Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Labor’s new Digital Duty of Care promises to protect Australians online — but critics warn it’s a rebranded censorship push that could silence political dissent, faith voices and the pro-life movement.

Australians have one month to speak out against Labor’s Digital Duty of Care (DDoC) proposals.

The proposal imports the United Kingdom’s policing of online content, while giving further power to the eSafety Commission under the 2021 Online Safety Act.

According to the proposal, Albanese’s Digital Duty of Care “will complement” the under-16s social media ban and “reforms underway to modernise the National Classification Scheme.”

As such, Senator Alex Antic is warning that the DDoC is Albanese’s abandoned misinformation and disinformation bill (aka Ministry of Truth) in disguise.

Antic explained, “Social media platforms would be required to be more proactive in preventing ‘harmful’ content.”

“Under the [DDoC] model, companies would need to proactively determine whether material on their websites is likely to be ‘harmful’ ahead of time.”

Using Britain as an example of how this might be abused, he added, “We only need to look at the United Kingdom to see that their citizens are being imprisoned for ‘harmful’ social media posts.”

Who Decides What’s “Harmful”?

What and who gets to determine ‘harmful’ content is where this type of legislation hurts, rather than helps, a nation.

Who gets to decide what fits the category of ‘harmful’ content? Albo’s eSafety bureau.

There’s also a coercive element built in by the bureaucrats: any social media platform that refuses to comply, or appears not to be complying with the potential DDoC, could face multi-million-dollar fines.

This means social media companies will go from regulating content to pre-emptively banning content that the government may not like, Antic effectively stated.

Albo’s new Digital Care proposals read like Joe Biden’s Department of Disinformation plans that helped get Donald Trump elected.

Aussies have until October to voice their dissent. pic.twitter.com/RuOLWGutM2

— Rod Lampard (@rod_lampard) August 31, 2026

“If there was a mechanism for allowing political opinions to be considered psychologically harmful,” Antic asserted, this new power is it.

For example, given the subjective nature of what some may find mentally harmful, where others don’t, “X would have to police all such content.”

“Make no mistake, that is what the Left wants,” Antic said.

“They want people who disagree with them to be censored and punished.”

Antic then argued that the criteria for ‘harmful’ cannot be “so ambiguous and vague in the social and political context we currently find ourselves in.”

Regardless of whether it is well-intentioned or downright malicious, the DDoC would crush “freedom of expression because it necessitates the possibility of offending people.”

Silencing Populism and the Pro-Life Movement

The Sydney Morning Herald confirmed the DDoC was politically motivated, in a piece published on Saturday.

The DDoC, they said, is designed to “counter algorithm-driven anxiety and the rise of populism exemplified by One Nation.”

Labor wants to “force social media giants to alter their algorithms.”

Albanese explained that the proposals were about governments needing to be ahead of technology-driven change, not be overwhelmed by it.

“That’s part of dealing with populism as well,” the Labor Prime Minister added.

In other words, he wants to kill One Nation’s reach and curb their popularity when it comes to who and what Australians would vote for.

The DDoC seems more like a safetyism plan to save a politically nervous Australian Labor Party than it is a plan to protect so-called “anxious Australians.”

Against the supped-up socialist move to police online opinions, former MP and regular Daily Declaration contributor, George Christensen flagged the danger back in November.

This is about Labor “planning to seize control of your digital life”, he said.

“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 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 this Christensen added, “If we don’t slam the brakes immediately, we may never get the chance again.”

He agrees that the DDoC “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.”

Dr Joanna Howe is also firmly opposed.

The pro-life leader said in a StopAlbo petition posted online, “Albanese wants to make this his legacy: destroying free speech once and for all.”

He “knows if he shuts down free speech on social media, he controls the narrative,” Howe correctly warned.

“Anyone who opposes the political establishment, such as our movement or One Nation, will have no means to reach everyday Australians directly with the truth.”

Calling the proposals “horrific,” Joanna said, Labor “will say this is about protecting our mental health and removing harmful content that contains misinformation and disinformation.”

“Do not believe the lie.”

The DDoC is currently being debated and will need to senate’s support to become law.