Beyond the 'Opt-Out': Why Digital Duty of Care is the New Front Against Algorithmic Control
As artificial intelligence accelerates minute by minute, governments globally find themselves in an increasingly urgent race to manage developments they barely comprehend. This escalating complexity sharpens the focus on holding big tech accountable, moving beyond simplistic fixes to address the core issue of algorithmic influence.
The debate has moved past the efficacy of policies like the under-16s social media ban or the paltry efforts on gambling advertising. These initiatives, much like a mere 'algorithm opt-out,' place the onus primarily on the consumer, sidestepping the fundamental challenge: 'the algorithm's' pervasive control over our digital world. As noted by sexual consent advocate Chanel Contos in a speech to the National Press Club in Canberra on Thursday, big tech adeptly designs schemes that *appear* to be structural reform but ultimately serve their interests. Her 'Fix our feeds' campaign underscores the profound effect of these algorithms, particularly in amplifying online misogyny, sexual violence, normalisation of pornography, and specific sexual acts.
At its core, 'the algorithm' is a suite of systems designed to profile users and leverage personal habits to maximise engagement—to keep us scrolling. This design choice has embedded the potential for significant societal harm, now unfolding in real time. We are witnessing eroding attention spans and productivity, a statistical increase in mental health issues across all age groups, and the amplification of divisive content over consensus, leading to increased social isolation.
These are not incidental side effects but direct consequences of design choices made by 'tech bros' who, under the current legal frameworks, are largely unburdened by the safety implications of the spaces they create. The issue is not just about individuals opting out; it's about a systemic imposition of addictive features that inherently compromise our 'information sovereignty'—our ability to control what happens in the digital realm.
The real path forward, therefore, involves applying a mandatory and enforceable digital duty of care on big tech. This crucial step would be augmented by an effective update of woefully out-of-date privacy laws. A private member’s digital duty of care bill was tabled in federal parliament in 2024, explicitly modelled on the best of UK and EU legislation. As articulated in its introductory speech, the core aim is to compel platforms to make their spaces genuinely safe for individuals, children, and communities. This represents a fundamental shift: from individual responsibility in a rigged system to corporate accountability for system design, recognizing that in the conflict of 'big tech v community,' the community currently loses out, with innovations like smart glasses serving as the latest iteration of this complex, yet opportunity-laden, debate.