Inside Australia's plan to beat the algorithm

And Katie, of course, this legislation or the proposal of it has sparked quite a lot of discussion, seeing criticism of censorship intervention and so on.

So can you just talk us through some of the critics of this proposal?

Yes, I'll give you a flavor of some of the criticism.

So the opposition leader, Angus Taylor, said... that he warned that the government would be censoring speech online.

One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, also posted it, talks about the fact that this Australia should be moving away from government censorship, not building an Orwellian machinery for it.

I mean, there's a lot of kind of scepticism.

Obviously, it kind of goes down as kind of the Political line, too.

But interestingly, there was there's an advocate, a consent advocate called Chanel Contos.

Now she's urging for an opt in.

So the idea behind this, what this government's proposal is to kind of switch off the algorithm, whereas she's kind of suggesting that actually you switch it on.

The default is you don't have it.

What do you think, Tamar? Because you were also writing about how it should be opting in to algorithm, having that default, you know, whoever you follow as the default.

Why do you think the government wouldn't do that?

I think it would have had much more opposition.

It would have probably fuelled that sort of conversation about censorship and overreach.

And so I think this government has actually been a little bit timid on that front.

I mean, but this is a topic that's happening everywhere, isn't it? Because we were reading how I think Meta settled a huge lawsuit in the US, Tama, agreeing to pay $18 billion over this exact issue of addictive algorithm.

I mean, given all the scrutiny that these tech giants are facing, why wouldn't they come out and agree to a proposal like this so that they would come across as wanting to protect especially the young users?

Yeah, look, I think you're right.

I think the big platforms have a huge PR issue right now and their relationship with children is one of the biggest issues on the table.

Now, the settlement in the US partly is important because they managed to escape any finding of liability.

So a settlement means that there's no precedent that another lawsuit can build upon.

When the number being talked about is in the billions, they're clearly trying to do some reputational repair work with that money.

But there is definitely a global appetite for better regulation and realizing that if we leave the big platforms to regulate themselves, then they are never going to put children's interests first.

what could happen longer term? Will we see more, I guess, regulation scrutiny of these tech giants, given all the concerns that parents' users have?

And Katie, of course, this legislation or the proposal of it has sparked quite a lot of discussion, seeing criticism of censorship intervention and so on.

So can you just talk us through some of the critics of this proposal?

Yes, I'll give you a flavor of some of the criticism.

So the opposition leader, Angus Taylor, said... that he warned that the government would be censoring speech online.

One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, also posted it, talks about the fact that this Australia should be moving away from government censorship, not building an Orwellian machinery for it.

I mean, there's a lot of kind of scepticism.

Obviously, it kind of goes down as kind of the Political line, too.

But interestingly, there was there's an advocate, a consent advocate called Chanel Contos.

Now she's urging for an opt in.

So the idea behind this, what this government's proposal is to kind of switch off the algorithm, whereas she's kind of suggesting that actually you switch it on.

The default is you don't have it.

What do you think, Tamar? Because you were also writing about how it should be opting in to algorithm, having that default, you know, whoever you follow as the default.

Why do you think the government wouldn't do that?

I think it would have had much more opposition.

It would have probably fuelled that sort of conversation about censorship and overreach.

And so I think this government has actually been a little bit timid on that front.

I mean, but this is a topic that's happening everywhere, isn't it? Because we were reading how I think Meta settled a huge lawsuit in the US, Tama, agreeing to pay $18 billion over this exact issue of addictive algorithm.

I mean, given all the scrutiny that these tech giants are facing, why wouldn't they come out and agree to a proposal like this so that they would come across as wanting to protect especially the young users?

Yeah, look, I think you're right.

I think the big platforms have a huge PR issue right now and their relationship with children is one of the biggest issues on the table.

Now, the settlement in the US partly is important because they managed to escape any finding of liability.

So a settlement means that there's no precedent that another lawsuit can build upon.

When the number being talked about is in the billions, they're clearly trying to do some reputational repair work with that money.

But there is definitely a global appetite for better regulation and realizing that if we leave the big platforms to regulate themselves, then they are never going to put children's interests first.

what could happen longer term? Will we see more, I guess, regulation scrutiny of these tech giants, given all the concerns that parents' users have?