Moore-Gilbert, a research fellow in Security Studies at Macquarie University and a regular columnist, writes that while politicians urge each other to bring the temperature down after the attack on Haines, they are kidding themselves if they think language used in parliament or legacy media has any real impact. She says the real driver of the inflammatory atmosphere is the online world, governed by shadowy algorithms designed to radicalise and addict in pursuit of profits.
She argues that arguments for total freedom of speech online are effectively defending the right of authoritarian foreign governments to sponsor disinformation operations, enabling bot farms in Russia, China or Iran to attack dissidents, and protecting platforms such as Meta to host AI-generated advertising targeting vulnerable users with scams.
The government’s proposed Digital Duty of Care Act, which would require online services to take reasonable steps to prevent serious harms, is described as a “baby step in the right direction” but one that does not adequately address the divide between offline laws and online norms. She notes that while the first Australian class action against a social media giant for harming children is overdue, waiting for harms to occur before acting is insufficient.
Moore-Gilbert points to an irony: while governments say they can do little to regulate online speech, they have introduced restrictions on offline speech, such as banning certain slogans and protest actions, and maintains that Australia has some of the most draconian defamation laws in the world, creating a chilling effect on public-interest journalism. Meanwhile, online, anonymous defamation continues with impunity.
She concludes that the stability of Western democracies is in trouble and that it is critical to redesign internet regulation to make big tech and big AI subservient to elected governments.