The Albanese government is set to introduce new legislation aimed at imposing a digital duty of care on news websites and social media platforms, requiring them to remove what is described as “seriously harmful material.” The bill, formally presented this week, seeks to grant the government’s eSafety commissioner expanded powers, including operating fake online accounts—commonly known as “bots” or “sock puppet” accounts—to conduct research and engage in activities described as educational, promotional, and community awareness programs.
Communications Minister Anika Wells emphasized the government’s intention to protect vulnerable users, particularly children, from harmful online content. She pointed to instances where social media algorithms inadvertently exposed minors to eating disorder-related content as a justification for the new rules. Australia currently enforces a ban on social media use for individuals under 16, which has been in place since December 2025.
Critics argue that the legislation represents an unprecedented level of state censorship in a democratic Western nation. They highlight concerns that the government’s broadly defined authority to require content removal could extend to suppressing news coverage of major events, such as the 2025 Bondi massacre, raising questions about freedom of the press. Additionally, opponents warn that authorizing the government to operate unlimited anonymous accounts undermines transparency and could enable state propaganda to be disseminated under false pretenses.
The legislation also seemingly contradicts earlier government efforts to clamp down on misinformation and disinformation, particularly those involving coordinated “bot networks,” which were previously targeted in proposals aimed at preventing deception about the source or intent behind online content. Some commentators express concern about the potential for political misuse if control over such powers were to shift to future governments with differing priorities.
Government officials maintain that the new measures are designed to give individuals more control over their digital experiences rather than expanding governmental control. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, speaking at the United Nations recently, framed the law as a tool for addressing misinformation and societal polarization driven by social media, pointing to a rise in extremism and a perceived erosion of centrist political discourse.
The political context appears significant. The government’s push follows a series of electoral setbacks, including losses to the conservative One Nation party, whose platform strongly criticizes current migration policies and appeals to voters concerned about immigration. Observers note that One Nation supporters might be disproportionately affected by the legislation’s censorship provisions.
Advocacy groups supporting the bill, such as Digital Rights Watch and Teach Us Consent, have received government funding, though questions remain about the shifting justifications behind the proposed measures. Attempts to obtain direct responses from relevant government offices and supporting NGOs regarding the extent and purpose of the fake accounts provisions went unanswered ahead of the bill’s introduction.
The debate surrounding the legislation raises broader questions about balancing the protection of public welfare and preventing online harm against preserving freedom of expression and democratic dialogue. As the bill moves forward, it is likely to prompt ongoing discussion regarding the role of government in regulating digital spaces and the safeguards necessary to uphold both security and civil liberties.