‘Manosphere’ podcasts and moon-landing conspiracy theories to remain online under new laws, Wells says

The digital duty-of-care laws would place an overarching responsibility on technology platforms to provide a safe online environment for Australians. They would replace a range of existing online codes and standards with broader duties to protect users from certain harmful content. The reform focuses on platform design and conduct, not on controlling ordinary opinions.

The laws would cover services including social media, online games, apps and chatbots. Platforms would need to address risks linked to misogynistic, pro-terror, suicide and self-harm, or eating-disorder content. Wells compared the approach with seatbelts in cars: companies that build digital environments would be responsible for their risks.

The laws were introduced to parliament after months of discussion and consultation. Platforms could face fines of more than $100 million for failing to comply. The Greens broadly support the proposal but want stronger rules, including private legal action for individuals and much higher penalties.

The proposed laws target categories of content the government says can create serious online harm. Wells identified misogynistic, pro-terror, suicide and self-harm, and eating-disorder material as examples that could be captured. The stated aim is to improve people’s protection from harmful digital environments, rather than police every opinion expressed online.

Wells gave several examples of speech that would remain allowed. Adults could listen to manosphere podcasts. People could post views about the government, make memes, or say the moon landing was fake. She also said the government would not control free speech or conduct covert surveillance under the reforms.

The boundary remains politically contested. Conservative campaign groups and Coalition politicians argue that classifying content as harmful could enable government censorship. The government rejects that claim and says the focus is on what platforms do, including how they manage risks and protect users.

The proposed reforms would expose non-compliant platforms to fines of more than $100 million. That is the largest specific penalty figure given in the article. It signals that the government wants the duty of care to operate as a serious legal obligation, rather than as voluntary guidance for technology companies.

The penalty would apply when platforms fail to comply with the new online safety requirements. Those requirements would include an overarching obligation to provide a safe online environment and to protect users from certain harmful content. The rules would cover services such as social media, online games, apps and chatbots.

The exact penalty structure is not detailed in the article. The Greens want fines to be dramatically increased and also want ordinary Australians to be able to take private action against companies for breaches. Wells said the government would contemplate that private-action proposal.

If platforms must reduce exposure to harmful material, users could encounter less misogynistic, pro-terror, suicide, self-harm and eating-disorder content. The government presents this as a safety improvement, not a general ban on unpopular opinions. Wells said people’s right to be free from harm would hopefully improve.

The article gives specific examples involving young users. Wells referred to pro-terror content reaching 13-year-old boys in Western Sydney and eating-disorder content reaching 14-year-old girls in Western Australia. The proposed duty would require platforms to address risks in the environments they build, rather than leaving individuals to manage every danger alone.

The reforms are not yet described as fully operating. They were introduced into parliament after months of consultation. If passed and implemented, platforms would face legal duties and possible fines above $100 million, while users could benefit from stronger protections against specified harmful content.

Regulators and researchers could use pseudonymous accounts, known as “sockpuppets,” to test how online services comply with the proposed laws. The article identifies the eSafety commissioner as the regulator responsible for reporting annually on their use. This gives investigators a way to examine platform behaviour without relying only on information supplied by companies.

The accounts could be used for research and enforcement purposes. They could engage with other users only as far as necessary to prevent the account from being closed. That restriction is intended to keep the accounts focused on testing services, rather than becoming ordinary participants in online discussions.

The provision has drawn strong criticism from conservative politicians and media figures. Pauline Hanson claimed it could create government bots spreading propaganda and recording users’ activity. Wells rejected that suggestion, saying the purpose would be addressing risks such as pro-terror and eating-disorder content.

The “my feed my way” option would change how social-media content is selected and displayed. Instead of receiving an algorithmic feed shaped by the platform, users could opt out of that system. They would then see content only from pages they had actively chosen to follow.

The mechanism is an alternative feed setting. A user could choose to leave the algorithmic arrangement and limit the feed to selected pages. The article links this change to the wider duty-of-care reforms, which are intended to make online environments safer and reduce risks created by platform design.

The option is part of reforms introduced into parliament after months of discussion and consultation. It would sit alongside duties covering harmful content and possible fines above $100 million. The article does not state when the option would begin, or whether users would automatically receive it if the laws pass.

The proposed approach treats online safety as a platform responsibility as well as an individual concern. Wells argues that companies create the environments where digital harms occur, so they should carry more of the burden for managing those risks. She compared the idea with seatbelts in cars, where safety is built into the system rather than left entirely to drivers.

The mechanism would be an overarching duty of care. Platforms would need to provide safer online environments and protect users from specified harmful content. The rules would apply across social media, games, apps and chatbots. They would also offer users more control through the “my feed my way” option.

The proposal reflects the government’s stated aim of shifting responsibility from victims to technology companies. It remains contested. Conservative groups and Coalition politicians call it a censorship framework, while the Greens support the direction but want private lawsuits and higher fines.