1 hour ago
2
Privacy and free speech advocates fear Australians could be forced to verify their identities to use social media under the Albanese government’s proposed overhaul of online safety laws, which would require technology companies to identify and minimise harms across their services.
A consultation paper on the proposed Digital Duty of Care, released last month, is expected to reignite debate over whether the reforms could make online anonymity increasingly difficult.
Announced alongside Labor’s social media ban for under-16s, the proposed laws would shift responsibility onto platforms from responding to individual complaints to preventing harms before they occur.
But technology companies, privacy advocates and free speech groups warn the reforms could end anonymous online accounts and revive elements of Labor’s abandoned misinformation laws.
At the National Press Club in December, Communications Minister Anika Wells rejected what she described as a “dog whistle campaign” suggesting Australians would be forced to hand over government-issued identification to use social media.
“You will not be forced to present government ID to verify your age,” Wells said. “The law states platforms must always offer a reasonable alternative to their users.”
However, critics argue the broader Digital Duty of Care could still pressure platforms to verify users’ identities as they seek to minimise risks associated with anonymous and pseudonymous accounts.
Among the most contentious proposals is a requirement for platforms to mitigate risks associated with such accounts, which the consultation paper says can facilitate coordinated inauthentic activity and harassment. Critics argue it could create a digital ID system by stealth, requiring users to hand sensitive personal information to often foreign-owned technology companies.
Privacy advocates say anonymity is essential for domestic violence survivors, whistleblowers, LGBTIQ+ Australians in unsupportive environments, and others who rely on anonymity to participate safely in public debate.
The paper would also allow the communications minister to expand the categories of harm covered by the duty of care through legislative instruments, raising concerns that future governments could broaden the regime without fresh legislation.
An industry source, granted anonymity to speak frankly, said the proposals had revived concerns Labor was attempting to achieve through online safety laws what it failed to do after abandoning its misinformation and disinformation bill 18 months ago.
Peter Kurti, director of the culture, prosperity and civil society program at the Centre for Independent Studies, said a digital duty of care should not become a backdoor way of regulating lawful speech.
“Anonymity should not mean impunity, but I would not want to see people forced to identify themselves before joining public debate,” he said.
The federal government last week announced it would double penalties for systematic breaches of the under-16s social media ban from $49.5 million to $99 million.
Dr Alexander Hatzikalimnios, a legal academic at the ASA Institute of Higher Education, said a digital duty of care was a well-established legal principle that shared responsibility between government and platforms to reduce online harms.
Draft provisions refer to content posing a “seriously harmful threat to public safety”, but key concepts, including what constitutes “serious harm” and protections for freedom of expression, have yet to be defined.
Hatzikalimnios said it was “potentially dangerous” to have broad, ambiguous language such as “a threat to public safety”.
“Defining the parameters will make or break whether this legislation or these amendments to the online safety act will be an effective tool at protecting children, or can all be an effective tool at weaponising censorship,” he said.
“Giving someone the power to change what content would be a serious, harmful threat is really dangerous because it can be highly politicised.”
However, other experts reject suggestions the proposal amounts to a new censorship regime.
Christine Parker, a professor of law at the University of Melbourne, said the duty regulated how companies managed risks rather than creating new categories of illegal speech. She rejected claims it would require universal identity verification.
“They ought to be smart enough to be able to figure out whether something’s a scam bot or a spy bot or a breach bot … and be reasonable about that,” she said. “They should be able to come up with some way of figuring that out that doesn’t involve breaching everybody’s privacy and dignity.”
Former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus told the royal commission into antisemitism platforms should take reasonable, transparent and measurable steps to reduce harm.
“They have created large language models, algorithms and systems that shape what people see and how information spreads,” he said.
DiGI, which represents major technology companies, welcomed the broader concept of a digital duty of care. Managing director Sunita Bose said it would help future-proof Australia’s online safety laws as technology evolved.
A government spokesperson said the proposed duty of care would focus on the systems and tools used by digital platforms rather than requiring digital ID or reviving Labor’s abandoned misinformation laws, and said the reforms would balance online safety, free speech and privacy.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter
