What the bill requires of platforms

The digital duty of care laws went into parliament on Thursday following months of discussion and consultation. Wells, speaking at the National Press Club, moved to head off the censorship argument at the outset, telling the audience the legislation governs how platforms operate rather than what Australians post, whether that means listening to manosphere podcasts, posting views about the government, making memes or disputing the moon landing.

• •Platforms carry an overarching obligation "to provide a safe online environment for all Australians"
• •The laws replace the existing range of online codes and standards with a broader duty-of-care requirement to protect users from harmful content
• •They cover social media, online games, apps and chatbots
• •Wells suggested misogynistic, pro-terror, suicide and self-harm, or eating disorder content would be captured
• •Users gain a 'my feed my way' option to opt out of algorithmic feeds and see only pages they have actively chosen to follow
• •Platforms face fines of more than $100m for non-compliance

The censorship claims from the Coalition and campaign groups

Conservative politicians and campaign groups argue that letting regulators class content as "harmful" would create a framework for government censorship. The Coalition accuses Labor of plans to "secretly control Australian speech", with Liberal frontbencher James Paterson calling the bill a bid to secretly control and censor Australian speech. Shadow communications minister Sarah Henderson said the Coalition was vehemently opposed to the bill.

The dispute was a key talking point at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Brisbane over the weekend. The campaign group Advance has dubbed the bill a "Big Brother bill" and collected nearly 75,000 signatures on a petition calling for it to be scrapped.

Critics also object to regulators and researchers creating so-called "sockpuppets", pseudonymous accounts the government says are critical to test how platforms are complying. Pauline Hanson claimed sockpuppets would lead to swarms of AI-powered government bots feeding people propaganda and recording what they do online.

Wells's defence and the private action question

Wells responded that sockpuppets would be used only for research and enforcement purposes, with annual eSafety commissioner reporting and engagement with accounts limited to the extent necessary to prevent closure of an account. She rejected the suggestion regulators would spread propaganda rather than trying to shut down pro-terror content going to 13-year-old boys in Western Sydney.

She likened the reforms to having seatbelts in cars. "If you build it, you are responsible for its risks," she said.

On enforcement, Wells is considering updates to the laws allowing individual Australians to directly sue big tech companies that break the rules - a key demand from the Greens for their support. Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said campaigns against the legislation were running cover for big tech: "It is a fake debate ... it is purely the radical right running the speaking points of big tech".

The Greens broadly support the bill but want ordinary Australians to be able to take private action against tech companies and fines dramatically increased. Wells said private action was "something we would contemplate, noting such schemes had been successful in the United States", and urged the Coalition to reopen negotiations.

The bill goes to a Senate inquiry reporting back in late November, with Labor hoping to pass it this year.