Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Australia Government Social Networks The Internet

Australia To Make Big Tech Liable For Citizens' Online Safety (yahoo.com) 79

Posted by BeauHD from the taking-a-stand dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: The Australian government plans to enact laws requiring big tech firms to protect its citizens online, the latest move by the center-left Labor administration to crack down on social media including through age limits and curbs on misinformation. Communications Minister Michelle Rowland announced the government's plan for a legislated Digital Duty of Care in Australia on Wednesday night, saying it aligned with similar laws in the UK and European Union. "It is now time for industry to show leadership, and for social media to recognize it has a social responsibility," Rowland said in a speech in Sydney announcing the measures. It would "keep users safe and help prevent online harms."

In response to the laws, Facebook and Instagram operator Meta Platforms Inc. called for the restrictions to be handled by app stores, such as those run by Google and Apple Inc., rather than the platforms themselves. The government has ignored those requests, but has yet to announce what fines companies would face or what age verification information will need to be provided. At the same time, Albanese has moved forward controversial laws to target misinformation and disinformation online, which opponents have labeled an attack on freedom of speech. Earlier this month, Albanese said the government would legislate for a ban on social media for children under 16, a policy the government says is world-leading. "Social media is doing harm to our kids and I'm calling time on it," Albanese told a news conference.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australia To Make Big Tech Liable For Citizens' Online Safety More

Australia To Make Big Tech Liable For Citizens' Online Safety

Comments Filter:
  • So we can use it to verify your age!

  • Who are Albanese (Score:3)

    by rossdee ( 243626 ) on Friday November 15, 2024 @08:08AM (#64947541)

    Are they people from Albania?

  • The Devil's in the details (Score:3, Insightful)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Friday November 15, 2024 @09:00AM (#64947595)
    Yes, authoritarian govts without effective oversight & constraints in place could & probably would abuse such laws to their advantage. On the other hand, online social media companies have found that they can make more money by cultivating the conditions that lead to harm to citizens & undermine the institutions that we depend on for things like healthcare & democratic participation. Australia has its fair share of lunatic fringe groups & misinformation, & social media companies are amplifying them & causing real harm.

    If you want to go all "USA! Freedom!" just have a quick look at the people about to enter the White House. Do you really want an anti-science politician in charge of healthcare or a conspiracy theorist in charge of national security or a white supremacist leading the military? Those idiots can do harm that ordinary people will feel in their everyday lives for the next 10-20 years.

    Any country that can reign in this idiocy will have a brighter, less problematic future.

    • Any country that can reign in this idiocy

      I heart irony

    • Unless the truth is overwhelmingly obvious, it is far easier to go for ideas that make life easier in the short term. Over climate change, that means believing what I do doesn't matter. In economics that means believing that protectionism will make my country more prosperous, and in vaccines, it means thinking that vaccines do harm because they sometimes hurt and are an effort to get hold of.

      To reject these ideas requires THINKING, which most of the population is bad at.

      There are days when I'm sure we're do

      • "People believe what they're told to believe." - TIFTFY

        • Back in the good old days when the establishment had in effect a monopoly of all the media, there was no great variation in what people were being told to believe. Those days are long gone, and people are far more free to find a source - however dubious - that says what they want to believe. Trump has demonstrated the power of this to a spectacular degree, and the hand wringing of the rest of us over the situation is not getting anywhere, not least because the left has become focused on 'minority rights' ra

          • Re: "...the left has become focused on 'minority rights' rather than using its media..." - Whose media? Are you claiming there's left-wing media in the colony formerly administered by the British Crown & now run by its seditious government, now known as the USA? Please, do tell us of this left-wing phenomenon.

            • CBS' blatant editing of Harris' wordsalad response to a question on 60 minutes being the most blatant example, along with the proposal by some at the NY Times to abandon objectivity

              https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0... [nytimes.com]

              https://reason.com/2020/04/27/... [reason.com]

              https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/05... [cnn.com]

              Yes, I get it. The coastal establishment has irritated the voters of the USA to the point where they elect a barbarian whom the elites can't stand (with good reason - there's a lot to be worried about in Trump). The mainstream media

              • Ah, I see. You think the war-hawk Camila Harris is "left-wing." Maybe in the USA she's left of the extreme right but compared to fascism, everything's left-wing. Doesn't really make much sense.

