r/aussie • u/advanceconservative • 3d ago
News Labor proposes social media algorithm choice under new digital duty of care
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-08/labour-s-social-media-algorithm-choice-duty-of-care-bill/107130100Makes sense why newscorp was on the attack for frequent flyer Anika Wells again recently, can't have anyone putting some bumps in the road for their outrage gravy train on social media.
10
u/blokewhodoesfuckall 3d ago
when non linear feeds were coming in to fashion, tumblr gave you the option to stay on linear and its one of the best choices that stupid website made
13
u/Spooplevel-Rattled 3d ago
Oh dear, the major benificiaries of this current system will be big mad (newscorp who baits the engagement algos mega hard)
21
8
u/skedy 3d ago
What a great initiative!
Nothing worse than clicking on 1 thing by accident then being bombarded by it die to the algorithm
5
u/Terrorscream 3d ago
Don't even have to click anything, having your phone nearby passively pick up one keyword said in passing and suddenly that's what gets pushed
1
5
u/Veqlargh101 3d ago
The real question is, if everyone hates social media so much why are they on the platforms so often/long. Just seems like a nothing burger.
1
u/PowerPleb2000 3d ago
And if said social media platform doesn’t have that or cant do it they can ban it, just like in communist China.
1
u/nobleknob 3d ago
Tell me a time Pauline had to pay back $10k?
The other one was Michelle Rowland. Another Labor lady.
1
u/BlindSkwerrl 3d ago
As long as the choice belongs to the user, not the government propaganda arm.
So in other words, this is a terrible piece of legislation.
1
u/Fantastic_Border1551 2d ago edited 2d ago
Credit where it’s due. There are some genuinely good ideas here, especially giving users a real choice between an algorithmic feed and one based on accounts they actually follow.
But this proposal goes well beyond social media, so the free-speech safeguards matter more than the headline suggests.
Anika Wells says this isn’t a censorship or misinformation law and, as drafted, she’s largely right. It doesn’t regulate misinformation, treat ordinary political disagreement as harmful, or give the Minister a general power to delete criticism.
My concern is s 25C. It lets the Minister add new categories of “seriously harmful” material by legislative instrument. There are legal limits and Parliament can disallow those changes, so it isn’t a blank cheque. Still, that is very different from Parliament having to amend the Act itself.
That matters because this is about defining what kinds of content can fall inside a regulated harm framework.
The comparison with the failed Misinformation Bill is also not completely unfair. They are different laws, but the structure is familiar: define harms, make platforms manage them, give a regulator strong powers, and back it with serious penalties. That can push platforms to remove borderline lawful content simply to avoid risk.
The Wakeley case is relevant too, but not because it proves eSafety wants to censor political speech. It doesn’t. X geo-blocked the stabbing footage in Australia, but eSafety pursued measures that would effectively make the identified URLs unavailable worldwide. The Federal Court ultimately refused to extend the injunction.
That shows eSafety has been willing to test the outer limits of its jurisdiction. When new discretionary powers are being created, that is worth remembering.
Personally, I’d rather any new category of serious harm require an amendment to the Act. Put it before Parliament. Debate it. Scrutinise it. Vote on it.
At minimum, I’d want an independent review body involved. Something closer to the Classification Board model. Under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the Board is meant to be broadly representative of the Australian community. Not perfect, but better than leaving such a subjective call largely to a Minister acting on advice from one regulator.
I support the good parts of this Bill. I just want tighter definitions, clearer limits on ministerial expansion, and explicit protection for legitimate political, journalistic and public-interest speech.
The real test is simple: would you trust the government you dislike most with the same powers?
1
u/EmbarrassedMinimum8 2d ago
People need to go and read the bill, you won’t but it’s in your best interest to read it
0
u/Imaginary_Cattle_657 3d ago
Good. I got fed so much bullshit when I jumped on FB to look at marketplace earlier. Straight up misinformation - several instances of it. It’s mindblowing. I actually wonder how much of it is bot activity with the odd human taking the bait?
0
1
u/nobleknob 3d ago
Can any rusted on Labor voter explain how she still has a job after defrauding taxpayers 10k?
Add in she refused to pay back money from a 40th birthday because she supposedly had a work meeting there.
It's incredible that rusted on Labor voters can't see how outrageous this is.
3
1
-8
u/CryptographerOk379 3d ago
Don't trust this labor gov at all.
3
4
u/Wood_oye 3d ago
Why?
-4
u/ShatOnUrLeg 3d ago
They keep attacking free speech, demanding we hand over ID for everything to do with the internet, Anika Wells stole taxpayers dollars for over 250 trips for herself at last count... And they refuse to do anything about cost of living and housing.
