0:00

We're now at a point where tech is

0:02

stronger than ever. ever. We're seeing the power consolidated

0:04

in just a few tech companies. And so a

0:06

a result, we need to we need to rely

0:08

on government to be able to regulate these

0:10

things. If we're If we're doing things, if we're

0:12

taking steps that we're saying, going to is gonna

0:14

help it it doesn't, the next time we push

0:16

for something that maybe is more targeted, is

0:18

maybe is more proven, to say who's to say

0:20

whether the public is gonna support something like

0:22

that? that? Hello

0:39

and welcome to Tech Won't Save Us, Made

0:41

in Partnership with the your host, magazine. and

0:43

this week my guest is Marks, and this Cam

0:45

is an is editor at is an associate And based

0:47

on that name, maybe you can tell

0:50

where Cam is from. where Cam You've probably heard

0:52

about this policy in Australia in the government

0:54

wants to ban people under the age

0:56

of the of 16 using social media platforms, or

0:58

at least some social media platforms. It has

1:00

kicked up a lot of debate, not just

1:02

in Australia, but around the world as other

1:05

countries, or at least the media in

1:07

other countries, start to talk about about this

1:09

is something that should actually be considered in

1:11

their jurisdiction. in their jurisdictions. wanted to talk

1:13

to somebody in Australia in understands these

1:15

issues these issues well and just run me through

1:17

me through is happening there, but can

1:19

actually dig into this as we do

1:21

on tech Save Us to understand what

1:23

this policy is, what the implications of

1:25

it would be would whether this is

1:28

really the right approach that we

1:30

should be taking. we Because because we recognize

1:32

that we should be regulating social

1:34

media platforms that they do not have

1:36

all of our best interests at

1:38

heart are they are making their decisions. does

1:40

that that mean we simply under the age age

1:42

of leave leave everyone else to use these

1:44

platforms regardless of what the companies do

1:46

with them the the decisions that they make

1:48

about how they should work. I'm not so

1:51

sure about that and neither is Cam as

1:53

you'll hear in our discussion. I'm

1:55

not not even wholly opposed to

1:57

age limits on social media or

1:59

certain things online. it seems to me

2:01

that if we have issues with how

2:03

these companies are operating when it comes

2:05

to the interaction of people under 16

2:07

with using these platforms, maybe that means

2:09

there are issues with these platforms that

2:11

will affect everyone else who is using

2:14

them as well. And instead of just

2:16

banning people up to the age of

2:18

16, we should be putting much stricter

2:20

regulations on how these platforms actually work

2:22

to make sure that they better align

2:24

with the values that our societies have,

2:26

how we want these platforms to work

2:28

to make sure that we maximize the

2:30

public good of them and minimize the

2:32

harms, instead of just doing a blunt ban

2:35

of users of certain ages that we're not

2:37

even totally sure how it will be enforced?

2:39

So I think you're really going to enjoy

2:41

this conversation because we dig not only into

2:44

the policy but also the interests that are

2:46

pushing it, you know, why Australia is considering

2:48

it right now, and also the broader context

2:50

of Australian tech regulation in general because it

2:53

feels like this country of 20 odd million

2:55

people is actually taking a lot of bold

2:57

moves even if you don't agree with all

2:59

of them in a way that countries many

3:01

times their size don't even attempt. So I

3:04

found this conversation fascinating, fascinating, I love talking

3:06

with CAM and I think you're really going

3:08

to enjoy it as well. If you do,

3:10

make sure to leave a five-star view on

3:13

your podcast platform of choice. You can also

3:15

share the show on social media or with

3:17

any friends or colleagues who you think would

3:19

learn from it, and certainly ones who are,

3:21

you know, skeptical of the role that social

3:24

media is playing in our lives and might

3:26

be open to a policy like this. Maybe

3:28

this helps to drive a bit of a

3:30

discussion there as to what a better approach

3:33

might be. And if you do want to

3:35

support the work that goes into making Tech

3:37

Won't Save us every single week, get access

3:39

to the premium full-length interviews from our Data

3:41

Vampire series that are slowly being published on

3:44

our premium feed for Patreon supporters, you can

3:46

join people like the highly sensitive gaze, which

3:48

is a band in Los Angeles that supports

3:50

the show, along with Jim from Atlanta, Shane

3:53

and Dublin, and Dave from Hamilton, Ontario, by

3:55

going to patron.com/Tech Won't Save, where you can

3:57

become a supporter as well. Thanks so much

3:59

and enjoy this week's conversation. Cam, welcome to

4:02

Tech Won't Save Us. So good to be

4:04

here. I'm really excited to have you. you

4:06

on the show. You know, we've been in

4:08

touch for a while, even got a coffee

4:10

or a beer or something at one point

4:13

when I was in Sydney. So it's great

4:15

to finally have you on the show to

4:17

talk about a proper Australian issue. Yeah, and

4:19

Will Kay, I've been a big fan of

4:22

you and the podcast, I mean, the way

4:24

that you've covered, not just take, you know,

4:26

internationally, but looking at the experience outside of

4:28

the American experience. The rest of us out

4:30

here, I think it's been really great. Thanks

4:33

so much. And yeah, you know, maybe it

4:35

helps that I'm coming from outside the US

4:37

as well. So, you know, you got a

4:39

bit more of that perspective in there. But

4:42

I wanted to start with that broader view,

4:44

right? I'm sure a lot of people have

4:46

heard about this ban of under 16s from

4:48

using social media that Australia has embarked upon

4:50

and that a lot of other countries are

4:53

talking about now as a result of that.