                • Which ally are you suggesting that the US should ignore in its need for support against barbaric aggression - apart, of course, from Afghanistan, whose women you were willing to see deprived of anything approaching a decent life? I assume you'd oppose any resistance to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, but what about Estonia? When Kim demands the surrender of the South Korean government to his rule or else he'll nuke Seoul, will you promise retaliation?

                  And then there's the South China sea situation

                  https://www.b [bbc.com]

                  • Have you ever stopped to think about how the USA has ended up in these situations in the first place?

                    • In Europe the USA is seeking to ensure the free choice of the peoples according to the treaties that have been signed; specifically the Helsinki agreement gives any state the right to join any defensive alliance that it wishes to. Russia's refusal to accept that principle that it signed up to should result in its victim being supported by those of us who think bullying is a bad idea.

                      The same principle underlies the situation in the South China sea, where the Philippines got a ruling from the International c

                    • You really need to understand history a bit better. Re: post-WWII Russian history, here's a starter for you: https://www.military.com/histo... [military.com]

                    • From the article you linked to:

                      'In March 1954, the Soviets then sent the Western allies a proposal for the USSR to join NATO. In a letter to Georgy Malenkov, then the USSR's head of state, and Communist Party General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev, Molotov laid out the benefits of joining the North Atlantic Pact.

                      He wrote the action "would make things difficult for the organizers of the North Atlantic bloc and would emphasize its supposedly defensive character, so that it would not be directed against the USSR.

                    • So you skip the facts to look for the speculation & post-hoc rationalisation. The propagandists have trained you well. Just how many oppressive, murderous, authoritarian regimes do you suppose the USA has supported over the decades since WWII? How do you think the obviously impending collapse of the British empire influenced US foreign policy?

                      Those excuses for US belligerence fall apart once you look a little more closely.

                    • The record of Stalin's USSR was obvious by the end of WWII; the experience of the Baltic Republics under its rule from the early 1940s merely confirmed it. I can only assume you haven't read Solzhenitsyn's 'Gulag Archipelago'?

                      Yes, unfortunately the strategy of the West in resisting Soviet oppression did result in support to some very nasty regimes as well - on the same logic that 'our enemy's enemy is our friend' which led us to help the USSR against Hitler. But the immediate post WWII imposition of communi

                    • The Soviet Union inherited the Russian empire so any hope of a communist state was doomed from the start. It was the perfect environment for one despotic regime, the Tzars, to be replaced by another, Stalin. Stalin carried on, business as usual.

                      Sorry but there's no "good guys" in this story. The US Empire is trying hard to catch up with the British Empire's toll of 55-70 million deaths (in the last 400 or so years) and the Russian Empire's 55-80 million (in the last 500 or so years). In 250-ish years, so

                    • This conversation started with you applying that phrase to Harris. Now you've retreated to vague blusterings about everyone being bad.

                      So let's try again:

                      Which of America's present confrontations with autocrats united should the USA walk away from?

                      Ukraine
                      Western Europe in general
                      Israel
                      The Phillipines
                      Taiwan
                      South Korea
                      Yemen (let the Houthis close the Red Sea entirely?)

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

                    • To reiterate & clarify, it's mostly US imperialism that has led to these situations in the first place so it's up to US diplomacy to resolve them peacefully. In every case that I've heard the history & details laid out clearly, there's the US state department & diplomats sabotaging peaceful diplomacy & cooperation in favour of hostilities & threats of armed conflict. Don't forget that "regime change" is Washington's & CIA's foreign policy MO.

