Can Australia make Big Tech own the risk?

Por Amanda Copp — POLITICO – TOP Stories

CANBERRA — After passing world-leading laws to ban children under 16 years old from social media websites, Australia’s Communication Minister Anika Wells hasn’t finished her reform agenda yet.

Next on her plate is a proposed Digital Duty of Care law that would make tech companies responsible for actively preventing harm on their sites, not just reacting to complaints. The laws are expected to be introduced to parliament on Thursday. If passed, they could force a fundamental shift in how companies build their products online.

But the proposed laws are already facing backlash. The Coalition has already come out against the draft legislation, saying it grants the minister sweeping powers to define what classifies as “serious harm” online.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The Coalition has already come out against the draft Digital Duty of Care laws. Given you will need support to get it through the Senate, have you had conversations with the Greens?

We have been having conversations with everybody, and we’ll continue to do that this week. Every online safety law that Australia has passed has had both parties’ fingerprints on it, and I would like to keep that streak alive. Nobody ultimately remembers who passes the laws like the seat belt laws. They just remember that you have to buckle up. So we’ll keep working in good faith.

Have you been speaking to their new leader David Shoebridge?

I haven’t spoken with him yet, but I’m happy to do so. Like I said, I’m willing to work in good faith with anybody across the parliamentary spectrum who, like me, believes that it’s time for a digital duty of care.

What about Sarah Henderson, the shadow communications minister? 

Our team has been speaking with her mostly to address the arguments she’s litigated publicly. She hasn’t called me, but I’m sure at some point we will sit down.

What is up for negotiation?

I really only have three non-negotiables when it comes to getting this law passed. We have to make sure we protect kids. We have to get illegal content off platforms. We have to give Australians more choice over what they see online. If people have other ways of achieving those objectives, I’m very open to hearing them.

There is a provision in the legislation that allows the minister to define what’s classified as harmful content. It has raised concerns over free speech. Would you consider taking it out? 

The rulemaking power originated in the Online Safety Act under Minister Paul Fletcher, who was a Coalition minister before me. We’ve used it in other circumstances. But look, as I said on Insiders, as I’ve said many times since, I will work constructively across the Parliament.

I recognize this has been a stumbling block for the Coalition from the beginning. I’ve said I’m prepared to make changes to secure their support for the core elements of the reform. So I invite the Coalition to work with us in good faith to deliver these stronger protections online, especially for children. There should be no reason why we can’t get this done together.

In terms of why it was included in the first place then, are there any examples of why those kinds of powers might be needed in future? 

One of the challenges of this area is that tech moves so quickly, and what you and I are discussing today may well be out of date by this time next week.

I gave an example that we had across the Christmas New Year break. Grok came out. You might remember X put out Grok. It allowed people to digitally alter photographs to make them nude, and people were doing that at great volumes across the internet. It was causing people a lot of distress. People were saying, “Someone’s got to do something about this. How do you ban Grok? How do you act on this in Australia?” That rulemaking power would have allowed us to designate a new serious harm in nudifying photos. I think it meets an Australian common test law that nudifying a photo, particularly of a minor, is a serious harm.

We felt this was a good way to make quick decisions in areas where people wanted quick action. Big Tech and the online world is certainly one of those. However, like I said, from about three days after that, if that is the stumbling block to support from all sides of the parliament to bolster our online safety laws, and if the Coalition has other ways of meeting those kinds of objectives, then I’m very open to hearing them.

American author and advocate Michael Shellenberger has labeled this bill a “sinister plan for mass censorship” while traveling to speak in Australia. What do you say to that kind of criticism?

Welcome to the country, Michael. If your products are safe, this costs you nothing. And it’s not about what people say, it is about what platforms do. We are regulating the machine here, not the message. And I don’t think anybody’s free speech depends on an algorithm pushing eating disorder content to a 14-year-old. But if Michael’s come to the country to make that case, let him do it.

What lessons are there from the teen social media ban when it comes to this new legislation?

If anything, I stand more resolutely on the side of parents than on the side of Big Tech. We don’t ask parents to crash test the car seat themselves, people that come and make these arguments that parents need to take more responsibility. You can’t out engineer an algorithm. Nobody can, and we do have examples of Big Tech leaning forward in this space who show that it is profitable to be the safest company in this space for families for children, so I’ll keep working with those companies who have come forward alongside the more than 20 countries who have now adopted the social media minimum age laws that we were the first to do so last December.

If you get the digital duty of care laws passed, do you think that it could be a turning point for how people interact on the internet?

I firmly believe that it should be. If you build it, you own the risk. And for 20 years, Big Tech has not had to own the risk. Australian parents, Australian families, Australian teachers have had to own the risk of Big Tech and social media. It came for our attention, but chatbots, they’re now coming for our kids’ attachment. So we’re not regulating the technology; we’re regulating what it does to our kids. I genuinely hope this completely recalibrates the nature of how we engage online and how we let online engage with our kids.

Off the back of the teen social media ban and also this legislation, you’ve been listed in TIME’s 100 NEXT list, of the world’s most influential rising stars. Given the potential of the global impact of this legislation, how do you wear that responsibility?

I think it’s not just me. I’m one member of the cavalry here, and there are people, particularly the parents like Emma Mason and Wayne Holdsworth, who now has Smack Talk, Mia Bannister, Rob Evans, who were were fighting this fight against Big Tech, this David and Goliath battle, long before I became the Communications Minister. It is them who give me strength in this battle, and it’s them I think of when it gets difficult.

It’s certainly I think the most compelling policy question of my generation. I’ve got young kids. I’ve grown up as a millennial, engaging with the internet from my teens. I’m really honored to be doing this work, but it’s work I know that has come too late for too many people.

Do you think that this legislation, if it does get passed, will make the internet a safer place for your own kids?

Yes.

Fonte: POLITICO – TOP Stories