Australia takes on social media: Banning kids under 16, setting a global precedent?
Digital Duty of Care' concept in the Online Safety Act will place the onus on digital platforms to proactively keep Australian children safe.
In this, could Australia be setting a global standard that is enforceable? This may depend on how it and the rest of the world choose to interpret the role of social media and, more importantly, how they allocate liability for the many deleterious effects that affect its users.
For instance, social media claims it doesn't willingly or deliberately amplify certain messages crafted to elicit a harmful response. These platforms would like nothing better than to be likened to a dumb megaphone that occasionally and inexplicably finds itself in the hands of the boy who cried wolf. After all, an agency that operates a traffic light pro bono would also demand protection from liability for traffic accidents near its operating intersection.
The agency will base its innocence on the grounds that it bears no malice prepense — deliberate intention and plan to do something unlawful — and that all accidents are caused by driver error. But what if it's found that even though the agency charges no fee, it earns commissions from the repair of vehicles damaged in these accidents?
In fact, social media platforms receive higher ad revenues from the conflict and buzz caused by their newsfeed algorithms. Now, mainstream media does exactly the same thing to increase visibility and circulation, except that they are also liable for the consequences arising from toxic content.
Marketing
Modern
