The Australian government will introduce its Digital Duty of Care Bill to parliament this week, legislation that would make platforms legally responsible for creating a 'safe online environment' protecting users from 'seriously harmful material and conduct'. Researchers are warning the bill's definition of serious harm is fundamentally flawed and could block vital drug and sex education content, undermining the government's own public health strategies.
The Australian government will introduce its Digital Duty of Care Bill to parliament this week, legislation that would make platforms legally responsible for creating a 'safe online environment' protecting users from 'seriously harmful material and conduct'.
The bill follows recent controversies, including lawsuits in the United States accusing powerful platforms such as Meta of not doing enough to protect their users.
One section of the bill defines material or conduct that 'encourages, promotes, urges or instructs' illicit drug use and some kinds of sexual activity as 'seriously harmful' to both adults and young people.
Researchers from the Australian National University, Curtin University and Deakin Law School argue this definition is fundamentally flawed and could undermine the government's own strategies to reduce Australians' risk of harm.
Harm-reduction work is a longstanding, fundamental component of Australia's public health strategies. For decades, government-funded organisations have provided vital information to help people engage in safer drug use and sexual activity. The approach has been proven to save lives, preventing overdose deaths alongside sexually transmissible infections and blood-borne viruses such as HIV and hepatitis C.
According to a 2024 review, Meta, TikTok and Snapchat are prohibiting content that shows drug use, with no exemptions for harm-reduction information. Moderation often takes the form of a shadow ban, meaning content is hidden from others without notification or recourse.
Platforms already treat harm-reduction information as drug promotion. Australian government-funded drug checking services have had posts removed and accounts suspended.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The bill marks a major shift in Australian online regulation, imposing a legal duty on platforms to prevent seriously harmful material and conduct.
- Researchers warn that treating content that encourages, promotes, urges or instructs drug use as automatically harmful could catch legitimate, government-funded public health information.
- Global platforms such as Meta, TikTok and Snapchat would face new legal obligations in how they moderate content for Australian users.
Background
Harm reduction has been a longstanding, fundamental component of Australia's public health strategies. For decades, government-funded organisations have provided information to help people engage in safer drug use and sexual activity, an approach proven to prevent overdose deaths and the spread of sexually transmissible infections and blood-borne viruses such as HIV and hepatitis C.
Existing platform moderation already struggles with this material. A 2024 review found Meta, TikTok and Snapchat prohibit content showing drug use, with no exemptions for harm-reduction information, and moderation often takes the form of shadow bans that hide content without notification or recourse.
Key Perspectives
Government and bill supporters: The legislation is intended to make platforms legally responsible for protecting users from seriously harmful material and conduct, a step that follows US lawsuits accusing powerful platforms such as Meta of not doing enough to protect users.
Researchers from ANU, Curtin and Deakin: The bill's definition of 'seriously harmful' is fundamentally flawed. It treats content that 'encourages, promotes, urges or instructs' drug use and some sexual activity as harmful regardless of whether it is public health material, which could undermine the government's own harm-reduction strategies.
Critics and skeptics: The concern is that since platforms already treat harm-reduction information as drug promotion, the bill could entrench existing over-blocking. Government-funded drug checking services have already had posts removed and accounts suspended under current moderation rules.
What to Watch
- The bill's passage through parliament and any amendments to the definition of 'seriously harmful' material.
- Whether exemptions for public health and harm-reduction content are introduced during debate.
- Continued reports of harm-reduction content being removed or shadow-banned once the bill takes effect.