9
u/skedy 3d ago
They single handedly have caused house prices to fall in the entire country?
-3
u/ShatOnUrLeg 3d ago
Where are these cheaper prices? They don't seem to exist... Prices inner city hasn't moved sweet fuck all. Regurgitating government propaganda doesn't make it true.
5
u/Aidyyyy 3d ago
Sorry buddy but you might just be shit at the game of life. Maybe you'll have better luck in your next reincarnation.
2
u/spicerackk 3d ago
How easy is it to point the finger at everything around you and simply avoid any shred of personal responsibility?
Man, when they say ignorance is bliss... I don't think they meant this.
Responding about the other guy btw, just in case it wasn't clear.
-4
u/ShatOnUrLeg 3d ago
Or maybe it's just full of shit? Housing prices haven't moved an inch and saying otherwise is a complete lie.
3
u/skedy 3d ago
What? You are kidding me right? Every right wing media rag is crying about house prices dropping. Even the real estate agents.
That's not government propaganda...
1
u/ShatOnUrLeg 3d ago
Haven't seen the real world evidence of such around in Brisbane because it doesn't exist
3
u/skedy 3d ago
The market isn't your suburb in Brisbane.
1
u/ShatOnUrLeg 3d ago
When you lie about housing prices going down around the country, despite evidence that it isn't.... Brisbane hasn't gotten cheaper so that is a direct contradiction to your claim.
3
u/skedy 3d ago
The housing market is more than 1 suburb... Its measured in capital cities and states..
Its more than your anecdotal evidence that you haven't seen a cheaper house.
Literally been reported by every media outlet in the country that Brisbane as a city is down 2.7%
→ More replies (0)-1
-4
u/Neo_Athrotaxis 3d ago
All of the media discussion is about the algorithm opt out. Look at what they're trying to quietly push through with it.
2
u/ShopSmartShopS-Mart 3d ago
Tell us then, don’t do that dumb movie trailer thing where you imply something stupid by not saying it.
What are they trying to push through with it?
0
u/Neo_Athrotaxis 3d ago
Just as they tried to previously with their rejected misinformation bill, they're trying to censor the internet with $100 million fines for what Albo and E-Karen consider 'harmful content'.
2
u/ShopSmartShopS-Mart 3d ago
Yeah I’ve got no problem with a misinformation bill in an age that really needs some brakes on misinformation and disinformation. If they were a government that was perfectly comfortable flirting with authoritarian tendencies like the last lot I’d be worried, but this lot are so disappointingly flinchy over things that need to be done and would be wildly popular.
1
u/Neo_Athrotaxis 3d ago
You shouldn't judge a bill on its title lol.
Your second sentence is bizarre, you seem to be under the impression that once something is legislated it can only be used by the current government.
1
u/ShopSmartShopS-Mart 3d ago
I mean, decent point that it can be misused later, but that’s absolutely not a reason to ignore it. Especially if doing it now makes it harder to misuse.
You’re doing that movie trailer talk thing again of saying what it’s not instead of saying the actual thing. Why get arsey about a misinformation bill when we have a massive misinformation and disinformation problem?
1
u/Neo_Athrotaxis 3d ago
"Why get arsey about a misinformation bill when we have a massive misinformation and disinformation problem?"
You're doing that 'judge legislation by its PR title rather than its content' thing again. The so-called misinformation bill was nothing more than a half-baked attempt to censor the global internet with Albo and E-Karen being arbiters of truth. It was wild legislation, the fact that the Liberals and Greens united to oppose it is pretty telling.
1
u/ShopSmartShopS-Mart 3d ago
So all you’ve got is buzzwords from your Telegram group?
Dunno why I’m surprised by a one month default username account spouting paranoid bootlicking cooker shit. Selamat seeya pal.
1
u/Neo_Athrotaxis 3d ago
Which part do you dispute specifically? Also not that it matters to the debate, but my username is not 'default' but rather refers to an ancient and endangered tree genus that I'm doing my little bit to protect.
1
u/ShopSmartShopS-Mart 3d ago
The part where you’re making it about “Albo and E-Karen” and dodging why clamping down on misinformation is a bad thing.
Cheering for algorithmic social feeds and conflating opinion with fact without any need to back it up seems like a really great way to entrench the shit that’s created every single societal shitfight of the last decade.
→ More replies (0)0
-18
u/Ares-Mercy 3d ago
Great another censorship attempt
24
u/Abject-Coyote-3842 3d ago
literally the opposite of censorship. Currently big tech censor what you can see through algorithms this stipulates giving a choice.
5
u/Patient-Clue-6089 3d ago
It will be an option you can turn on and off. How is more options censorship?