                      Belligerence begets belligerence. Decad

                    • 1920s - attempted Poland - failed; gathered Mongolia go the wider empire
                      1940s pre 1945 - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Got a large chunk of Poland - dividing it with Hitler. Lost an attempt to invade Finland.
                      post 1945 People's republics in Eastern Europe, ethnically cleansed and settled Konigsberg. Enabled the Communist takeover of China. Civil War in Greece failed.
                      1950s - attempted to control Korea; Malaya. Gain of Cuba. Hungarian rejection of Soviet rule defeated by Red Army
                      1960s Vietnam - eventually; co

                    • WWI & WWII & the collapse of the British Empire were a unique opportunity to collaborate more & do things more diplomatically, e.g. founding the UN, updating the Geneva Conventions, establishing universal human rights, etc.. Within the limited scope that it had, it functioned impressively well & should've ushered in a new era of international diplomacy & relations. Instead, those in Washington decided the flex their muscles & their new found terror-weapons; nuclear bombs, & they

                    • You are simply not engaging with the clear evidence provided by Stalin's behaviour from 1940 onward. Soviet communism sought to expand persistently, imposing dictatorships under its ultimate control wherever it went. In that context the West had two alternatives: let the Soviets win, or achieve some sort of containment, which is what the Cold War was all about. Happily we won the Cold War, and many of the oppressed were freed from Moscow's grip. But until its collapse the USSR was consistently imperialist i

                    • OK, have you got anything to offer other than stale cold war propaganda. This is getting tiring.

                      I'm not sure why you feel the need to posture the USA as the "good guys" defending the world from the "evil" Russian Empire/Soviet Union. They're both empires. They both do evil shit. Neither are on some higher moral mission or protecting the vulnerable from domination & exploitation, right? For the victim countries it's simply a matter of which empire they're gonna get fucked by, right?

                      So you'd prefer

                    • The result of the victory of American 'imperialism' in the Cold War has been the emergence of many genuine democracies in Europe and elsewhere, including the Philippines. They may not be perfect democracies - and there are many who think the democracy in the US isn't perfect - but they're vastly better than the oppressive regimes of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. Yes, at times the US did some 'evil shit'. But the result has been far more positive than if they had left the victims of the dictators to b

                    • Re: "The result of..." Let me stop you right there. Do you know the difference between "because of" & "despite"?

                      Essentially, you're arguing that the US empire's instigation & support of brutally oppressive regimes isn't as brutal & oppressive as other empire's instigation & support of brutally oppressive regimes. Not really much of an argument.

                    • you're arguing that the US empire's instigation & support of brutally oppressive regimes isn't as brutal & oppressive as other empire's instigation & support of brutally oppressive regimes. Not really much of an argument.

                      Yes, that's what I'm arguing because it is obviously true to anyone who actually looks at the facts rather than indulges in a moralistic fantasy world. The legacy of the West winning the Cold War has been a spread of democracy to many parts of the world. The consequence of the Soviets winning is too horrible to contemplate, but the present record of China and Russia give us a strong hint.

                      However you are also avoiding the question I asked earlier:

                      'Which of America's present confrontations with autocrats unit

    • Yes! We need censorship, and politicians deciding what passes for truth. Because politicians are infallible, and they only care about the children. They've promised these laws will never be abused so we can have confidence in this particular incarnation of government-instituted safe & effective censorship.

      Am I doing this right comrade?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Rather than outright censor "violating" information, require that a disclaimer be attached, along with a hyperlink to details explaining the reason if screen-room is sparse.

      For example, when Dr. Brainworm claimed "COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people", require a disclaimer of lack of medical evidence rather than outright omit the lame claim.

      This would only apply to content with say 20k views or more. It's unrealistic for content hosters to vet everything.

      Lying about medical treatments

      • OK, disclaimers. That's an option. How well do they work?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          Don't know, but it gives context and alternative viewpoints.

          Example warning details:

          "While it is true Dr. Foo recommended taking Ivermectin to reduce your chance of catching Covid, Dr. Foo's opinion is an outlier (rare) among licensed Epidemiologists [link]. It's also possible Ivermectin produces unwanted side-effects in some individuals. Click here for more on possible side effects...

          • "Viewpoints" don't tell you anything useful. They're just hot air. Disclaimers have been around for a long time. We see them a lot, especially in poorly regulated consumer markets. My guess is that they work very poorly & that is why they're so common, i.e. the unscrupulous can tick the "disclaimer" box & continue as before, unhindered by effective regulation.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Tablizer ( 95088 )

              I'm not convinced a warning on a hair dryer is comparable to a medical-related disclaimer. We ignore hair-drying warnings because they are usually obvious to any adult. If somebody sees a message about a medical-related product or recommendation they are interested in, the disclaimer is likely something they'd be curious to see before going further. If it's from an outlier doctor, most would want to know.

