The Greens have put forward a proposal under the government's Digital Duty of Care legislation framework that would expand user authority over social media feeds, place restrictions on platform features designed to maximise engagement, and establish accountability mechanisms for technology companies whose services are linked to demonstrable harm.
The party has also proposed that the legislation grant individuals a right to pursue legal action against technology companies, including Meta, and seek compensation for harm experienced on their platforms. Proposals put forward include tighter restrictions on recommendation systems designed to maximise user engagement, alongside financial penalties calculated as a share of the largest technology companies' worldwide earnings.
The Greens have outlined three benchmarks for evaluating the Digital Duty of Care legislation due before parliament this week: whether those harmed online would have access to compensation, whether the addictive design of technology platforms would be addressed, and whether penalties tied to global revenue would be imposed on offending companies.
Greens communications spokesperson Senator Sarah Hanson-Young called on social media companies to take responsibility for ensuring their platforms do not cause harm to the public, given the revenue those products generate.
Advocates have called for the proposed Digital Duty of Care legislation to include a private right of action allowing Australians harmed through online platforms to pursue compensation, arguing that enforcement powers should not rest solely with the eSafety Commissioner — a framework they compare to the obligations placed on businesses to avoid causing harm to those they serve.
Those backing the proposed changes contend that a formal legal pathway should be available for both individuals and communities to take action against large technology firms, whose platforms — which generate considerable revenue from Australian users — some observers say are built around systems that prioritise keeping people engaged above other considerations.
Proponents of tougher platform regulation argue that meaningful financial penalties represent the most effective lever for changing corporate behaviour, while advocates for user rights contend that Australians ought to have genuine control over what populates their feeds, including the option to disable algorithmically curated content entirely. Proponents of that position maintain that choice, on its own, falls short of the full picture.
Advocates contend that the burden of creating a safer online environment should not fall on individual users alone, and that platforms whose operations put Australian users' wellbeing at risk ought to be held to account through binding regulatory consequences. Penalties tied to a proportion of worldwide revenue have been put forward as the mechanism through which legislation could apply meaningful financial pressure on large technology companies for rule violations.
Critics contend that the penalty levels set out in the draft legislation fall well short of what would meaningfully affect companies of this scale, with some advocates arguing that only the prospect of substantial financial liability and compensation requirements would prompt genuine platform safety improvements, and that industry opposition to the proposed reforms is widely anticipated.
The Greens stated they would cooperate with the government on online safety legislation, provided the government took a firm stance toward large technology companies and delivered protections that Australians warranted.
