US criticises Australia's proposed algorithm opt-out laws as 'censorship'

As is common in political shenanigans, the draft bill has a euphemistic label ('algorithmic opt-out') - what it actually does is allow unspecified bureaucrats such as the Minister for Communications to designate any individual piece of content as 'harmful' and have it banished from the internet.

As an Australian who just wants relatively free access to information (and the ability to freely/easily discuss it), it's frustrating.

And it's not the first time the Australian government has done this; last year they banned U16 from social media, several weeks later everyone was alerted to Bondi by... social media.. so they could get the heck out of there, but U16... they were left clueless and unable to get updates (news sites ran 30+ minutes behind real-time events and official sites like NSW Police took 70+ minutes to even announce there was a shooter).

This article is conflating two things. The US response to the Digital Duty of Care law and the US response to the algorithm opt-out provision.

The US did criticize the opt out provision.

But when the US says this, its about a different provision in DDC, which says platforms need to proactively remove harmful content.

>"We ask that Australia clarify how exactly 'harm' and 'risks' shall be determined... ensuring these definitions do not encroach on protected speech," the US said in its submission.

> "We ask that Australia clarify how exactly 'harm' and 'risks' shall be determined... ensuring these definitions do not encroach on protected speech," the US said in its submission.

Australia should put this submission in the circular file. The US government's opinion about any of this shouldn't matter to Australia, especially when the intent is to allow users to elect to use the natural state of no-algorithm time-based-ordering presentation of the content. This is like saying that an impact study needs to be done to determine if walking to the end of the block is safe enough to be allowed rather than blasting people out of a cannon towards the end of the block. Or saying that people should not be able to eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner in that order if they choose to.

> Another worry was that the proposed laws could affect Australia's "reputation as a jurisdiction that enables innovation," the submission said.

How magnanimous of the US to be concerned about this for Australia.

What is an "algorithm"? Showing the 20 most recent posts is an algorithm, but I doubt that's what they're targeting with the law.

I'm not just trying to find a technical gotcha here. I think it's worth identifying what exactly about an "algorithm" causes it to cross the line and become harmful.

When does an algorithm become harmful?

When it is designed and optimized to maximize the amount of time it engages the user?

What about an algorithm that was optimized the present the user with content they would find interesting? That doesn't sound so bad on the surface.

What about an algorithm that maximizes the amount of ads people see? Or the amount of money that the company makes?

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of reach. It never meant you got to commandeer someone else’s printing press, TV network, or website.

Country that is the reason that globally we can't have breasts on social media, even in completely non-sexual contexts, complains about "censorship" from a country that wants to avoid melting its childrens' brains.

By opt-out they mean opt-in to a government curated algorithm, no doubt.

As an Australian, I disagree and look forward to opting out.

Also, I’m not proud of this but Australia has no explicit constitutional right to free speech, and no bill of rights at the federal level AFAIK.

Here is a law I wish we had for social media. Let's just align incentives.

If you are working on a social media platform, and your total comp is >= 500k, your children must use your platform for the average amount of time that children of that age range use your platform nationwide.

Brilliant move by the Australian Government to combine the algorithm opt-out with other restrictions. All the headlines are just about opt-out, and the assumption is the US is complaining about opt-out and claiming it is censorship. I suspect the actual claim of censorship is about putting the "onus on platforms to stop harmful content, such as illegal pornography and videos promoting disordered eating, from being shared" (from another BBC article, and similar in AU news sources). I expect manosphere stuff and maybe Nazi will end up in there too, or added later once laws are in place.

"You're censoring our billionaires' freedom to addict your people, psychologically damage your children, promote climate skepticism, spread lies, motivate people to lynch others"

Serious violation!

Well, we know which side the government is on then.

How can anyone take this seriously when the US also recently imposed a 12.5% tariff justified by “Australia’s active slave trade”?

Wonder if they'll ever stop to take a look in the mirror every once in a while

From my cursory look at this last night, the US doesn't like that the definition of "harm" is so poorly defined. They either don't care about the broader concept of opting out of an algorithmic feed or aren't willing to criticise it.

I've been disappointed by the coverage because none of it has helped me understand the legal context behind why they don't like this one specific thing.

The other day I opened my instagram and was presented with a few frames of a big hairy vagina in my explore feed.

I don’t find this “harmful” but it’s not what I expect the algorithm to show me when I literally open instagram to find out about local events and sudden changes in cafe open hours in my area.

I really hate the way meta and other social media companies have injected themselves into our communities and then sent us all insane and set us against each other using algorithms.