{"id":75780,"date":"2025-02-05T03:34:35","date_gmt":"2025-02-05T08:34:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/world.edu\/?p=75780"},"modified":"2025-02-05T03:34:35","modified_gmt":"2025-02-05T08:34:35","slug":"do-big-tech-companies-have-a-duty-of-care-for-users-a-new-report-says-they-do-but-leaves-out-key-details","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/world.edu\/do-big-tech-companies-have-a-duty-of-care-for-users-a-new-report-says-they-do-but-leaves-out-key-details\/","title":{"rendered":"Do big tech companies have a \u2018duty of care\u2019 for users? A new report says they do \u2013 but leaves out key details"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

Large social media companies should have to proactively remove harmful content from their platforms, undergo regular \u201crisk assessments\u201d and face hefty fines if they don\u2019t comply, according to an independent review of online safety laws in Australia.<\/p>\n

The federal government has today released the\u00a0final report<\/a>\u00a0of the review conducted by experienced public servant Delia Rickard,\u00a0more than three months after receiving it<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The review comes a few months after\u00a0Meta announced<\/a>\u00a0it will stop using independent fact checkers to moderate content on Facebook, Instagram and Threads.<\/p>\n

Rickard\u2019s review contains 67 recommendations in total. If implemented, they would go a long way to making Australians safer from abusive content, cyberbullying and other potential harms encountered online. They would also align Australia to international jurisdictions and address many of the same problems targeted by the\u00a0social media ban for young people<\/a>.<\/p>\n

However, the recommendations contain serious omissions. And with a federal election looming, the review is not likely to be acted upon until the next term of government.<\/p>\n

Addressing online harms at the source<\/strong><\/h4>\n

The review recommends imposing a \u201cdigital duty of care\u201d on large social media companies.<\/p>\n

The federal government has\u00a0already committed<\/a>\u00a0to doing this. However, legislation to implement a digital duty of care has been on hold since November, with discussions overshadowed by the government\u2019s\u00a0social media ban<\/a>\u00a0for under 16s.<\/p>\n

The digital duty of care would put the onus on tech companies to proactively address a range of specific harms on their platforms, such as child sexual exploitation and attacks based on gender, race or religion.<\/p>\n

It would also provide several protections for Australians, including \u201ceasily accessible, simple and user-friendly\u201d pathways to complain about harmful content. And it would position Australia alongside the United Kingdom and the European Union, which already have similar laws in place.<\/p>\n

Online service providers would face civil penalties of 5% of global annual turnover or A$50 million (whichever is greater) for non-compliance with the duty of care.
\n

<\/p>\n
\n

Will Meta roll out its new content moderation approach in Australia immediately?<\/p>\n

Or will the company first review its obligations under the Online Safety Act? <\/p>\n

#AusLaw #AusPol<\/p>\n

[image or embed]<\/a><\/p>\n

— Leanne O'Donnell (@mslods.bsky.social<\/a>) 8 January 2025 at 00:30<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n