Children should be protected from genuinely harmful material online. Social media companies should be held accountable for the systems they build. Algorithms should not deliberately funnel vulnerable users towards child exploitation material, suicide content, violent extremism or eating disorders simply because outrage and harm generate engagement.
However that’s only part of the story in which Greens Senator David Shoebridge explained why he believes Australia needs a Digital Duty of Care.
Speaking about the way social media algorithms promote content, Shoebridge pointed directly to Pauline Hanson and the Coalition as examples.
He argued that when Hanson promoted what he described as hateful messages against First Nations people, or when the Coalition engaged in what he described as genocide denial, it demonstrated the need for a Digital Duty of Care so that “those messages aren't amplified.”
Read that again carefully.
This was not a discussion about child sexual abuse material. It was not terrorism recruitment. It was not instructions encouraging suicide or self-harm.
A federal senator was using statements made by his political opponents as an example of the kind of material he believes social media algorithms should not amplify.
THE BILL IS ABOUT SYSTEMS, NOT JUST TAKING POSTS DOWN
The government says the objective is to force online services to identify risks in advance and design their systems to minimise foreseeable harm. That includes looking at algorithms and recommender systems which determine what content users are shown.
The exposure draft would require online providers to maintain, so far as reasonably practicable, a “safe online environment”. It would also require providers to conduct risk assessments and manage features including recommender systems, endless feeds and other systems which influence what users see.
For adults, the current draft identifies seriously harmful material including child sexual exploitation, sexual violence, extreme violence, serious harassment, suicide and self-harm, terrorism and certain criminal activity.
Children would receive additional protections covering pornography, disordered eating material, bullying and harassment and other harmful content and design features.
Those are the examples most Australians have heard when the government explains why this legislation is needed.
Shoebridge's comments raise another question entirely.
Can lawful political speech become something an algorithm is expected to suppress because somebody considers the message harmful?
WHO DECIDES WHAT COUNTS AS HARM?
That has already become one of the major arguments surrounding the legislation.
The exposure draft originally provided the Communications Minister with the ability to designate additional categories of “seriously harmful” material.
Communications Minister Anika Wells has defended the broader proposal as a safety measure rather than censorship, arguing the government is putting responsibility on technology companies to prevent harm instead of waiting until damage has already occurred.
But concerns about the scope of ministerial power have not come solely from politicians.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has also raised concerns about an open-ended power to expand what falls within the regime and stressed the need for safeguards, transparency and parliamentary oversight where fundamental rights are affected. They specifically warned about the risk of “over-removal of lawful content or limiting legitimate public debate” and raised concerns about broad ministerial powers.
Wells has since indicated she is prepared to change the proposal, including allowing Parliament rather than the minister alone to determine additional categories of serious harm.
But Shoebridge's comments demonstrate why the underlying debate remains relevant regardless of who ultimately gets the power.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO AGREE WITH PAULINE HANSON
This should not be confused with a defence of everything Pauline Hanson says. Australians can agree with her, disagree with her, criticise her, protest against her or ignore her entirely. The same applies to the Coalition, Labor, the Greens and every other political party.
Shoebridge is equally entitled to describe Hanson's statements as hateful or accuse Coalition politicians of genocide denial. Those are political arguments that he is free to make.
The problem worth examining is what happens when that political judgment becomes connected to a regulatory system designed to influence what Australians see online.
There is an enormous difference between saying:
“I think Pauline Hanson is wrong.”
And saying:
“I think social media systems should ensure Australians are less likely to see Pauline Hanson's message.”
The first is political debate. The second raises questions about how platforms should treat political speech.
THE ALGORITHM IS ALREADY MAKING CHOICES
There is also a legitimate counterargument. Social media feeds are not neutral public noticeboards. Algorithms already decide what Australians see every second of every day.
Platforms rank some posts above others. They recommend certain videos. They promote material generating engagement. They learn what keeps users watching and then serve them more of it.
So the question is not whether algorithms make decisions.
They already do.
The question is what rules should govern those decisions, who writes those rules and how far those rules should extend into lawful political debate.
That is where Shoebridge's comments are important, he has provided Australians with an example of the kind of political speech he believes algorithms should not amplify.
Not merely preventing children from being funnelled towards pornography or self-harm or preventing terrorist recruitment material from being recommended. But preventing political messages he regards as harmful from being amplified.
THIS BILL ISN'T LAW YET
As of 18 September 2026, the Digital Duty of Care legislation is still an exposure draft.
The government released it on 8 September and public submissions remain open until midday on 22 September. You can email your feedback to digitaldutyofcare@communications.gov.au.
What people fail to understand is that this system will work both ways, depending who is in power at the time.
I encourage everyone to make a submission, whether you’re for the bill or against it, your voice should be heard.