4:55

And some countries were talking about it before

4:57

anyway, but it has really gotten into the

4:59

conversation because of what Australia is doing. But

5:02

before we dig into that specific policy, I

5:04

wanted to ask you because coming from Canada,

5:06

I often feel like Canada is really behind

5:08

in talking about tech policy and is often

5:10

just kind of a follower of what other

5:13

countries are doing. But I feel like when

5:15

I look at Australia, you know, for a

5:17

country of just over 20 million people, it

5:19

feels like it is actually trying to move

5:22

things forward. Maybe it doesn't always get things

5:24

right and kind of messes things up sometimes,

5:26

but it feels like it's much more focused

5:28

on trying to get some degree of like

5:30

control over what these tech companies are doing

5:33

in a way that you maybe don't expect

5:35

of a country of its size. I wonder

5:37

how you kind of reflect on that as

5:39

someone who is down there. Yeah, I mean,

5:42

okay, it's funny, I think we feel an

5:44

affinity with our Canadian brothers and sisters. I

5:46

think we call them snow waltzes or maybe

5:48

we're, I guess, beach Canadians, but the approach

5:51

that we've taken is, I think it comes

5:53

from the context of a few things. not

5:55

well known outside of Australia. Is that Australia

5:57

actually fun enough ends up being the testing

5:59

ground for a lot of big tech things

6:02

because we are a country that is similar

6:04

and demographic to a lot of the other

6:06

bigger Western countries. You know, we're quite a

6:08

off country but we are kind of small

6:11

and so for quite a while we've been

6:13

the testing ground for a lot of their

6:15

product features you know Google and Facebook or

6:17

meta are always testing out new things here

6:19

to see how they kind of go like

6:22

I remember I think they first tested out

6:24

the idea of hiding likes on Instagram posts

6:26

down here before rolling out to the rest

6:28

of the world but at the same time

6:31

we've kind of turned that back on them

6:33

and also turned ourselves into a bit of

6:35

a bit of a testing ground about some

6:37

forms of tech regulation here. I think the

6:39

kind of optimistic view of it is that

6:42

the context of Australia is a bit different.

6:44

We don't have the same kind of free

6:46

speech protections, but as a result we've kind

6:48

of got greater speech regulation. We also don't

6:51

have like a massive tech industry or at

6:53

the very least like we don't have a

6:55

huge like representation. of big tech company, you

6:57

know, employees in industry in Australia. So politicians

6:59

are not to the same extent are worried

7:02

about, you know, pissing off constituents or an

7:04

industry here that's drastically going to, you know,

7:06

lobby against them or affect their kind of

7:08

re-election chances. So as a result, we've kind

7:11

of done a lot of interesting things. The

7:13

more cynical view is that Australia, more so

7:15

than almost any country in the world, has

7:17

a highly concentrated media market. In particular, News

7:19

Corp, which started out down here and is

7:22

now, across the world, has a huge influence

7:24

over public policy in Australia. You know, they're

7:26

very, very active in campaigns. And they've kind

7:28

of been on the front foot for a

7:31

lot of pushing for regulation for tech companies

7:33

as well. And so that's how we've ended

7:35

up with things like the News Media Bargaining

7:37

Code, you know, this kind of world-first plan

7:39

to force tech companies to... negotiate with news

7:42

media publishers here and you know essentially like

7:44

pay them for their work and that's kind

7:46

of how we ended up with the social

7:48

media ban as well which is that you

7:51

know there was this real populist campaign led

7:53

by news corps publications here to get tech

7:55

companies to as they would say you do

7:57

something about the harms that are being done

8:00

on social media you can probably guess some

8:02

of the reasons why this campaign came along.

8:04

But yeah, for whatever reason, whether you think

8:06

it's because the difference in, you know, kind

8:08

of the way that the country is or

8:11

the way that we have different players and

8:13

invest in interest here, we've ended up with

8:15

some really interesting tech regulation that you see

8:17

playing out in all kinds of different ways.

8:20

That makes a lot of sense and it's

8:22

really interesting as well right to think about

8:24

how on the one hand Australia is very

8:26

similar to the United States Canada these types

8:28

of countries so it's a good market to

8:31

test these products but then on the other

8:33

hand you know it has a different set

8:35

of interests so that it takes different policy

8:37

decisions as a result of that you know

8:40

whether it's on tech policy or for example

8:42

one of the things that I follow really

8:44

closely is EV policy as well. And I

8:46

know a lot of the Western automakers are

8:48

watching the Australian market closely to see what

8:51

happens when Chinese brands are allowed to sell

8:53

next to them as well, which is really

8:55

interesting. But as you say, Australia has this

8:57

very powerful news media industry with News Corp

9:00

in particular, and so that plays into the

9:02

types of policies that get adopted as a

9:04

result of it. You know, up here in

9:06

Canada, we followed you with the News Media

9:08

Bargaining Code, and I wouldn't be surprised if

9:11

now as a result of seeing the push

9:13

to pass this ban of under 16s that

9:15

we're going to start seriously having that kind

9:17

of conversation because you guys pushed it forward

9:20

first, not so much because we're a kind

9:22

of like a tech policy innovator or something

9:24

like that. It's like, oh Australia has done

9:26

it. They're kind of similar to us. Maybe

9:28

we should consider something like this. Yeah, for

9:31

sure. I mean, look, I think it's interesting,

9:33

you know, the government likes being able to

9:35

say that they can be a world leader

9:37

in this stuff. And, you know, speaking about

9:40

the kind of popularity of these policies, big

9:42

tech in Australia, like a lot of the

9:44

rest of the world, isn't super popular. And

9:46

sometimes, you know, companies like Facebook have at

9:49

times, some of the worst. capability ratings. Not

9:51

that much better, often about the same as

9:53

some news media companies, but you know there

9:55

is a widespread support for policies that crack

9:57

down on big tech. You know it's a

10:00

way of showing yourself as a strong government.

10:02

The website here is that you know like

10:04

to an extent I don't think that because

10:06

of the size of Australia, the big tech

10:09

armies themselves aren't super concerned about what's happening

10:11

down here, as in like, you know, this

10:13

isn't a massive moneymaker for them. They've all

10:15

seen what happens when we kind of institute

10:17

policies like the news media bargaining code, which

10:20

then started to like find, I guess, imitators

10:22

or people kind of taking inspiration from it.

10:24

around the rest of the world. So they've

10:26

definitely kind of caught on to the idea

10:29

that maybe they should care or what's happening

10:31

down here. But at the same time, I

10:33

just don't see from them as much of

10:35

a, you know, like the warbeing efforts that

10:37

you see overseas as much, because for them,

10:40

it's not a massive line on the balance

10:42

sheet. And so as a result, you know,

10:44

we're saying that governments feel like they can

10:46

pass these policies, they're not necessarily going to

10:49

face a huge amount of opposition from the

10:51

tech companies. it's popular and also of course

10:53

like you know the tech companies have a

10:55

lot of money and so what might be

10:57

not a massive amount for the tech companies

11:00

but can end up being like quite a

11:02

lot for Australian industries down here and so

11:04

you know like the Newsome bargaining code which

11:06

we can maybe talk about or not but

11:09

like in summary like it had a intention

11:11

to fund journalism and doesn't in a very

11:13

kind of bizarre way that you know people

11:15

could call like wing tax or whatever but

11:17

like Essentially, like, you know, it has funded

11:20

a lot of journalism here, regardless of the

11:22

actual process of it. And now at the

11:24

moment they are looking to many of the

11:26

deals that were signed under the News Media

11:29

Banking Code, or should I say, like, kind

11:31

of in response to it, have finished. And,

11:33

you know, there's this push for News Media

11:35

companies to be able to sign new agreements.

