This week the Australian government will introduce its landmark to parliament. The bill aims to make platforms legally responsible for creating a “safe online environment” protecting users from “seriously harmful material and conduct”.
In the wake of recent controversies – including in the United States accusing powerful platforms such as Meta of not doing enough to protect their users – this looks like a long overdue correction. But it’s not that simple.
One section of the bill defines “material or conduct that encourages, promotes, urges or instructs” illicit drug use and some kinds of sexual activity as “seriously harmful” to both adults and young people.
But this definition is fundamentally flawed. Here’s how it could actually undermine the government’s own strategies to reduce Australians’ risk of harm.
Some content is already being blocked
Harm-reduction work is a longstanding, fundamental component of Australia’s . For decades, government-funded organisations have provided vital information to ensure people engage in safer drug use and sexual activity.
This requires a non-judgemental approach that meets people where they’re at. Social media content moderation systems . But , preventing overdose deaths, alongside sexually transmissible infections and blood-borne viruses such as HIV and hepatitis C.
We already know that harm-reduction content is being blocked and removed by social platforms’ existing moderation practices.
A found that Meta, TikTok and Snapchat are prohibiting content that shows drug use, with no exemptions for harm-reduction information. Often, moderation is in the form of a , meaning content is hidden from others without notification or recourse.
Platforms already treat . Australian government-funded drug checking services have , accounts suspended and, in some cases, entire pages and personal accounts permanently deleted by Meta’s and TikTok’s automated moderation systems.
Public health drug alerts – which warn people of concerning and potentially life-threatening substances in circulation – have been flagged as “promoting” drug use. For example, last summer Pill Testing Australia warned about strong MDMA and nitazenes circulating ahead of Canberra’s Spilt Milk festival. But the warnings were , and the group’s appeals to have the posts reinstated were rejected.
These alerts are not only essential warnings for people who use drugs. They also such as paramedics and emergency departments in their role as first responders. In this context, content removal poses very real dangers and puts lives at risk.
Sexual health organisations face similar problems
In 2023, the National Association of People with HIV Australia (NAPWHA) launched the social media campaign “” on YouTube and Meta platforms.
Short, catchy ads informed viewers that current HIV treatments effectively prevent transmission of HIV. When this campaign was shared on Facebook and YouTube, . Despite appeals, the content was not reinstated.
Meta also for sexual and reproductive health products and services – including – unless they are deemed to specifically target adults. In response, health educators resort to , workarounds that can stop information reaching the people who most need it.
The new bill would go further
The proposed Digital Duty of Care Bill requires platforms to restrict even more content, without recognising or protecting harm reduction.
This means advice on safer injecting may be soon seen as instructing illicit drug use. Sex education content that explains “edgy” sexual practices – including outlining their risks, and guiding young people to safer options – could be flagged as .
There is no doubt online content can be harmful. But social media platforms cannot make decisions about public health content without adequate safeguards (such as independent accountability and appeal mechanisms) or guidance from health experts.
the bill will undermine the vital – and often life-saving – work of , , and sexual health organisations. This work makes everyone, , safer.
Dozens of , , and have recently made submissions to the government calling for changes to the proposed bill to safeguard harm reduction work.
One solution would be to remove predetermined and broad categories of harmful content. Instead, there should be specific guidelines – co-designed with experts and organisations – for dealing with “potentially harmful” content. Platforms should be required to undertake more nuanced , rather than relying on removal or bans.
Another solution would be to include a clear exemption in the bill for health promotion material that aims to mitigate harm. This would be consistent with the proposed legislation’s overall aims, because harm-reduction information also aims to support safety and advance public health.
, Research Fellow, National Drug Research Institute, ; ; , PhD Candidate, ANU School of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet), ; , Professor, Deakin Law School, , and , Professor of Media and Communication and Chief Investigator, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making + Society,
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .
