Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

The US warns that Labor’s Digital Duty of Care bill could see platforms suppress independent journalists and commentary on “sensitive or controversial topics”, and would encourage platforms to engage in “pre-emptive censorship to avoid the risk of liability”.

The United States government has warned that Labor’s Digital Duty of Care bill risks becoming “a mechanism for viewpoint-based censorship” and has called on the Albanese government to abandon plans to force platforms to suppress content.

Washington issued its warning in a submission to the Albanese government’s public consultation into the bill, then published the submission on the US Embassy website after the government said submissions will not be made public.

The submission questions how the government, or the Communications Minister, would “designate what constitutes ‘foreseeable harm’”. Vague definitions, it argues, mean that “platforms will be incentivised to over-moderate speech that should be protected to avoid regulatory penalties”.

The US government lists independent journalists and “other voices whose content touches on sensitive or controversial topics” among those most at risk. It also asked what safeguards would stop officials’ “biases and preferences” from disadvantaging “independent or minority-viewpoint speech”.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Communications Minister Anika Wells released the bill’s exposure draft on 8 September and flagged that breaches could attract penalties of up to $109.2 million. Public consultation into the bill closed at midday on Tuesday.

The Coalition announced on 10 September it opposed the bill in its current form. Opposition Leader Angus Taylor has called the draft “a blank cheque for political censorship to the minister and to the government”.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has accused Labor of “copying the Chinese Communist Party’s censorship playbook” and warned that Australia “should be moving away from government censorship, not building the Orwellian machinery for it”.

Platform Design and Global Reach

Washington’s submission says the US “has serious concerns” about mandates that “dictate how platforms manage content and users’ feeds”. It singles out “rigid, one-size-fits-all platform design requirements — such as forced chronological feeds or opt-in recommendation systems”.

The US asked what criteria would define “foreseeable harm”, who would make that call, and whether users or platforms could appeal. Even without an explicit mandate, it warns, platforms could default to “pre-emptive censorship to avoid the risk of liability”.

Most affected platforms are US-headquartered, the submission notes, and build features globally rather than market by market. Design mandates, it says, “may affect what users see, say, and hear not just in or from Australia, but globally”.

If other nations impose conflicting mandates, it warns, platforms face pressure towards a “most-restrictive-jurisdiction outcome”. The US restated its opposition to foreign measures producing “extraterritorial censorship of protected speech by Americans online”.

It urges Australia to weigh how prescriptive mandates could affect its reputation as “a jurisdiction that enables innovation — rather than one that unduly constrains the development and use of technology”.

Prime Minister’s Response

Albanese, who is in the US for the United Nations General Assembly, faced questions about the submission in New York on Tuesday evening. One reporter, speaking to the Prime Minister before a dinner hosted by US President Donald Trump, called the US statement “pretty hostile” and asked whether the US response concerned him.

In footage of the exchange, Albanese replied that he would “always stand up for Australia’s national interests”.

“It’s not about giving government control, it’s about giving people back control over what they receive on their devices,” he said.

Noting that the bill was yet to be introduced to Parliament, he added, “I hope the whole of the Parliament supports it. This should not be a partisan issue.”

In June, Albanese warned against “the rise of populism whether of the right or the left,” while The Sydney Morning Herald reported in August that the Prime Minister’s plan to “beef up Australia’s heavy regulation of big tech” was aimed at countering “the rise of populism exemplified by One Nation”.

Greens communications spokesman Senator David Shoebridge, whom Labor will rely on to pass the bill, has cited Pauline Hanson and the Coalition in arguing for the bill, saying, “Every time you get Pauline Hanson come out and say well actually she wants to promote hateful messages against First Nations peoples or you get the Coalition coming out and saying that they want to promote genocide denial, I think it points out we need digital duty of care so that those messages aren’t amplified.”

Liberal Senator Alex Antic has warned that the bill revives Labor’s misinformation bill, which was withdrawn in November 2024. He pointed to the United Kingdom, where he said “citizens are being imprisoned for ‘harmful’ social media posts”.

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

___

Image courtesy of Adobe.