11:37

The tech companies are a lot less. Happy

11:40

to do so. We've obviously seen this transition

11:42

over the last few years as places like

11:44

Meadow have just said. We're kind of out

11:46

of the journalism supporting business is not really

11:49

our problem anymore. And so as a result,

11:51

you know, this kind of context where the

11:53

companies being like, well, we don't want to

11:55

be part of this anymore, has actually created

11:58

the conditions for the social media band because

12:00

places like News Corp are looking for a

12:02

way to, in my opinion, pressure these tech.

12:04

and you know make the implicit argument that

12:06

they don't really have social license to operate

12:09

so as a result as a way of

12:11

getting money out of them in other aspects.

12:13

That's so fascinating and we'll move more specifically

12:15

onto the ban you know in the proposal

12:18

and what it's going to mean in just

12:20

a second but I wanted to pick up

12:22

on that piece in particular right because you

12:24

said that the companies are not too worried

12:26

often about what is happening down in Australia

12:29

because you know it's a relatively small market

12:31

compared to the other places like that. I

12:33

wonder if you think that changes at all

12:35

because, you know, as you're saying, when the

12:38

news media bargaining code passed in Australia, Google

12:40

and meta, you know, made these deals and

12:42

kind of just made it work, right? But

12:44

when Canada moved forward and did something similar,

12:46

Google has made a deal with publishers in

12:49

Canada, but meta just said, note we're just

12:51

removing all news links from our platform and

12:53

both of the companies started to, I feel

12:55

like, talk a lot more aggressively about these

12:58

types of proposals to make sure that they

13:00

didn't expand to California in places like that.

13:02

Do you feel like maybe they start to

13:04

pay more attention to what's happening in Australia

13:06

because they get more worried that what happens

13:09

there might spread to other places and they

13:11

need to head it off before that can

13:13

happen? Yeah, well I think it's hard to

13:15

say at the moment because we're still in

13:18

the midst of it. I mean, I think

13:20

like not to get ahead of ourselves, but

13:22

the social media ban in terms of the

13:24

like commercial aspect of it, I don't think

13:26

it's a massive commercial aspect. So their thoughts

13:29

about what they're doing in response to that

13:31

might not reflect their response to a policy

13:33

that might have cost them a lot more.

