Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Nation First looks into the Albanese Government’s backdoor push to control speech, track users, and reshape the internet under the guise of online safety.

They always tell you it’s “for your own good” right before they tighten the chains.

Right now, under the warm and fuzzy language of “online safety,” the Albanese Government is planning to seize control of your digital life. The latest threat? A potentially hazardous proposal known as the Digital Duty of Care.

It’s being sold as a way to make tech giants more “responsible”, but don’t be fooled. This is not about stopping child predators or cracking down on online crime. That’s already illegal, and we already have laws for that.

• The Albanese Government’s Digital Duty of Care is a censorship framework disguised as online safety.
• Bureaucrats want the power to decide what content Australians can access, using vague terms like “harm” and “hate speech.”
• The public consultation survey is rigged with manipulative questions designed to manufacture consent.
• Ticking anything but “none of the above” will be used to justify surveillance, content control, and Digital ID enforcement.
• Australians must reject the entire framework before it becomes permanent infrastructure for state control.

The Digital Duty of Care push is all about censorship. Surveillance. And building the infrastructure to control what you can say, see, and share online.

To be clear, this isn’t the same thing as the new social media age limits the government is already forcing through from 10 December. That’s bad enough on its own. But the Digital Duty of Care is a much broader, much deeper scheme that’s still in the “consultation” phase right now. And if we don’t slam the brakes immediately, we may never get the chance again.

The entire premise is this: digital platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and even search engines and chat apps should be legally responsible for preventing “harm” online. That sounds nice on paper. But look closer.

Who gets to define what “harm” is?

The answer is unelected bureaucrats like the eSafety Commissioner, operating with almost no public accountability. Under this scheme, platforms would be forced to:

• Remove content deemed “harmful” by government-appointed officials
• Police lawful speech in order to avoid enormous fines
• Enforce age verification, likely tied to Digital ID, just to access basic services
• Spy on and track users under the guise of “duty of care”
• Impose algorithmic controls to filter and shape what adults are allowed to see

This is the beginning of a government-controlled internet in Australia. And if you don’t think it could happen here, think again.

It’s already happening in the EU and UK. Governments there are de-platforming dissenters, banning “misinformation,” and arresting citizens for things like “offensive memes” or questioning immigration. That’s the endgame of letting the state decide what’s “safe”.

Now, the Albanese Government wants to bring that model here.

They’ll tell you it’s all about protecting children. But if that were true, they’d start by enforcing the laws we already have against grooming, pornography, stalking, and abuse. They don’t. Instead, they’re rewriting the rules for everyone, treating law-abiding adults like criminals, and smothering free expression under a blanket of bureaucratic “care.”

Here’s where you come in.

The government is running a fake consultation; an online survey open until 7 December. They’re hoping you won’t respond, or worse, that you’ll be suckered into ticking boxes that give them cover to say, “See? Australians support online safety laws!”

Don’t fall for it.

Here’s what you need to know: for every single multiple-choice question in the survey, you must tick “None of the above” in order to reject the Digital Duty of Care.

The survey is available here: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/digital-duty-care

But before filling in the survey, take a look at how sneaky and manipulative this it really is, especially the first questions. On the surface, it asks what, on the internet, should be censored for users under 18. But the multiple-choice answers they provide you are the trap.

Question 1 asks:

“Which of the following kinds of harmful experiences or content do you think digital platforms should take steps to prevent for young Australians under 18 years on their platforms?”

Now look at the suggested answers:

• “Bullying and harassment”
• “Online hate speech”
• “Pornography”
• “Content that promotes harmful behaviour (e.g. self-harm, suicide, disordered eating, drugs and alcohol)”
• “Online pranks and dares/challenges that could cause serious injury”

Of course, no decent person wants kids exposed to porn and other real harms. But once you tick any of these boxes, you’ve just supported age verification, content suppression, and algorithmic filtering for everyone, not just children. Also, the term “hate speech” is broad, vague, and politically loaded, and means whatever the bureaucracy wants it to mean.

