What is the Australian government doing to crack down on big tech, and why? – The Guardian Australia

In the past few months the federal government has been eager to show it is actively curbing the power of the giant global tech companies, introducing new legislation to force them to regulate online behaviour.

Three main triggers may help to explain this sudden focus.

First, the Australian competition watchdogs digital platforms inquiry, released in July, recommended tighter regulation of Facebook and Google, and moves to improve media competition.

Second, regulators across Europe, the UK and the United States have also been eyeing ways to bring the tech giants now some of the biggest companies in the world into line, or cut them down to size.

Third, the reputation of social media has been further tarnished by the revelations from tens of thousands of internal Facebook documents leaked by whistleblower Frances Haugen, showing the extent to which the company has been aware of the negative effects of its services, and how little it has done to prevent it.

The government no doubt has an eye on the popularity of taking on the big tech companies. The communications minister, Paul Fletcher, has had a particularly keen focus on the sector, arguing from a standpoint of national sovereignty that laws in place offline should also apply online.

A Guardian Essential poll in March found strong support for regulating social media companies, including 76% in favour of forcing the companies to remove misinformation and disinformation, 76% in favour of forcing them to disclose what information they hold on users, and allowing them to remove it, and 79% in favour of preventing them from selling personal information to other companies.

Here are some of the most recent moves the government has made:

The main focus of the governments move against social media are the new powers granted to the eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, under the Online Safety Act, which come into effect from 1 January.

Inman Grant will have the power to force social media companies to take down posts that amount to online bullying, and to fine the companies and those who hosted the alleged abuse. She will also have the power to obtain the identities of anonymous accounts who post alleged abuse.

Also included in the new law are a number of new regulations governing content on the internet.

Last month Inman Grant released a positions paper on an industry code for blocking or restricting access to adult content online, which critics have warned could force all adult content offline or behind strict identification protection.

A restricted access system announced this week will be developed in the meantime, and would require all websites hosted in Australia to develop by January methods of requiring users to declare they are 18 or older for content that is rated R18+ or category 1 material, which typically means sex, high impact nudity, drugs or violence.

This will lead to the age verification roadmap to be finalised by the end of 2022, in which the commissioner will outline how the government will require all sites, regardless of where they are hosted, to verify the age of users if they host adult content. It could include social media sites such as Twitter, as well as Google search and online retail.

The federal government is also developing what it calls a basic online safety expectations code, which would require tech companies to report to the eSafety commissioner about how they are complying with the expectations in the Online Safety Act, with the threat of fines if they fail to report.

Separately, the government will require social media platforms to verify users ages as part of proposed changes to privacy law.

On Monday, the federal attorney general, Michaelia Cash, released an exposure draft for online privacy laws that would require parents consent when signing up children under the age of 16 to social media sites.

They would also introduce strict new requirements over how a persons information is held, including giving people to power to refuse permission for their personal information be used for direct marketing.

There would be increased fines for serious and repeated interferences with privacy, more than $500,000 for an individual, and at least $10m for an organisation.

The Nationals MP Anne Webster introduced a private members bill last week that would empower the eSafety commissioner to force social media companies to take down content determined to be reasonably likely to be defamatory to a person who complained to the commissioner. Fines could be imposed if they failed to do so within 48 hours.

The bill also allows the communications minister to make determinations on what basic expectations the government has for social media companies in responding to reports of defamation, but the legislation is also attempts to balance out the potential for censorship, noting the minister must have regard to, among other things, the value of truth and free debate.

Whether the federal government will adopt the bill is unclear, but Scott Morrison has proposed potential changes to defamation law to make social media companies liable for allegedly defamatory content if the company refuses to say who is behind the comment or post.

The state and federal attorneys general are also looking at whether platforms such as Facebook should be considered publishers under defamation law, and therefore liable for what their users post, after the Voller high court ruling, which found group and page administrators liable for third-party comments.

The industry has developed a voluntary code, at the direction of the Australian Communications and Media Authority, for dealing with online misinformation and disinformation. The companies party to the code, including Twitter, Facebook and Google, must report publicly on their efforts to tackle misinformation and disinformation.

The government has said it could move to a mandatory code if it is unhappy with how the voluntary code is being implemented.

The ACCCs digital platforms inquiry has also yielded significant changes or proposed changes affecting Google and Facebook, including the news media bargaining code, which has resulted in millions flowing to media companies for the use of their content, including Guardian Australia.

The ACCC has also recommended changes that would limit Googles market dominance in online ads, and search, but the government has yet to respond to those recommendations.

Read more here:

What is the Australian government doing to crack down on big tech, and why? - The Guardian Australia