13:35

So, you know, like I said, but they're

13:38

kind of looking at So renewing these partnerships,

13:40

Meda says they're not. Google has indicated in

13:42

reporting that they're saying, well, get back into

13:44

some partnerships, but they're going to be worth

13:47

a lot less. You know, they clearly know

13:49

that the news media industry is a lot

13:51

less powerful than it was, even just like

13:53

a few years ago. I think we're kind

13:55

of seeing tech companies in Australia, I think,

13:58

feel like more or less were kind of

14:00

coming to a little bit more of a

14:02

stalemate. But yeah, I think, I mean, definitely

14:04

in terms of how that they're saying the

14:07

rest of how they're saying the rest of

14:09

the rest of the rest of the rest

14:11

of the rest of the rest of the

14:13

rest of the world the response to Canada

14:15

was obviously a lot stronger. I still just

14:18

think that to some extent, you know, the

14:20

only reason that, you know, the mother ship,

14:22

the big officers in the US repaying attention

14:24

to what Australia is doing is really because

14:27

they don't want it to happen anywhere else

14:29

if it's significant, but if not, they're kind

14:31

of happy to let the kitties table down

14:33

in Australia deal with it. Yeah, that makes

14:35

a lot of sense, unfortunately. But let's move

14:38

on to talking about the social media potential

14:40

ban of under 16s, you know, whatever is

14:42

going to come of it. So you were

14:44

talking a lot about the leverage that News

14:47

Corp has had and how News Corp, which

14:49

of course is the company that runs Fox

14:51

News in the United States, has been running

14:53

this campaign across its media properties in Australia

14:55

in order to advocate for social media to

14:58

be banned for under 16s, which of course

15:00

is the policy that the government has now

15:02

moved forward. What would you say is driving

15:04

this ban? You know, is it just the

15:07

news corp thing? Like, what else is behind

15:09

this? Yeah, for sure. I mean, I think

15:11

like we've seen around the world, there's been

15:13

a real push over the last few years

15:15

around the ideas of what tech companies are

15:18

doing and how they're treating children. And I

15:20

think, you know, saying we can look at

15:22

the news corp kind of role in this

15:24

in a second, but like, you know, the

15:27

broader context around the world is that, you

15:29

know, you know, what they knew about how

15:31

teens were feeling when they used Instagram and

15:33

just to the kind of you know the

15:35

vibes like people for the first time you

15:38

know we're seeing generations of parents look down

15:40

at their kids and saying you know my

15:42

kid has had a mobile phone since they're

15:44

11 years old I see them using it

15:47

I don't like it you know I think

15:49

that it's replacing things like in person interaction

15:51

and you know generally knowing that around the

15:53

world also like kids are for the most

15:56

part West happy than they have been in

15:58

the past they're reporting more mental health issues

16:00

and even you know things as severe as

16:02

suicide attempts and people have kind of linked

16:04

that to you know what they kind of

16:07

pointed the mobile phones as that seeing the

16:09

big change over the last few years and

16:11

saying we've got to do something about that

16:13

perhaps the kind of front of a risk

16:16

over the last year or two is the,

16:18

I think, social psychologist, I think that's the

16:20

great term, Jonathan Hade, who's an author who

16:22

published a kind of pop psychology book called

16:24

The Anxious Generation, which makes the case that

16:27

this generation of young people have essentially much

16:29

worse off as a result of using mobile

16:31

phones and social media. Now what the actual

16:33

real research says from experts who do actually

16:36

conduct studies on young people and understand this

16:38

kind of stuff and look at it really

16:40

really closely is it's a lot more complicated

16:42

than that and you know the kind of

16:44

consensus is that it's very hard to know

16:47

whether social media itself is making children less

16:49

happy, more mentally unwell, or having other negative

16:51

outcomes? And essentially that we need kind of

16:53

more research on this because it's very hard

16:56

to draw out things, for example, like, yes,

16:58

like kids have obviously had mobile phones, you

17:00

know, only in the last few years. But

17:02

a lot of the things have changed around

17:04

the world as well. Like you talk about

17:07

it all the time in this podcast, but

17:09

of course, like, they're massive societal trends and

17:11

global trends that are making a lot of

17:13

people less happy. And so we can that

17:16

purely to mobile phones is kind of a

17:18

very elementary link. And of course, I should

17:20

mention as well, social media allows teens and

17:22

people for wages to connect with other people

17:24

as well. So there are benefits, you know,

17:27

having this kind of nuance. The context is

17:29

that, you know, there's this fear about what

17:31

social media companies and the products have done

17:33

to young people's brains and then you kind

17:36

of have this push from a there was

17:38

really two campaigns led by mainstream media companies

17:40

News Corp which you mentioned before which was

17:42

I think the campaign was called Let Them

17:45

Be Kids and one also led by a

17:47

radio host here in Australia who works in

17:49

Nova which fun enough I think is or

17:51

was partly owned by Lockon Murdoch as well

17:53

which is called 36 months, which was calling

17:56

to raise the minimum age of social media

17:58

use from 13 to 16. So, you know,

18:00

against this kind of like round swell of

18:02

international kind support for changing something like this,

18:05

capped off by these two really mainstream campaigns,

18:07

you ended up having both the Prime Minister

18:09

and the opposition leader, so the heads of

18:11

both are major parties saying that they wanted

18:13

to ban teens from social media. There was

18:16

a lot of chat about that, but the

18:18

actual process of kind of creating a bill

18:20

and legislating it happened very short order in

18:22

pretty much a week or two. and then

18:25

as of last week they've passed the legislation

18:27

saying that Australia will ban teens under 16

18:29

from being able to create accounts on social

18:31

media and you've got a year tech companies

18:33

to figure out exactly how you're going to

18:36

do it. That gives us a really good

18:38

picture of what played out there so thank

18:40

you for that and it's also really interesting

18:42

to see how you know the influence of

18:45

major interests in Australia can push forward a

18:47

policy like this because you know anyone who

18:49

follows Australia knows the influence that news corp

18:51

and that these media organizations have down there,

18:53

and that media can have in many countries

18:56

when they use their influence in order to

18:58

drive a particular policy or position. Now you

19:00

were talking about the evidence behind this, right?

