Australia To Make Big Tech Liable For Citizens' Online Safety (yahoo.com) 30
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.
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.
Big Tech - give us all your personal info (Score:2)
Government - give them all your personal info (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Who are Albanese (Score:2)
Are they people from Albania?
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Devil's in the details (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Any country that can reign in this idiocy
I heart irony
People believe what they want to believe (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
But who can tell them what to believe these days? (Score:2)
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 Devil's in the details (Score:1)
Am I doing this right comrade?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
wat (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
People don't want responsibility or to think (Score:2)
It's far easier to blame someone else.
Re:wat (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Expected Big Tech Response? (Score:2)
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.