Australia online laws to curtail bile can’t come at cost of legitimate anonymity claims
Social media has become a central part of our lives over the last 20 years. It provided benefits such as a sense of connectedness. It has also caused significant problems that threaten individuals and society more broadly. Growing recognition of these challenges has prompted governments, including Australia’s, to embark on overdue regulatory initiatives.
The federal government’s social media ban on those under 16 was an attempt to reduce the potential harms of unrestricted social media use, especially for those whose age makes them vulnerable. The proposed Digital Duty of Care laws, announced alongside the social media ban, are another. These would shift the platforms’ responsibility from responding to individual complaints to preventing harms before they occur.
As Rob Harris reports today, among the most controversial proposals is a requirement for platforms to reduce the risks associated with anonymous accounts; A consultation paper published last month said this facilitated coordinated, inauthentic activity and harassment, as many social media users knew from personal experience.
But critics say it could create a kind of digital identity system that requires users to hand over sensitive personal information to mostly foreign-owned tech companies.
Communications Minister Anika Wells insists this will not be the case. “You will not be forced to provide government-issued identification to verify your age,” he told the National Press Club last month. “The law states that platforms must always offer their users a reasonable alternative.”
The use of anonymous accounts to bully, intimidate, and spread misinformation has become a scourge that causes serious harm in real life.
The enormity and emotional impact of unrestrained online hate are among the themes of the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. On Thursday the commission also heard evidence of social media companies’ disdainful attitude towards social responsibility when e-safety commissioner Julie Inman Grant described platform
But anonymity can also be important. This is a lifeline for domestic violence victims, whistleblowers, and others who are afraid to identify themselves when reaching out for help for a myriad of reasons. There are many people whose life circumstances or temperament would prevent them from seeking companionship or support online unless they had the refuge of anonymity.
There are also legitimate concerns about freedom of expression, although University of Melbourne law professor Christine Parker argues these concerns are overblown.
“They need to be smart enough to understand whether something is a scam bot, a spy bot, or a breach bot, and they need to be reasonable about it,” he said. “They must find a way to resolve this in a way that does not require violating everyone’s privacy and dignity.”
Balance is a delicate balance. These laws need to be made with care, thoughtfulness and consideration to ensure that efforts to reduce the worst elements of the online world do not come at the expense of legitimate claims to anonymity and freedom of expression.
Herald’s Opinion – Since the Herald was first published in 1831, the editorial team has believed that it is important for readers to express a considered view on the issues of the day and always put the public interest first.