19:02

And I think how you described it really

19:05

lines up a lot with how I have

19:07

understood this issue, right, where there is a

19:09

legitimate concern here about the broader effects of

19:11

social media, the effects on mental health, but

19:13

it often feels like that is conflated or

19:16

exaggerated in order to try to create this

19:18

like moral panic that is happening and that

19:20

people like Jonathan Hate have really picked up

19:22

on, which is to say that yeah there

19:25

probably should be something done here and we

19:27

should be looking at this issue but is

19:29

an outright ban really the right way to

19:31

approach it or should we be trying to

19:33

look at something more nuanced here? Why is

19:36

it that the government has gone with this

19:38

bad approach? You know, you've been explaining the

19:40

media push behind it, so maybe that's just

19:42

all of it. And what is the real

19:45

goal that they're trying to achieve here? Like,

19:47

what are they saying that this policy is

19:49

going to do? Yeah, so I mean, look,

19:51

I think there's obviously a lot of players

19:54

involved in this, but, you know, setting the

19:56

table, like, it is a widely popular policy,

19:58

depending on which you look at, there's

20:00

somewhere between like 55 to 77, I

20:03

think it was, percent of people support

20:05

banning children from social media. So, you

20:07

know, doing something like this is very

20:09

popular. And I should also add that

20:11

like, you know, all the time we

20:13

talk about polling and policies have a,

20:15

you know, certain support or whatever, like

20:17

there was a misinformation bill, which you

20:19

might get a chance to chat about

20:21

later, which was broadly, I think, supported

20:23

or always the, you know, the idea

20:25

of doing something about misinformation on social

20:27

media is broadly supported. What's different about

20:29

this policy is that not only is

20:31

it popular, but I do think it

20:33

actually really matters to a lot of

20:35

people. A lot of parents out there

20:37

are worried about their kids, particularly after

20:39

COVID, after we spent a few years

20:41

indoors and people were so worried about

20:43

their children who lost all this direct

20:45

face-to-face communication. So a policy like this

20:47

not only is like, you know, a

20:49

lot of people like, but also is

20:51

potentially one that is I think like

20:53

a vote getter, a vote change or

20:55

a vote winner, whatever you want to

20:57

call it. The other thing is like

20:59

if you think about it from like

21:01

a political perspective, it's a pretty good

21:03

policy to have in terms of you

21:05

set a war and the war itself

21:07

was kind of created as a very

21:10

basic framework. It says Social media companies

21:12

have to take reasonable steps to restrict

21:14

children from under 16 years old from

21:16

using their platforms. Reasonable steps is going

21:18

to get defined in the next year

21:20

or so. Australia has an internet regulator

21:22

called the E Safety Commissioner. If you've

21:24

done that, like you know if you

21:26

said you guys need to ban this

21:28

and then you said we'll give you

21:30

some rough guidelines and the government is

21:32

also running a trial looking at some

21:34

of the different technologies of how to

21:36

figure out people's ages online to be

21:38

able to restrict 16 year olds and

21:40

under. Then like you know you've kind

21:42

of done everything doesn't really cost anything,

21:44

you know, it's like in terms of

21:46

like policies There's very little downside for

21:48

the government. It's only they have to

21:50

you know balance the budget and I

21:52

can see from their perspective Why it's

21:54

something that they kind of want to

21:56

push at the same time? It undercuts

21:58

a lot of the work that Australia

22:00

has done, you know I was talking

22:02

about some of the big pieces of

22:04

regulation, but some of the other stuff

22:06

that doesn't get quite as much attention

22:08

in Australia is, like I mentioned before,

22:10

we have this regulator called the E

22:12

Safety Commissioner. Started out as actually the

22:14

Children's E Safety Commissioner in the mid-2010,

22:17

a lot of what it has done

22:19

at the start was working with tech

22:21

companies essentially more or less is like

22:23

almost like an ombudsman or almost like

22:25

the Australian government kind of like a

22:27

liaison to big tech like almost like

22:29

an ambassador or something what the role

22:31

did was a lot of it was

22:33

just getting compliance about how children were

22:35

having bad experiences online everything from like

22:37

cyber bullying to image-based abuse because of

22:39

the kind of relationships that set up

22:41

with the tech companies, it was able

22:43

to report stuff and get them acted

22:45

on quickly. So essentially helping Australians navigate

22:47

our tech companies' existing policies, you know,

22:49

in terms of like, you know, that's

22:51

not necessarily the most powerful role, but

22:53

in terms of like... kind of what

22:55

it did. You know, I do hear

22:57

from a lot of people that it

22:59

was of great assistance when they, you

23:01

know, had problems like this. And then

23:03

they've kind of added more and more

23:05

power to this role to be able

23:07

to regulate the tech companies. And so

23:09

over the last few years it's been

23:11

coming up with these online safety codes,

23:13

which are regulations that were essentially what

23:15

it does is it kind of says

23:17

hey tech providers everything from social media

23:19

companies to search providers you have to

23:21

come up with rules about how you're

23:24

keeping children and Australians safe online and

23:26

so I'm saying you know these are

23:28

the things that we're worried about we're

23:30

worried about you know abhorrent violent material,

23:32

child sex abuse material, you need to

23:34

come up with rules that say how

23:36

you're doing with this. and then I'll

23:38

decide whether those rules that you've kind

23:40

of created for yourself are good enough.

23:42

If they're not good enough, then I

23:44

will come up with my own. In

23:46

most cases, the tech companies kind of

23:48

came up with stuff that met the

23:50

standards of what this regulator wanted, and

23:52

then it says, now you have to

23:54

put them into place, and then you

23:56

have to report on how you go

23:58

with them, and then if you don't

24:00

reach standards that we expect that will

24:02

either improve these rules, or we'll rewrite.

24:04

for the most part, these tech companies

24:06

have not end up facing any fines

24:08

or anything. It's mostly been like, you

24:10

know, like, as I kind of described,

24:12

it's pretty co-regulatory, like it's pretty friendly

24:14

with these companies. But as a first

24:16

step of kind of being like, what

24:18

are you doing? This is the way

24:20

we need to head towards. Think quite

24:22

effective. There has been a little bit

24:24

of fighting with Eon Musk over Twitter,

24:26

who obviously, as you might know, is

24:29

not super cooperative with some of these

24:31

schemes. But generally, you know, it has

24:33

been about this kind of softer approach

24:35

to regulation that has helped, I think,

24:37

at least a little bit, in terms

24:39

of companies and how they are training

24:41

Australian citizens and, you know, how they're

24:43

expected to behave in Australia under our

24:45

rules. When you kind of introduce this

24:47

tech social media ban for under 16s,

24:49

all of a sudden all the kind

24:51

of progress that they've made on saying

24:53

we needed to do more about these

24:55

kinds of things, something kind of goes

24:57

out the window because rather than being

24:59

like what's closely regulated and understand how

25:01

children are using the technology, we're just

25:03

saying you can't use it. And at

25:05

the same time, the saying you can't

25:07

use it and saying tech companies, you're

25:09

responsible for keeping kids off it. The

25:11

Australian government, the prime minister, everyone involved

25:13

with said we expect kids will get

25:15

around this in some ways. It's about

25:17

creating friction. It's not about stopping every

25:19

single teen from getting on social media,

25:21

but it's about making it harder. The

25:23

funny thing is that you've ended up

25:25

with the system where you've said for

25:27

so long we've been trying to encourage

25:29

tech companies to change their products in

25:31

Australia to, you know, for example, customize

25:33

them, change features, they're more friendly for

25:36

Australian users and in this case children.

