Big tech, democracy and the duty of care Australia needs

Australia is waking up to an uncomfortable truth: the companies that run our online public square wield enormous power over how citizens see the world. That was the blunt point of a recent conversation between The Guardian’s political editor Tom McIlroy and Greens senator Sarah Hanson‑Young, as they discussed the Greens’ priorities for Labor’s digital duty‑of‑care legislation and why the party lent support to some of the government’s more controversial proposals. The senator’s language – calling big tech an “attack on democracy” – will make some readers wince, and others nod in agreement. Language aside, the underlying point cannot be dismissed. A small number of private platforms now shape what millions of Australians see, hear and share. That concentration of influence turns ordinary features of digital life – algorithms that prioritise content, advertising systems that microtarget audiences, and the speed at which falsehoods can spread – into issues with political as well as social consequences. That is why the idea of a statutory duty of care has traction across parties and the community. The broad principle is simple: platforms should not be able to design products and systems that foreseeably harm users or civic discourse and then claim they are merely neutral conduits. A legal obligation forces designers and executives to weigh the downstream effects of choices about amplification, recommendation and moderation. But the detail matters. Good regulation will be proportionate, technology‑aware and focused on outcomes rather than theatrical gestures. Poorly drafted rules risk creating new forms of arbitrariness or chilling legitimate expression. The Greens’ engagement with Labor’s bill suggests that sensible scrutiny from outside government is improving the prospects for workable policy. Political parties that make noise over threats to democracy also have a responsibility to help craft measures that actually reduce harm while protecting debate. Ordinary Australians have reason to care. When digital platforms favour sensational or polarising content, it can corrode trust – in neighbours, in institutions and in the public conversation that underpins democratic decision‑making. When false claims about public health, elections or community tensions spread unchallenged, the social costs are real, and often unevenly distributed. A duty of care aimed at preventing foreseeable harms is about more than regulating tech firms; it is about safeguarding the quality of civic life. At the same time, lawmakers should resist the temptation to promise quick fixes. Regulating at the speed of law while technology evolves rapidly is a recipe for obsolescence. Parliamentary scrutiny, independent oversight and sunset clauses that force periodic reassessment would be sensible design features. So would better transparency from platforms about how their systems work and clear, enforceable penalties for identifiable harms. Sarah Hanson‑Young and others who have sounded the alarm are doing the vital work of keeping the issue alive. But the conversation must move from headlines to careful legislative architecture. Australians can reasonably expect their representatives to treat the digital public square with the same seriousness that governments apply to physical spaces where people meet, debate and organise. The nation’s democratic health depends on it.