It doesn’t stop there. Further down the survey, they ask questions like:

“Which kinds of harmful content should platforms prevent for adults?”
“What features or tools should be banned?”
“What platforms should be covered by the duty of care—including messaging apps and search engines?”
“Should dispute resolution systems be mandatory?”

These questions are a political landmine. They’re designed to lure you into giving consent for state intervention that goes far beyond what they’re admitting.

This is how they build the trap. They want you to support a bureaucratic rollout of internet censorship, cloaked in the benign language of “safety.” But once you play their game, you’re giving them the ammo they need to lock it all in.

That’s why the only answer to give is “None of the above.”

Even if you support banning porn for kids (as I do), don’t tick that box here. Because in this survey, ticking anything other than “none of the above” will be used to justify more social media restrictions, more identity checks, and more top-down controls.

The truth is simple: there are already laws in place to deal with the evils of the internet. We don’t need a new censorship regime. We need the existing laws enforced, and parents given the tools and authority to protect their own children, not the government stepping in to police everyone.

When you get to the final question of the survey (“Q7: Do you have other comments?”), which allows a written response, this is the kind of message you should leave:

“I do not support any Digital Duty of Care. This appears to be an attempt to revive the rejected “combatting misinformation and disinformation” agenda, which would give the government indirect control over what adults may read, watch, or say online. Adults should be free to access lawful material without state permission. Protecting children from pornography and other harms can be achieved through existing laws, enforcement, and parental tools, not a new online censorship regime.”

Feel free to simply cut and paste that message. If it’s repeated often enough, maybe it will sink in!

Whatever the case, keep your answer direct and keep it firm. And, remember, don’t give them a single checkbox of support.

Because once this regime is locked in, it won’t be just so-called “harms” that get wiped out. It’ll be dissent. Debate. Truth. Anything the government doesn’t like.

And the worst part? You’ll still be told it’s all “for your own good.”

This is our moment to push back. To say no. Loudly, clearly, and with no compromise.

P.S. The URL for the survey is https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/digital-duty-care, and here are suggested responses to give to that survey:

Q1: What kinds of harmful experiences or content should platforms prevent for Australians UNDER 18?

• Bullying and harassment, including volumetric attacks (‘pile ons’)
• Online hate speech against individuals or groups
• Pornography
• Content that promotes harmful behaviour (e.g. self-harm, suicide, extreme dieting)
• Online dares and challenges that could cause injury
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)

Q2: What harmful features or products should platforms prevent for UNDER 18s?

• Algorithms that push harmful content
• Addictive features (autoplay, notifications)
• AI companions that behave inappropriately
• Ephemeral content (e.g. disappearing messages)
• Quantifiable social metrics (e.g. likes)
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)

Q3: What harmful content should platforms prevent for ADULTS?

• Bullying and harassment
• Hate speech
• Violent pornography
• Content that promotes self-harm or drug use
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)

Q4: What harmful features or products should platforms prevent for ADULTS?

• Algorithms that push harmful content
• Addictive design
• AI chatbots
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)

Q5: What should platforms include in their dispute systems?

• Reports about harmful content
• Disputes over removed material
• Disputes about banned accounts
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)

Q6: What types of platforms should the duty of care apply to?

• Social media
• Dating apps
• Messaging apps
• Gaming platforms
• App stores
• Search engines
• AI tools like ChatGPT
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)

Q7: Do you have other comments?
Paste this or write something like it in your own words:

I do not support any Digital Duty of Care. This appears to be an attempt to revive the rejected “misinformation and disinformation” agenda, which would give the government indirect control over what adults may read, watch, or say online. Adults should be free to access lawful material without state permission. Protecting children from pornography and other harms can be achieved through existing laws, enforcement, and parental tools, not a new censorship regime.

___

Republished with thanks to Nation First. Image courtesy of Adobe.