25:38

And then all of a sudden we're

25:40

going to get rid of those features

25:42

and we expect that you're now just

25:44

going to use the products without them

25:46

being customized for children and possibly facing

25:48

the very problems that they were trying

25:50

to regulate them out of by changing

25:52

the features. Now I'm just going to

25:54

be exposed to that because in the

25:56

eyes of tech companies, to try to

25:58

make sure that they are taking that

26:00

are helping to address some of the

26:03

problems without needing like explicit regulation to

26:05

affect every different thing and I feel

26:07

like you know for me for my

26:09

approach to it this has kind of

26:11

been my biggest criticism of this attempt

26:13

at a ban right you know it

26:15

doesn't differentiate between the different users, it

26:17

just says, okay, if you're under a

26:19

certain age you can't access things and

26:21

if you're above it you can, but

26:23

if these, you know, particular features, if

26:25

the way that these products are designed

26:27

are such that people under 16 are

26:29

being harmed from them, then you would

26:31

imagine people over 16 or 16 and

26:33

above are also being harmed by them

26:35

in certain ways. So why shouldn't we

26:37

be having a discussion not just about

26:39

banning social media for a certain age,

26:41

but talking about the way that these

26:43

platforms work? the way that these different

26:45

features are designed, the way that the

26:48

algorithms work, all these sorts of things

26:50

to say, okay, there are certain aspects

26:52

of social media that we don't agree

26:54

with in our societies that don't align

26:56

with our values, and we should be

26:58

targeting those instead of just saying this

27:00

whole group of people is off of

27:02

social media completely. Yeah, totally. I mean,

27:04

this is like a really interesting aspect

27:06

to it, which is that we kind

27:08

of acknowledge in society that children are

27:10

more vulnerable, and so we expect to

27:12

take greater steps to protect them. But,

27:14

you know, implicitly, when you take a

27:16

step to protect someone, you also kind

27:18

of infringe upon their rights. And we

27:20

acknowledge, for example, Instagram, run by Meadow,

27:22

obviously has a feature that it calls

27:24

children's accounts. And what it does is

27:26

it changes the platforms in a few

27:28

ways. including restricting children that can't message

27:30

people who aren't other teens. So, presumably

27:32

the idea is to stop, you know,

27:35

any exploitation or untoward communications between adults

27:37

and kids. Obviously that is a step

27:39

that's been taken to protect teens, but

27:41

at the same time, of course, that's

27:43

like literally limiting their ability to communicate

27:45

on the platform. It is, I just

27:47

find it endlessly funny that like we've

27:49

ended up in this position where Around

27:51

the world, you said, there's a lot

27:53

more push for regulation for tech for

27:55

children. might say some of the features

27:57

that are pushed for children and have

27:59

been pushed on other people. But generally

28:01

I kind of see it actually almost

28:03

as like an uncomfortable bifurcation where we

28:05

say we want to have kids, we're

28:07

more worried about them, but once you

28:09

hit 16 you're kind of on your

28:11

own, anything that happens to you as

28:13

a result of these platforms, well you've

28:15

kind of taken the choice. Whereas I

28:17

think like for most of us There's

28:19

not really that much of a choice

28:22

using social media other than whether you

28:24

use it or not. Wouldn't it be

28:26

great if we had some more of

28:28

these kind of nuanced conversations about how

28:30

we could regulate for adults about some

28:32

of the things that you raise as

28:34

well? But unfortunately, I think this is

28:36

very much this false dichotomy where it's

28:38

like if you're trying to do anything

28:40

that in any way changes platforms, you're

28:42

somehow infringing on free speech. and you

28:44

know this kind of like it's almost

28:46

like a trump card right like anything

28:48

that you might do for example some

28:50

of the proposed changes in this misinformation

28:52

war which was pushed and then ultimately

28:54

ditched by the government you know the

28:56

opposition was not like well you know

28:58

how do we kind of balance this

29:00

about with ideas of speech how do

29:02

we make sure that we can you

29:04

still have good political discussion but maybe

29:06

stop some of the speech that is

29:09

inhibiting political discussion because it's you know

29:11

bullshit and it's overpowering any discourse it's

29:13

just you're either for or like limitless

29:15

free speech or you're against it. Unfortunately

29:17

I think that ends up stopping a

29:19

lot of attempts regulation but when it

29:21

comes to children we're not as much

29:23

worried about that and you know that

29:25

the children themselves I think have a

29:27

right to political communication. And interestingly, that's

29:29

actually been flagged as a way that

29:31

this social media team band might actually

29:33

be challenged in court, but at the

29:35

same time, like, I would love if

29:37

we could have a bit more of

29:39

the, you know, the thoughts that we

29:41

have about children, we decide that and

29:43

how they use technology and how it

29:45

might be affecting them, that, you know,

29:47

our approach to it wouldn't just change

29:49

the day that someone reaches 16 years

29:51

old and one day or whatever. We're

29:55

sponsored today by Audio Maverick. A new

29:57

nine-part documentary podcast about one of the

30:00

most figures in radio, Hyman Brown. Explore

30:02

the Golden Age of Radio through the

30:04

life of this famous New Yorker whose

30:06

programs brought millions of families around their

30:08

radios each night. Audio Maverick features archival

30:11

audio and contemporary interviews with media scholars

30:13

and podcasters, learn about the birth of

30:15

radio, height of radio drama, and discussions

30:17

about the new generation of podcasting audio

30:19

Mavericks that Brown inspired. As a podcast

30:22

listener, you'll love learning about Nikola Tesla

30:24

and the history of radio. Plus, hearing

30:26

incredible clips of famous shows like Dick

30:28

Tracy in Mystery Theater. Produced by Cune

30:30

TV and the Hymen Brown Archive, this

30:33

series covers decades of history in nine

30:35

episodes. Subscribe to Audio Maverick in your

30:37

podcast app now. That's Audio Maverick brought

30:39

to you by Cune TV. I

30:44

feel like because countries like Canada and Australia

30:46

have different understandings of free speech than say

30:49

the United States that there's a lot more

30:51

opportunity to have that kind of a conversation

30:53

around the different tweaks to these platforms around

30:55

the different ways that we want to change

30:58

them that might encourage a different kind of

31:00

dialogue and conversation on them a different kind

31:02

of usage pattern than we typically see on

31:04

these platforms, but that these very commercial social

31:06

networks that we have now are not designed

31:09

to engage with or to encourage because at

31:11

the end of the day they want to

31:13

increase the ad profits that they are making

31:15

and the engagement that they're receiving, they're less

31:18

concerned about the broader public benefits to these

31:20

interactions and what these platforms are providing. And

31:22

to me, that feels like the biggest missed

31:24

opportunity of what Australia has embarked on. You

31:27

know, I'm not against talking about regulating social

31:29

media or whether things should be a bit

31:31

different at different ages depending on who is

31:33

using them, but it feels like this blunt

31:36

approach has unfortunately really missed the mark and

31:38

missed out on what could have been a

31:40

very productive conversation, which as you say, it

31:42

often gets sidelined by often disingenuous arguments around

31:45

free speech and not to say that free

31:47

speech is not an important thing but it's

31:49

this particular conception of free speech that is

31:51

often tied up in these discourses that really

31:54

can push things away from where they would

31:56

be more productive and actually lead us in

31:58

a better direction. Yeah, for sure. And I

32:00

think like, you know, the greatest example of

32:03

how Australia's, you know, this social media ban

32:05

kind of undermined a lot of the other

32:07

work that Australia was doing, it was the

32:09

last day of Parliament this year that they

32:12

passed the social media ban. and the Australian

32:14

government was trying to pass through a whole

32:16

bunch of stuff before the end of the

32:18

the speculation they might go to an election

32:20

before parliament sits next year or if not

32:23

either way they're kind of running out of

32:25

time this parliament and so they wanted to

32:27

pass a bunch of stuff that they've been

32:29

promising so they I think I'm not passing

32:32

somewhere close to 40 bills including the social

32:34

media ban which actually got like a lot

32:36

a lot of attention there was actually a

32:38

huge amount of public interest about this and

32:41

in the end quite a significant amount of

32:43

opposition despite the fact that both major parties

32:45

ended up supporting it. But one of the

32:47

other bills that passed that day was some

32:50

amendments, some long-awaited amendments to the Privacy Act,

32:52

and in that was an obligation for Australia's

32:54

information commissioner, who's kind of also a privacy

32:56

commissioner, who's responsible for privacy protections in Australia.

32:59

there was something that required that she would

33:01

set up a children's online privacy code, which

33:03

was to create a new set of obligations

33:05

for online companies, including social media companies, to

33:08

have greater obligations about how they take care

33:10

of children's data and their privacy online. They

33:12

passed out at the exact same time that

33:14

they actually banned kids from using social media.

