Explained: Social media inquiry calls for education and potential tax as Albanese govt prepares ban
An inquiry has called for an overhaul of social media regulations on Meta and other firms. Photo: AP
The Albanese government is being urged to consider reforms that would bring social media giants under local laws and give users more control over the content and ads on their feeds.
A highly anticipated parliamentary inquiry into social media in Australia published its final report this week, calling for sweeping changes to address harms created by the likes of Meta and X.
It comes as the Albanese government is slated to introduce laws that will ban social media for users under the age of 16 on Thursday, a policy the inquiry opted against recommending.
Instead, the recommendations pushed for strengthened enforceability of laws on foreign-owned companies and creating a “duty of care” requiring platforms to ensure the wellbeing of users.
The same parliamentary committee also said in an October interim report that the government should “explore” taxing social media platforms who fail to reach content deals with media outlets.
‘Big tech on notice’
“Big tech is now on notice,” joint committee chair and Labor MP Sharon Claydon said.
“Digital platforms are not immune from the need to have a social licence to operate.”
The inquiry handed down 33 recommendations across both its reports, but stopped short of backing a push by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to kick under-16s off digital platforms.
University of Sydney senior lecturer in digital cultures Justine Humphry said the government is trying to “rush through” the social media ban without adequate scrutiny about potential harms.
Humphry said the evidence examined in the parliamentary committee report earlier this week highlighted a different approach focusing on giving users more control and boosting education.
“We call on the government to put the [ban] Bill through a full parliamentary committee process in order to scrutinise the details,” Humphry said.
“Without this scrutiny, the bill risks exacerbating the potential harms to children online.”
The social media ban is being introduced to Parliament before the results of an assurance trial of age verification technology has been released to the public, something the inquiry called for.
That means there’s still a lack of detail about how a ban would work and be enforced, though the government does reportedly intend to make the ban retroactive so it applies to existing users.
There has been widespread backlash to the proposed ban in recent weeks, with RMIT University professor Lisa Given saying the inquiry report underscored the shortcomings of an outright ban.
“Research shows children mature at different ages, and the potential harms [from social media use] are very personalised,” Given said.
“The fact that the committee did not recommend that [a ban] says that they don’t believe that’s actually an appropriate step forward.”
Explained: Social media overhaul
The final report’s recommendations focused on efforts to rope foreign-owned digital platforms like Meta and X into Australian laws and introduce more requirements on them to prevent harms.
This includes considering options to ensure that existing laws are easier to enforce on these companies so that victims of scams or other harms can seek redress in Australian courts.
Additionally, the committee said Australian users should be given “greater control” over what content they are exposed to on social media, including the ability to “alter, reset, or turn off their personal algorithms and recommender systems”.
Humphry said the recommendations are promising, particularly measures that would give users more control over the content they see.
Young Australians reported that as a key priority in research undertaken by the University of Sydney that was supported by grant funding from the eSafety commissioner, Humphry explained.
“What we heard over and over again is that the way in which content is used to basically get young people to stay online without having control over their content is one of the biggest areas of concern that needs to be addressed,” Humphry said.
Digital levy?
One sticking point is that it’s unclear how successful Australia might be in requiring digital platforms to abide by more stringent standards.
There has already been a mixed track record in a related area, with a government bargaining code that set the table for media outlets to negotiate with social media giants beset by problems.
Meta, the company behind Facebook and Instagram, has failed to renew deals with major publishers, leading to an impasse that the government is trying to find a way to rectify.
One key suggestion from the committee in October involved the possibility of a tax imposed on social media giants that fail to reach commercial arrangements with news media outlets.
Education
More broadly, Given explained that regulating social media giants is difficult, particularly for Australia which is a small market on the global stage.
“Many of these issues are common globally … we are not alone in having to identify the potential harms [of digital platforms],” Given said.
“The more we can join forces with other countries that gives a lot of weight and it may mean technology companies are quicker to come to the table with resolutions.”
One area this can be done is on the digital duty of care that the committee recommended earlier this week, which Given said could be modelled on similar efforts in the UK and Europe.
The other piece of the puzzle is education for Australian social media users, particularly vulnerable groups such as children.
The inquiry report backed a push for a new Digital Affairs Ministry in government that would, among other things, develop and manage funding for education campaigns to “enhance digital competency and online safety skills”.
Humphry said education is a crucial part of addressing the risks of social media use, particularly for young people, and that a social media ban would actually take Australia “backwards” in trying to make online environments safer for young people.
“[A ban] puts the onus on parents and young people by excluding them from the space rather than trying to work with companies to make those spaces safer,” Humphry said.