Sarah Ferguson interviews Clive Palmer. There are questions over how the plan to block children under 16 from social media will work. Veteran broadcaster Alan Jones has been charged with historical in...

Punters Politics · Episode

Critics from One Nation and conservatives call it a bid to censor dissent after a recent election loss. The post Australia Proposes Social Media Feed Choice Laws with Big Fines first appeared on VibeWire Magazine.

House Bill 190 would statutorily recognize a duty to 'exercise reasonable care' for interactive software and applications; the Law Institute authors said the article simply recognizes a duty and leaves breach, causation and damages to courts. Dozens of tech and business groups warned the committee the language is broad, could trigger interstate commerce and AI concerns and create litigation risk; sponsor voluntarily deferred the bill for further work.

Australia’s digital duty of care bill and the Trump administration wades in on a copyright and AI case and releases propaganda games.

They don't have to ban it. They just make it too risky for Big Tech to show you. The government says it's about a safer internet. But the new Digital Duty of Care proposal means platforms like Google, Meta, Apple, TikTok and Amazon get a legal reason to quietly hide lawful speech before anyone tells them to. No ban to challenge. No one to blame. You just don't see it. In this one I break down the exposure draft from 8 September - not law yet, which is why we need to talk about it now. I've enforced laws, I've prosecuted them, and now I beat them in court as a defence lawyer. The risk was never just what's written on the page. It's what companies do because they're scared of the penalty. Here's what I cover: → Why this is so much bigger than social media - search, hosting, app stores and internet providers are all in scope → The judgement problem - where's the line between discussing crime and encouraging it? → The 60,000 penalty unit math that makes hiding content the rational business decision → Why you get no review when a platform quietly suppresses first and never gets told to do anything This isn't a channel for advice, but it is a channel for clarity. If you want me to keep pulling apart laws before they become laws, you know what to do. EXPOSURE DRAFT & EMAIL CONTACT https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/publications/exposure-draft-online-safety-amendment-digital-duty-care-bill-2026 OBJECTION: 10 Tools For Thinking Clearly In a World Built To Influence You: https://www.objectionbook.com.au/ I'm James Glissan - ex-police officer, ex-police prosecutor, now criminal defence lawyer. I break down how power actually works in Australia so you understand your rights before you need them. General information only, not legal advice. Read the exposure draft yourself - start at sections 25A-26A and ask: would you be happy with this if your view was the risky one? Let me know in the comments. I'll see you in the next one. #freespeech #censorship #australia

The government’s copyright and AI proposals, AI leaders call for an AI development pause and AI music platforms go legit.

They don't have to ban it. They just make it too risky for Big Tech to show you. The government says it's about a safer internet. But the new Digital Duty of Care proposal means platforms like Google, Meta, Apple, TikTok and Amazon get a legal reason to quietly hide lawful speech before anyone tells them to. No ban to challenge. No one to blame. You just don't see it. In this one I break down the exposure draft from 8 September - not law yet, which is why we need to talk about it now. I've enforced laws, I've prosecuted them, and now I beat them in court as a defence lawyer. The risk was never just what's written on the page. It's what companies do because they're scared of the penalty. Here's what I cover: → Why this is so much bigger than social media - search, hosting, app stores and internet providers are all in scope → The judgement problem - where's the line between discussing crime and encouraging it? → The 60,000 penalty unit math that makes hiding content the rational business decision → Why you get no review when a platform quietly suppresses first and never gets told to do anything This isn't a channel for advice, but it is a channel for clarity. If you want me to keep pulling apart laws before they become laws, you know what to do. EXPOSURE DRAFT & EMAIL CONTACT https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/publications/exposure-draft-online-safety-amendment-digital-duty-care-bill-2026 OBJECTION: 10 Tools For Thinking Clearly In a World Built To Influence You: https://www.objectionbook.com.au/ I'm James Glissan - ex-police officer, ex-police prosecutor, now criminal defence lawyer. I break down how power actually works in Australia so you understand your rights before you need them. General information only, not legal advice. Read the exposure draft yourself - start at sections 25A-26A and ask: would you be happy with this if your view was the risky one? Let me know in the comments. I'll see you in the next one. #freespeech #censorship #australia

