Australia will require social media platforms to act to prevent online harm to users

Protecting our children from any form of harm is a priority we can all agree on, and the idea, for example, of banning social media for under-16's, sounds like a positive step.

But when the government starts pushing “Digital Duty of Care” policies, we should be very cautious about how far their surveillance goes. It’s one thing to safeguard children; it’s another to grant the government broad powers to monitor and control digital platforms, as they are already doing with the "misinformation and disinformation" bill that has just passed through the House of Representatives.

If we’re not careful, this could lead to a dangerous expansion of government surveillance and a serious erosion of our freedoms.

The Digital Duty of Care will place the onus on digital platforms to proactively keep Australians safe and better prevent online harms,” Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said in a statement.""

AMEN

Our kids are being exposed at an early age to to the rest of the world Scums, Scammers, Pedophiles, Sex Predators, Thugs, Thieves, You Name they have it and the list goes on and on and the saddest part about all this is that we can do something about it but we choose NOT TO becz. it effects advertising and the big tech pockets$$$$$$$$$ that's all .

The amount of fake and fishing ads and messages on LINE app. and YouTube are staggering and probably many kids are falling for it.

Japan must get a handle on all of this before it's too late if not already.

""The proposed changes to the Online Safety Act were announced before the government next week introduces to Parliament world-first legislation that would ban children younger than 16 from platforms including X, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok.""

I PRAY that this ban becomes a Law, it will send a strong message to these operators.

We use Line for several groups we are involved with. Never have any ads or phishing.

We use Line for several groups we are involved with. Never have any ads or phishing.

Indeed. Most phishers would shudder at the thought of provoking Soka Gakkai herself.

“The Digital Duty of Care will place the onus on digital platforms to proactively keep Australians safe and better prevent online harms,” Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said in a statement.

This is similar to the EU "digital services act" and is extremely worrying. Who defines "oneline harms"? We are talking about censorship here, no matter how much lipstick they put on that pig.

This is a good thing. It comes after extensive studies were done on teens who frequent social media platforms. Of course the predators and harm are the main concerns. However, it’s also to prevent the ‘dumbing down’ of kids. They found that kids using social media regularly are falling behind in their schooling.

Yep, censorship coming to you.

It is parents to take care of their children, in every aspect of life in all times, not the government.

Anything can harm potentially anyone. Who is to decide about just words ?

To avoind being sued and paying fines, the social networks will have to get AI censoring all the time anything outside common wordings.

Ia that what some people want ?

Has'nt the example of dictatorial countries showed you already the result ?

I have 3 kids sane kids adults or nearly adults now, who went/are on Internet without barrier so don't patronize me.

It is parents' job to set the limits.

Sounds perfectly reasonable. They take responsibility for their actions, isn’t that the basis of the USA’s much vaunted “freedoms”?

Hefty fines based on their gross global profits will quickly incentivise them to clean up their act, though no doubt the techbros will whine as it reduces their obscene profits from permitting this activity.

englisc aspyrgend

Sounds perfectly reasonable. They take responsibility for their actions, isn’t that the basis of the USA’s much vaunted “freedoms”?

No. The platforms are asked to censor content contributed by individuals, which someone might claim are "harmful". Which is direct demand for censorship, as nobody has clearly defined exactly "harmful" means, so inevitably the companies will take the safe route and censor everything that might even remotely be considered "harmful". That is the opposite of freedom.