Political war on Big Tech filled with policy hazards

Big Tech’s fatal weakness is the evidence-based harm its platforms and social media have done to a generation of children and youth across the English-speaking world.

The Australian political system is drawing the battle lines for a multi-front assault on Big Tech – confident public opinion has turned against the digital giants, yet struggling with the problem of how to frame policies that actually work and deliver on their objectives.

There is broad bipartisanship in the approaches of Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton. But the populism of the politics conceals the scope for conflict between Labor and the Coalition over Australia’s resolution, tactics and details as it strives to preserve its sovereignty.

The core issue is the ability of governments to safeguard the citizen interest and regulate the most powerful corporates operating in their jurisdiction. Ultimately, it is a contest over institutional power and democratic accountability. The outcome will affect every Australian in one form or another. Big Tech has penetrated our lives and minds, creating psychological and economic dependencies that are difficult to modify through public policy solutions.

Politicians must address the immediate tests: the need to safeguard young people via an age ban, probably between 14 and 16 years, for social media and digital platform access; the need to hold digital platforms to account for misinformation and disinformation when they refuse to accept responsibility, and; the need to ensure, in the teeth of resistance, that the platforms pay for the news content they use from established media and journalism outlets.

Dutton has signalled his brand. He wants to confront Big Tech and believes Albanese will fight with a wet lettuce. The Big Tech issue has destroyed the usual political alignments. Earlier this year Commonwealth Bank chief executive Matt Comyn, outlining a reform agenda, included a levy on Big Tech raising $5bn a year. So Big Finance wants a tax levy on Big Tech. After all, former treasurer Scott Morrison imposed a levy on the banks.

News Corporation chief executive Michael Miller says Big Tech has changed our lives but “refuses to play by our rules”, while Meta, TikTok and X “operate outside our legal systems” doing damage to our people, to our “businesses, big and small, to our democracy and to our economy”. Traditional media is at war with Big Tech.

But Big Tech’s fatal weakness is the evidence-based harm its platforms and social media have done to a generation of children and youth across the English-speaking world. This argument became a clinching event in the recent book, The Anxious Generation, by American social psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, Professor of Ethical Leadership at the New York University Stern School of Business, with Haidt saying Big Tech had presided over “the rewiring of childhood”, the consequence being recent decisions about how to raise children were “the biggest blunder we have ever made”.

Jonathan Haidt.

The alliance of parents, health experts, educators and, yes, children as well, represents a health-driven compassion industry that will not be denied. Feeling the heat, Mark Zuckerberg said earlier this year there was no established link between social media and young people having worse mental health – useful proof he will lie to protect his corporate interest.

Albanese, under attack for looking unconvincing, badly needs a cause to show his conviction. Enter Big Tech. It is as friendless as it is powerful; its platforms are as irresistible as they are ubiquitous. But fighting with Big Tech comes with big consequences – it may be more safely done from opposition than government.

The most high-profile and difficult assault on Big Tech will be the age limit for social media access. No country in the world has successfully delivered this. Haidt listed his prescription: no smartphones before high school, no social media before age 16, and phone-free schools.

The access ban was highlighted last week by ALP South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas with his path-breaking proposal to ban children under 14 years from social media and require parental consent for those aged 14 and 15 years, with the Premier insisting the legal onus would fall on the tech companies.

“We want to create a big, massive deterrent against these giant companies where they do harm to our children,” Malinauskas said. But how can an effective age-based enforcing responsibility be imposed on the companies? Former High Court chief justice Robert French, advising the Premier, said some users will dodge the system but “the perfect should not be the enemy of the good”.

Peter Malinauskas.

Having the national government take the lead with uniform national laws makes sense – provided the laws are tough enough. Albanese said he wants kids off devices and on to footy fields and tennis courts and into swimming pools. Sounds great. But that’s a cultural issue, not just a tech issue.

With Dutton saying last June that he would implement a ban up to age 16 years during the first 100 days of a Coalition government, Australia is heading into world-first territory against Big Tech but confronts the still unresolvable problem: the mechanism to ensure an age verification test for social media. We await Albanese’s answer before the end of 2024 on how this will work.

At the same time, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland last week introduced Labor’s revised crackdown on digital platforms that engage in harmful misinformation and disinformation. Rowland said a “very high threshold” will be set for what constitutes serious harm, giving the example of disinformation being spread after the Bondi stabbing attack earlier this year.

Labor’s draft bill, released last year, was widely attacked and was unacceptable, with shadow minister David Coleman branding as “grotesque” its scope for undermining freedom of speech and capacity to be manipulated for political purposes. Whether Labor’s second effort will satisfy remains doubtful.

Yet the central point cannot be denied – curbing platform and social media abuse is an imperative. Internet abuse is now a massive industry, with huge profits being made from child sex abuse, porn, misogyny, financial cons, fakes and any form of bad behaviour. It needs to be combated. Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones said: “We don’t think the rules of the jungle should apply on social media platforms.”

Michelle Rowland.

A civilised society cannot tolerate the debased free-for-any evil that Big Tech tolerates. It must be held to the same standards as the rest of society. In opposing this corrective, populist conservatives are kicking back, but in the list of their doomed and dumb campaigns this is close to the worst. Nobody says this task is easy. But there is no gainsaying the parliament must find a balance between minimising limits on free speeches while moving against rampant abuses on the internet.

Finally, Meta has defiantly boasted it will not renew the media bargaining code deals under which it pays media companies for their content – following the 2021 decision by parliament that Meta should pay. If challenged, Meta says it will terminate news from its platforms. It has already done so in Canada – and, ultimately, it could even walk away from Australia.

Who would lose in that final resort? Indeed, many would say “Good riddance”. But governments cannot think like that. It’s not the sort of confrontation Labor wants pre-election.

Minister Rowland pledged earlier to take the steps necessary to uphold the media bargaining code. But there is now a split between Labor and some of the media companies – Labor fears the bargaining code, while important, is losing its leverage while Miller, speaking for News Corporation, said it is vital the government uphold the principle at stake: payment by Big Tech for use of news content.

Meanwhile, Treasury officials confirm the government is considering the option of a levy on Big Tech. That has an appeal for Labor but it is tricky. It would mean the government, having collected the revenue, would then distribute the revenue to media companies on some agreed formula. That’s problematic.

What’s not problematic is that Big Tech won’t compromise in good faith. Albanese can’t afford to look weak but needs policies that deliver.