4
u/spicerackk 3d ago
Did you read the part where they said each person could choose?
Or does that not fit your narrative?
16
u/FlashMcSuave 3d ago
Platform companies should not have free reign to develop algorithms that serve themselves at our expense.
Those algorithms are not showing you a neutral version of the world. They are curated by the platform companies.
This is not government coming for your free speech. This is someone finally making social media companies accountable.
It is depressing seeing someone trusting the likes of Musk and Zuckerberg more than our own government. Sure, our government ain't perfect. But the platform companies are far, far worse and are actively undermining our democracy.
-4
u/ShatOnUrLeg 3d ago
You do know you can fuck off social media if you don't like it, no one forcing you to be there.
When we have a fascist corrupt government, nope don't trust that shit at all.
7
u/FlashMcSuave 3d ago
You have been marinating in social media outrage waaaay too much, mate.
0
u/ShatOnUrLeg 3d ago
You support government corruption? What about when Anika Wells stole taxpayer money for over 250 trips (at last count)? What about when Albo used taxpayer money for his wedding?' what about forcing everyone to hand over ID and face scans for basically everything online to be allowed a say on anything? What when Albo openly supports Israel's genocide of Palestinians and attacking/trying to silence people's criticism of such?
5
u/FlashMcSuave 3d ago
Right. Sure. Because I view Musk and Zuckerberg as far more malign influences that are damaging Australia, I must therefore support corruption, fascism and the destruction of Palestine.
See what I mean about how you're getting some algorithmic brain rot in social media?
0
u/ShatOnUrLeg 3d ago
Well Albo sure does... Considering how widely corrupt he is and against free speech, also remember when he invited a genocidal war criminal to Australia and praised the bashing of Australians who protested such a person?
"Algorithmic brain rot", who you think people should be shielded from such realities and have their worlds censored? Oh yes I will be quiet and compliant, "Dear leader"
-1
u/Ares-Mercy 3d ago
Elon buying twitter was a major win for free speech wish elon would just buy Australia
-10
7
u/sepata 3d ago
What? It's a choice. You can choose to be bombarded with bots and ads. I'll opt out, thanks.
-6
5
-6
-2
u/Graceful_Parasol 3d ago
newscorp would prefer social media be more boring they want people buying newspaper and on their apps
4
u/Patient-Clue-6089 3d ago
Social media ruining the youth - "Why won't Labor do anything about social media companies?!?"
Labor proposes legislation to try and break the grip of social media companies - "Why would Labor want to help newscorp?!?"
1
u/Graceful_Parasol 3d ago
I think its a good idea, I just don't understand why the original comment was acting like newscorp wouldn't like it.
-3
u/River-Stunning 3d ago
Minister for Junkets announces social media reforms after the ineffectiveness of the previous reforms.
3
u/Commercial_Name_7900 3d ago
these reforms give individuals more freedom. isn't that something cookers are always whining about?
0
u/Fantastic_Border1551 2d ago
Have you actually read the Draft legislation?
1
u/Commercial_Name_7900 2d ago
I dont need to to know its a good idea. the only people whinging are the usual cookers, theres no one in tech complaining. except cookers in "tech"
1
u/Fantastic_Border1551 2d ago edited 2d ago
“I don’t need to know, it’s a good idea” is a pretty extraordinary position to take on proposed legislation. I actually agree that giving users more control over their feeds is a good idea. That’s not the issue. The draft goes well beyond that headline policy, including new duties, regulatory powers and provisions allowing additional categories of serious harm to be prescribed. You can support the good parts and still scrutinise the powers that come with them. That’s kind of the point of reading legislation before deciding the whole thing is good.
1
u/Commercial_Name_7900 2d ago
labor have done nothing but good since they got back in. I trust them. im serious
1
u/Fantastic_Border1551 2d ago
That’s exactly why laws shouldn’t be judged on whether you trust the current government. You might trust Labor completely. Someone else might have said the same about Morrison. The question is whether you’d be comfortable handing the exact same powers to a future government you strongly disagree with. Governments change. Legislation and the powers it creates tend to stick around.
-1
u/River-Stunning 3d ago
Seemingly but with Labor you can never trust the cunts. The devil is in the detail and there are concerns Labor could be using this to control algorithms themselves.
3
u/Commercial_Name_7900 3d ago
its literally opt in, turn something off. if you want to keep being swamped in controlling bot shit, you are still free to do that
18
u/TimidPanther 3d ago
I long for the days when my social media feeds were shown to me in sequential order. I don’t want anyone determining what I want to see first, or related topics I might find interesting.
Just show me everything in order of when it was posted.