Is banning the algorithm censorship? + The teens being hired to kill

Chris Spyrou (0:08)

Hey, Chris Spyrou with you, welcome to The Briefing. Sydney's bloody underworld killings took a tragic turn last week with two people shot dead in suspected cases of mistaken identity.

As rival gangs fight for supremacy, there's been a rise in the hire of inexperienced contract killers. Are they to blame for an increase in the wrong people being killed?

Dr Vincent Hurley (0:27)

Is the risk to the organised crime syndicate worth it for them to do it themselves?

Or is it worth the risk to outsource it to some idiot who wants to go and do it? The crime syndicate might lose a little bit of money, but that's all it is.

Chris Spyrou (0:42)

That deep dive is coming up in the second half of this episode. First though, let's get into the headlines with Sacha Barbour Gatt. It's Monday, the 7th of September.

Sacha Barbour Gatt (0:51)

Hey Chris, happy Monday. The government's looking to strengthen its world leading teen social media ban and a bid to stave off criticism as it separately looks to create an opt out approach to social media algorithms. So let's start with the social media ban staff. Communications Minister Annika Wells wants senators to back amendments to the ban that would double the fines for tech companies that break the rules. The maximum penalty would jump from $54.6 million to $109.2 million, while the eSafety Commissioner and researchers would also get more power to investigate non-compliance from the big platforms.

Chris Spyrou (1:27)

Since the ban kicked in back in December, more than 5 million Australian accounts have been removed or deactivated, but around 80% of under 16s are still finding their way onto social media, and that's according to research from earlier in the year. So far though, no company has been prosecuted. The Greens say doubling the fine won't scare big tech and that a $100 million penalty is just the cost of doing business in Australia. That's how, you know, big tech would be viewing this.

Sacha Barbour Gatt (1:53)

Now it's chump change to people making billions and billions, hundreds of billions of dollars in profit. Look, all of this comes as the government prepares a much bigger package under its highly anticipated digital duty of care laws. So we're learning more about that. And it would create an opt out to social media algorithms instead of having them on by default. It would also ban content that could potentially harm children. The Greens want to see the draft law first, but they're actually advocating Chris for an opt in as a default.

SPEAKER_4 (2:22)

It is concerning that they're not really taking the swing at Big Tech that they need to be. Half-baked measures in the face of the power of Big Tech is not going to make online a place of safety for young people or indeed anyone.

Sacha Barbour Gatt (2:40)

So that was Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young speaking there.

Chris Spyrou (2:43)

The Coalition isn't backing the plan either. Opposition leader Angus Taylor says parents, not the government should decide what their kids see online. He's effectively saying that the government shouldn't be coming out with new laws when they've butchered things like the social media ban.

Dr Vincent Hurley (2:56)

I mean, the government should be focused on that because it's not working. So then going off and starting off on some other thing, we're sceptical.

SPEAKER_4 (3:03)

I think there's good reason to be sceptical about that.

Chris Spyrou (3:06)

That's him on Sky there. He's also flagging censorship concerns, saying he fears this is Labour's attempt to censor the internet, a sentiment shared by Pauline Hanson, who last week said Australia should move away from government censorship, and not build the Orwellian machinery for it. And that was in context to this opt out, opt in discussion that's been happening at the moment.

Sacha Barbour Gatt (3:26)

I think the tide is well and truly behind the push for an opt in or an opt out. I think the government's playing safer by going for an opt out. So it's your default, you're in the algorithm. Lots of people wouldn't even think twice about it, and they would just keep scrolling. But for people who do want to take control of their feed, or for parents as well, I think it would be a really strong tool for parents to say, well, yes, you can have your Facebook or your Instagram, but you're only allowed to see posts from people who you follow. So I do really think that despite the concerns from the Coalition and One Nation, I can't see that much strong opposition building against this because it's about protecting kids at the end of the day.