              • Re: "I'm not convinced a warning on a hair dryer is comparable to a medical-related disclaimer." -- Have you already forgotten what happened in the USA & UK during the COVID-19 pandemic? You think people prefer objective medical advice to divisive, partisan messages?

                • Re: (Score:1)

                  by Tablizer ( 95088 )

                  Roughly 25% are going to think the gov't is rigged and out to get them no matter what. Can't do zero just because nuts exist.

                  • In the USA, that might be true. Not elsewhere in the world. The differences in public responses to COVID-19 lock-downs, mask requirements, & vaccines were quite illuminating. So were the differing attitudes in countries' leaders.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by znrt ( 2424692 )

      you're shooting yourself in the foot here.

      you are arguing that the new cabinet is the result of uncontrolled misinformation, and even if there were actual evidence for that (*1) that's a slippery slope. what about the next one? it's bad enough, and by your own logic you now would have exactly that kind of people deciding on a more significant level what is misinformation and what isn't going forward. i don't think you really want to go there ....

      *1 is there? that the political debate has been degenerating s

      • Re: "(*1) that's a slippery slope." - Looks like you shot yourself in the foot with that logical fallacy.

        The USA seems to be the leader in partisan, disconnected from reality, outright dishonest mainstream media. Look where their govt are at now.

        At least mainstream media are regulated to some degree in most countries. Additionally, most developed countries have fairly prominent & well-respected state media broadcasters that tend to keep journalistic integrity under some kind of control. There are

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by znrt ( 2424692 )

          At least mainstream media are regulated to some degree in most countries. Additionally, most developed countries have fairly prominent & well-respected state media broadcasters that tend to keep journalistic integrity under some kind of control. There are obvious exceptions, of course.

          this is just ... wishful thinking ... delusional ... i don't even know how to qualify or argue with that. if you are relying on msm for your worldview you're already seriously fucked. ironically, in that case i can understand your perspective. but it's only going to get worse.

          • You need to get out more. You know, experience what happens in the media in other countries. In the English language, Irish (Republic) media do some high quality, responsible journalism. Their politicians also make sense & have well-informed, collaborative, & respectful debates about political policies. Try it!

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by znrt ( 2424692 )

              exceptions do exist, not with any significant audience though.

              but anyway, the proof is in the pudding: i'm not the one blaming the last us' election results squarely on "misinformation", much less on the scapegoat media outlet/platform du jour. wherever you are getting that "information" from, regardless of prominence, respect status and alleged journalistic integrity, that's just bullshit. freaking stupid bullshit to be more precise.

      • Re:The Devil's in the details (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Friday November 15, 2024 @12:59PM (#64948255)

        it's bad enough, and by your own logic you now would have exactly that kind of people deciding on a more significant level what is misinformation and what isn't going forward.

        As opposed to a handful of people who own all the major classic media and control the social networks? I'll take a bureaucracy with established procedures, thank you.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Yes, authoritarian govts without effective oversight & constraints in place could & probably would abuse such laws to their advantage. On the other hand, online social media companies have found that they can make more money by cultivating the conditions that lead to harm to citizens & undermine the institutions that we depend on for things like healthcare & democratic participation. Australia has its fair share of lunatic fringe groups & misinformation, & social media companies are amplifying them & causing real harm.

      If you want to go all "USA! Freedom!" just have a quick look at the people about to enter the White House. Do you really want an anti-science politician in charge of healthcare or a conspiracy theorist in charge of national security or a white supremacist leading the military? Those idiots can do harm that ordinary people will feel in their everyday lives for the next 10-20 years.

      Any country that can reign in this idiocy will have a brighter, less problematic future.

      The thing is, the Albanase govt is the least authoritarian govt Australia has had for the last decade... since the last time Labour was in power.

      This something I cant see going anywhere, even if the legislation is passed, there's literally no way to enforce it.

      • How do you know? Have you read it? Do you know what they're actually proposing to do or are you just doing the usual /. freedumb knee-jerk reaction?

