom of expression. The architect also pointed out that freedom of speech is not absolute and that liberal democracies have historically regulated speech in the public interest, citing examples like advertising and broadcast regulations, as well as restrictions on speech that undermines international rights or constitutes severe hate speech.