33:17

So at the same time that they're actually

33:19

giving them greater protections and saying, maybe they

33:21

can use these products, but maybe we need

33:23

to think about it in a slightly different

33:26

different way. at the same time completely wiped

33:28

out this this more long worked-on approach to

33:30

policy was wiped out with a ban that

33:32

essentially was kind of headed up by the

33:34

government in and a real populist campaign. That's

33:37

hilarious and so unfortunate at the same time

33:39

to hear that. Does that suggest to you

33:41

that this like social media ban, yes we

33:43

know it was pushed by media and you

33:46

know news corp in particular and in certain

33:48

interest does that suggest to you that, you

33:50

know, the government really pursued this policy because

33:52

it feels like they're going to an election

33:55

early in the new year, whether it's right

33:57

away or after a few months, and that

33:59

they figured it would be kind of good

34:01

electorally to do that? Like, is it that

34:04

craven the calculus? Yes, yeah totally. And I

34:06

think like we actually saw this at our

34:08

last federal election where like, you know, the

34:10

government actually proposed like some bizarre wars including

34:13

like tech companies either need to know who

34:15

a user was or if they didn't, they

34:17

would be then responsible for as the publisher

34:19

would be sued for defamation. So if you

34:22

think about like kind of like getting rid

34:24

of section 230 in West they knew who

34:26

the person was behind the account in which

34:28

case they would then like forward on the

34:31

defamation suit. So you know kind of as

34:33

a result you kind of had this policy

34:35

where essentially that was going to require the

34:37

end of anonymity on the internet. But the

34:40

reason I mention that is that that's obviously

34:42

like a huge change but it was sold

34:44

to the public and not ultimately passed as

34:46

a policy that was about protecting children online

34:48

from cyber bullying when like if you think

34:51

about it realistically how many kids are suing

34:53

other kids for defamation like doesn't really happen

34:55

it was going to end up being another

34:57

kind of like tool probably used by largely

35:00

like powerful and rich people but the way

35:02

that it was sold kind of shows that

35:04

they were trying to think of ways to

35:06

appeal to this audience of like parents who

35:09

are really worried about their kids which is

35:11

a significant audience that I've kind of heard

35:13

on from both major parties here they're like

35:15

we know that these are voters who this

35:18

matters to them a lot and they'll vote

35:20

for either party depending on something on this

35:22

so there's a real like you know this

35:24

is something that the government clearly had marked

35:27

down to themselves this is something that we

35:29

know would do really well for us and

35:31

that's kind of why we're pursuing it despite

35:33

the fact that it had you know opposition

35:36

from like you know most of the academic

35:38

community you know obviously the tech companies as

35:40

well mental health groups youth groups like all

35:42

the kinds of people involved in it were

35:45

largely against this but it did of course

35:47

have this very big media campaign that was

35:49

powered by like you know very sad anecdotes

35:51

about people for example parents who'd lost their

35:53

kids who died suicide after cyber bullying and

35:56

stuff. I do think that in that regard,

35:58

like Australia's media, whether it was the media

36:00

that was actually pushing it or like the

36:02

rest of the media, did actually kind of

36:05

fail on their responsibility there because I think

36:07

that this policy was not very well communicated.

36:09

For example, I was reading this article in

36:11

News Corp the other day where it said

36:14

that it was very sad, like a parents

36:16

were saying we're calling for Snapchat to be

36:18

included as social media to the government. They're

36:20

saying we're calling for it to be banned

36:23

because our child sadly killed herself after being

36:25

cyber-bodied on it. And the article went on

36:27

to describe that while Snapchat is a messaging

36:29

app which is supposed to be excluded, so

36:32

you know the social media band isn't going

36:34

to stop kids from using WhatsApp for example

36:36

or something like I guess like signal if

36:38

they wanted to, we consider it different because

36:41

you can have group chats that can have

36:43

a whole school in it that act more

36:45

or less like Instagram. And I read that

36:47

and I was like, that's just, that's not

36:50

true. In fact, I took it up, like,

36:52

what's up, you can have larger groups and

36:54

you can have on Snapchat. You know, there

36:56

was this concern about, like, one of the

36:59

big things the government spoke about in proposing

37:01

this policy was this idea of cyber bullying.

37:03

It doesn't really make sense, like, you know,

37:05

if you think about it, to ban one

37:07

app that you're saying is being used to

37:10

cyber boy people through messaging features, and I

37:12

think like the reason like that that was

37:14

obviously expressed in the newspaper and people kind

37:16

of took that as fact and I think

37:19

the lack of like really clear reporting about

37:21

how this policy would work you know for

37:23

example how a tech company is actually going

37:25

to implement this how are they going to

37:28

figure out what age a user is what

37:30

is that going to require facial analysis is

37:32

going to require giving government ID like that

37:34

kind of stuff was really really like not

37:37

hashed out and when it really did start

37:39

to get a bit of the end of

37:41

the campaign and a lot of people were

37:43

already you know, very broadly in support of

37:46

it, and also kind of already had enough

37:48

men to kind of make its way through

37:50

despite this kind of push at the end.