    • If you want to go all "USA! Freedom!" just have a quick look at the people about to enter the White House. Do you really want an anti-science politician in charge of healthcare or a conspiracy theorist in charge of national security or a white supremacist leading the military? Those idiots can do harm that ordinary people will feel in their everyday lives for the next 10-20 years.

      OK. I'll bite.

      Yes. These fools are going to do immense amounts of harm. They are the culmination of the idea that government is harmful ("Elect me and I will prove it!")

      In America, I have the freedom to say this. I can speak ill of the leaders. We have the freedom to choose a different path.

      The alternative is worse: It is silence. It is One Truth forever.

  • What is "misinformation"? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 15, 2024 @09:01AM (#64947599)

    I don't have a problem with the idea that objectively false information should not be allowed. However, who decides what is false? Even people with the best critical thinking skills get tricked. Then there is the issue of unknowns that can't be objectively stated as true or false.

    It's an extraordinarily complex problem but one I feel needs to be worked on. It's clear that humans are incapable of filtering all misinformation themselves. For one thing, people have other stuff to work on besides spending all their time trying to work out what is true or false.

    • Every echo-chamber...er...platform will decide it's own Truth for it's audience.

      This is the way it works for legacy media, why should it be different for online social media? Faux News does not hold the same truth as CNN. The NYT does not hold the same truth as the Star. Why should Facebook hold the same truth as Twitter or Trump Social?

      Do we want a Ministry of Truth to hand down absolute unquestionable answers? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

      We used to rely on journalistic integrity: journalists made a

  • wat (Score:4, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Friday November 15, 2024 @09:01AM (#64947601) Homepage Journal

    When is the government going to hold itself responsible for people's safety?

    The government and the police aren't liable if you get assaulted on a city street, or if someone spots you on a city street, follows you to your home and assaults you there.

    Why should social media sites then be liable if you get assaulted in relation to your social media activity? That's insane.

    Either you're responsible for what happens on your platform or you aren't. This "on the internet" shit has got to go, it doesn't matter if it's a patent or liability. If the state isn't liable for harms done in meatspace, over which they claim dominion, then this is bananas.

    • It's far easier to blame someone else.

    • Re:wat (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Friday November 15, 2024 @10:35AM (#64947867) Journal
      It's "soft censorship". They don't want to censor online stuff outright, so they put some laws in place to make the platforms responsible, with vague guidelines and outlandish fines for violating them. The platforms will choose to err on the side of safety and remove whatever they think the government deems offensive themselves. The EU floated this idea a few years back to combat "disinformation"

    • The government and the police aren't liable if you get assaulted on a city street, or if someone spots you on a city street, follows you to your home and assaults you there.

      Why would the government be liable for the actions of a private person? The government does what they are supposed to, put in place laws and even goes out of its way to fund a system to police (pun intended) those laws. Add to that the military and the government spends more money on being responsible for people's safety than all the social network companies combined make in yearly revenue.

      Why should social media sites then be liable if you get assaulted in relation to your social media activity? That's insane.

      Why should I be liable if I run over you in my car? Why should a coffee shop owner be liable if they hospitalise you wi

    • The government and the police aren't liable if you get assaulted on a city street

      You are wrong. The government IS liable when something bad happens that can be bound to their lack of care for their duties. Say, if you get assaulted on the street, while the police officer who was supposed to be stationed at Main Square did not show up at work on that day, and the supervisor forgot/did not care to send a replacement, so the Bad Guys understood the opportunity to assault bypassers of Main Square. Not only it is possible that the supervisor might suffer administrative sanctions, but the Sta

  • Next time an Aussie attempts to connect to the Internet they are greeted with an inescapable banner reading:

    SORRY MATEY !

    I can't allow you to use the Internet. It's filled with all sorts of bad stuff. So blocking you is for your own good.

    Now go grab a Foster's and relax at the beach.

  • Translation (Score:3)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Friday November 15, 2024 @05:37PM (#64948945)

    >"center-left Labor administration to crack down on social media including through age limits and curbs on misinformation"

    Translation: through age limits = destroying anonymity rights of all adults because parents won't take action/responsibility to restrict their children's access to the internet. Curbs on misinformation = censorship by the "truth police" of government and/or big business and/or so-called "experts".

    How very dystopian.

Slashdot Top Deals

I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.

Close