Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2024

High-Level Summary
The bill proposes to amend the Online Safety Act 2021 to introduce a 'Digital Duty of Care' for large digital providers, mandating them to ensure the safety and well-being of Australian users by regulating the systems and processes that could pose risks. It aims to enhance transparency and user empowerment on digital platforms.

Summary
The Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2024 amends the Online Safety Act 2021 to impose additional obligations on 'Large Providers', defined as digital platforms with a monthly active user base of at least 10% of the Australian population. These obligations include:
  • An overarching duty of care for the well-being of Australian users.
  • Mandatory risk assessments and mitigation plans addressing risks such as negative impacts on electoral processes, mental health, and gender-based violence.
  • Transparency requirements, including annual reports and public data access.
  • End-user control obligations for privacy settings and content recommendation systems.
  • Enforcement mechanisms involving fines up to 10% of annual turnover and accountability of senior management.
From the explanatory memo:
The Bill modernizes the OSA to enable the eSafety Commissioner regulatory enforcement powers over and insight into the systems and processes operated by digital platforms, similar to those provided to the authorities of the United Kingdom and European Union via the Online Safety Act 2021 and Digital Services Act respectively.

Argument For
Normative Bases
  1. Non-Discrimination
  2. Pro-Democracy
  3. Utilitarian Ground Truth

The bill should be supported because it ensures that digital platforms take responsibility for the potential harms their systems can cause, thereby promoting a safer online environment for users. By shifting the duty of care to the platforms, the bill supports the principle of non-discrimination, ensuring that vulnerable groups such as children and victims of gender-based violence are protected [Judgment]. Furthermore, it enhances democratic processes by requiring transparency and accountability, thus preventing manipulation of public opinion and electoral processes [Judgment]. The bill's preventative measures align with utilitarian principles by maximizing overall well-being and minimizing harm caused by digital platforms.


Argument Against
Normative Bases
  1. Pro-Democracy
  2. Propertarianism

The bill should be opposed because it could infringe on the freedom of expression by imposing stringent controls on the content shared on digital platforms. While aiming to protect users, it might lead to over-censorship, thus stifling free speech and limiting diverse viewpoints [Judgment]. Additionally, the financial burden and regulatory compliance costs for digital platforms might discourage innovation and investment in Australia’s digital economy. This could ultimately harm the competitive landscape and reduce the diversity of available services [Judgment].


Date:

2024-11-25

Status:

Not Proceeding

Sponsor:

DANIEL, Zoe, MP

Portfolio:

Unspecified

Categories:

Media / Advertising, Discrimination / Human Rights, Democratic Institutions

Timeline:
25/11/2024
28/03/2025

Comments (0)