They don't have to ban it. They just make it too risky for Big Tech to show you. The government says it's about a safer internet. But the new Digital Duty of Care proposal means platforms like Google, Meta, Apple, TikTok and Amazon get a legal reason to quietly hide lawful speech before anyone tells them to. No ban to challenge. No one to blame. You just don't see it. In this one I break down the exposure draft from 8 September - not law yet, which is why we need to talk about it now. I've enforced laws, I've prosecuted them, and now I beat them in court as a defence lawyer. The risk was never just what's written on the page. It's what companies do because they're scared of the penalty. Here's what I cover: → Why this is so much bigger than social media - search, hosting, app stores and internet providers are all in scope → The judgement problem - where's the line between discussing crime and encouraging it? → The 60,000 penalty unit math that makes hiding content the rational business decision → Why you get no review when a platform quietly suppresses first and never gets told to do anything This isn't a channel for advice, but it is a channel for clarity. If you want me to keep pulling apart laws before they become laws, you know what to do. EXPOSURE DRAFT & EMAIL CONTACT https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/publications/exposure-draft-online-safety-amendment-digital-duty-care-bill-2026 OBJECTION: 10 Tools For Thinking Clearly In a World Built To Influence You: https://www.objectionbook.com.au/ I'm James Glissan - ex-police officer, ex-police prosecutor, now criminal defence lawyer. I break down how power actually works in Australia so you understand your rights before you need them. General information only, not legal advice. Read the exposure draft yourself - start at sections 25A-26A and ask: would you be happy with this if your view was the risky one? Let me know in the comments. I'll see you in the next one. #freespeech #censorship #australia

The article argues that Australia needs a mandatory 'digital duty of care' to hold technology companies like Meta and TikTok accountable for the harmful effects of their addictive algorithms. It criticises current policies such as the social media ban for under-16s as superficial solutions that fail to address systemic issues. The author calls for legislation requiring platforms to prioritise user safety, including default privacy settings, algorithm transparency, and penalties for non-compliance. Key concerns include mental health impacts, societal division, and erosion of attention spans caused by addictive design features. The piece highlights the need for enforceable regulations to protect users from exploitative systems rather than relying on self-regulation or content removal alone. It also references proposed legislation from 2024 that aimed to create a framework for digital accountability, stressing that tech companies must be held responsible for their role in shaping online behaviour and societal norms.

The Australian government is proposing new digital duty of care legislation that would allow users to opt out of social media recommender algorithms via pop-up messages. This plan requires platforms to identify and manage risks on their platforms, including stopping harmful content like illegal pornography from being shared. The draft laws also aim to address psycho-social harms for under-18s, such as body image issues and bullying, with potential fines exceeding A$100 million for breaches. While the legislation seeks to hold social media companies accountable, critics argue that implementation details remain unclear and enforcement could be challenging. Opposition leader Angus Taylor warned against efforts to 'censor social media,' highlighting ongoing debates about balancing regulation with free speech. The proposal is separate from existing laws targeting under-16s' access to social media but reflects broader calls for stricter content moderation. Experts suggest making chronological feeds the default rather than requiring users to opt out, as algorithmic content remains prevalent across platforms like Instagram. Regulatory bodies and researchers may play a key role in ensuring compliance, marking a significant shift toward greater transparency in digital platform operations.

Australian Labor Party has unveiled draft legislation aimed at holding tech giants, social media platforms, and AI developers responsible for harmful online content. The Digital Duty of Care laws, set to be announced by Communications Minister Anika Wells, require platforms to remove dangerous material, conduct safety audits, and ensure transparency in data collection and algorithms. The proposal follows a 2024 review of Australia’s Online Safety Act and addresses concerns about the impact of harmful content on users of all ages. Coalition leaders have raised concerns about government overreach, warning that the minister’s proposed powers could lead to internet control. Greens representatives emphasized the need for user control over algorithms, arguing that opt-in functions rather than opt-out mechanisms are essential to prevent manipulation by tech firms. The legislation also includes measures to strengthen protections for under-16s, with increased fines for non-compliance and expanded powers for the eSafety Commissioner. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has called for urgent passage of the bill, stressing the importance of safeguarding children from social media harms. The draft comes amid global debates about regulating tech companies, with similar laws being considered in the UK, EU, and Malaysia. Critics argue that without strict enforcement, tech firms will continue to prioritize profit over user safety.