37:52

It's quite a a sad story in a

37:55

way because if you think about it like

37:57

you know those grieving parents who who called

37:59

for bands to apps because they're trying to

38:01

stop what happened to their child I don't

38:04

I don't blame them I totally understand it

38:06

in fact I can only imagine that if

38:08

I was in this circumstance I would do

38:10

the exact same thing They're not the tech

38:13

experts, you know, it's supposed to be the

38:15

experts that these outlets quoted. It's supposed to

38:17

be the journals who scrutinize claims and kind

38:19

of, you know, decide what context they provide

38:21

and who else they quote on it. You

38:24

know, those are the people who actually, in

38:26

my opinion, exploited, really sad stories because, you

38:28

know, based on what I understand, you know,

38:30

in the various ways that this policy is

38:33

going to work. It's not going to stop

38:35

cyber bullying once and for all. In fact,

38:37

I think it may restrict some, but largely,

38:39

I imagine people will just use other means

38:42

that they'll still be able to use. Another

38:44

big concern they raised was the impact of

38:46

algorithms. But one thing that I realize in

38:48

the law is written, the law actually applies

38:51

to teens having social media accounts. So you

38:53

can still use TikTok, you can still use

38:55

YouTube shorts, you just can't log in, you

38:57

just can't like like a photo, like a

39:00

video or comment or upload yourself. But the

39:02

algorithm, you know, this recommendation engine that they're

39:04

so worried about, still works. And I imagine

39:06

teens will still be using this after the

39:09

ban actually comes into force. For all these

39:11

reasons, you know, we just had this extremely

39:13

poorly covered policy that I'm just, I'm really

39:15

honestly worried will end up helping the people

39:18

that they hope to help, will end up

39:20

hurting people. This is what kind of comes

39:22

out in the research that marginalized groups, people

39:24

in situations where they don't have people who

39:27

they know who fit in the same identity

39:29

groups as them. So, you know, the LGBT

39:31

community, people were facing familiar violence. People who

39:33

turn to social media as a way to

39:35

contact people with experiences that they might not

39:38

have represented around them. They're the kind of

39:40

people who end up, I think, in my

39:42

opinion, most affected by this. And so when

39:44

you've got this government and a media supporting

39:47

it, who are both pushing for the welfare

39:49

of children, but are doing something that might

39:51

end up hurting them, it's a really sad

39:53

outcome. one that I think that I just

39:56

hope that once it kind of happens that

39:58

people don't turn away, that they kind of

40:00

say, well that's the way it is now

40:02

and that's how we think about it. I

40:05

hope it's like reviewed and closely evaluated and

40:07

also evaluated against the context of we shouldn't

40:09

compare a policy like this to either doing

40:11

something about social media or not. we should

40:14

compare it to another road that's not taken,

40:16

which is thinking cleverly about how to regulate

40:18

tech companies to make their products better for

40:20

all of them. And I think that like,

40:23

you know, that kind of approach is a

40:25

real lost opportunity that happens as a result

40:27

of pursuing something like a blanket ban. Yeah,

40:29

I think you've made a lot of really

40:32

good points there. And I feel like when

40:34

you're talking about how the media campaign drives

40:36

this and doesn't dig into the other aspects

40:38

of it, the potential downsides of a policy

40:41

like this, the other approaches that can be

40:43

taken, I feel like we saw something similar

40:45

when it came to the news media bargaining

40:47

code and the equivalent up here in Canada,

40:49

where the media was really pushing this particular

40:52

policy outcome and wasn't really talking a whole

40:54

lot about the other potential approaches or the

40:56

downsides of this kind of a policy because

40:58

that is the outcome that they wanted. And

41:01

then that really, you know, it doesn't just

41:03

affect the policy process, but it really diminishes

41:05

the public conversation that can be had about

41:07

these things so that we can have a

41:10

democratic debate about tech policy and what we

41:12

want all of this to look like and

41:14

how we want these companies to operate in

41:16

our jurisdictions to operate in our jurisdictions to

41:19

pursue. and want to make sure the government

41:21

passes that you know kind of serves them

41:23

or at least some of the interest that

41:25

they have. I mean the thing that depresses

41:28

me is like I'm a journalist I think

41:30

of all the time about like the journalism

41:32

industry and how we actually reach people and

41:34

you know make people trust in us because

41:37

ultimately that's what needs to happen. Government I'm

41:39

sure is having the same thought in the

41:41

heads as well like you know seeing the

41:43

dropping support in public institutions. And like, you

41:46

know, in this regard, giving a policy that

41:48

the public wants, but it's very in my

41:50

opinion unlikely to have. outcome that it says

41:52

it's going to, I think like, you know,

41:54

maybe you end up winning an election, maybe

41:57

you don't, you know, maybe this doesn't end

41:59

up manoring for them, but you end up

42:01

again, you know, promising something that doesn't come

42:03

through and ultimately making people more cynical. And,

42:06

you know, in this regard, like, people are

42:08

already cynical of all three parties in this.

42:10

They're already cynical about the media, the cynical

42:12

about big tech. Like if you want anything

42:15

done about, for example, big tech, you need

42:17

to have people trust in the media, you

42:19

just have people trust in the government to

42:21

be able to regulate them because, you know,

42:24

that's one of the things that I'm really

42:26

starting to see. Australian tech policy for years

42:28

and years, decades, has kind of been maligned

42:30

as not very good. And I think we've

42:33

done some good stuff and some bad stuff.

42:35

You know, I think it was back in

42:37

the late 2000s that the Australian government was

42:39

proposing to have a mandatory internet filter for

42:42

explicit content. So, you know, any person who

42:44

was using an ISP, this ISP was supposed

42:46

to ban adult content. They tested the policy

42:48

and then I think it was this really

42:51

famous thing where a like a 15 year

42:53

old was able to get around the filter,

42:55

I think, just using like a VPN or

42:57

something in like 45 seconds. That's remembered as

43:00

one of the like, you know, massive failures

43:02

of Australian tech policy and although the policy

43:04

never actually went into place, it's kind of,

43:06

you know, represents governments don't understand technology and

43:08

we can't trust them to regulate them. We're

43:11

now at a point where tech is stronger

43:13

than ever. We're seeing the power consolidated in

43:15

just a few tech companies. And so as

43:17

a result, you know, we need to rely

43:20

on government to be able to regulate these

43:22

things. If we're doing things, if we're taking

43:24

steps that we're saying, this is going to

43:26

help and it doesn't, the next time we

43:29

push for something that maybe is more targeted,

43:31

maybe is more proven, who's to say whether

43:33

the public's going to support something like that?

43:35

So well said, and I completely agree. Do

43:38

you think that there is any opportunity or

43:40

possibility that this ban ends up falling by

43:42

the wayside, say, after an election or something

43:44

like that? already moving forward to try to

43:47

take a more reasonable and more evidence-based approach

43:49

to actually dealing with what is a legitimate

43:51

problem, even if it is often exaggerated for

43:53

certain people's purposes. Yeah, I think so. So

43:56

just for context, I'm going to explain how

43:58

the news media bargaining code works, because I

44:00

think there's actually an example of how this

44:02

happens, which is the news media bargaining code

44:05

gives the government the ability to say, hey,

44:07

meta or Facebook, or I can choose another

44:09

social media company, you need to negotiate with

44:11

this publisher. And the negotiation is this weird

44:14

star, I've never heard of it before, I

44:16

think it's called like baseball star, which is

44:18

where, you know, the two parties come in,

44:20

they say, here's how much I think that

44:22

this partnership is worth, and someone who's making

44:25

a decision, like an adjudicator, I guess, they

44:27

have to pick out of the two. So

44:29

if the government said, meta, you have to

44:31

negotiate with News Corp, News Corp comes in

44:34

and says, Google, we need to pay us

44:36

10, just those two options. And so what's

44:38

called designation, you know, the decision that you

44:40

need to come to the table and actually

44:43

negotiate has never actually been used. It's just

44:45

the fear that this policy will be used,

44:47

that you'll end up in a negotiation where

44:49

really you're going to pay a crazy amount,

44:52

that is the thing that has forced the

44:54

tech companies to the table. And they've done

44:56

all these other deals that essentially is the

44:58

government to say, well, well, we don't need

45:01

to use the stick because things are going

45:03

as we hoped. I can see something similar

45:05

happening with this. The fact they need to

45:07

take reasonable steps and the government has yet

45:10

to figure out reasonable steps. And I should

45:12

also add as well, like the fact that

45:14

the communications administrator decides what social media companies

45:16

are included under this, and so it can

45:19

be everything from meta to tiny social media

45:21

companies. I think there is a very large

45:23

chance that essentially we see a few of

45:25

the major companies, so I'm thinking, you know,

45:28

meta, Tik-tik, Snapchat. X-retted, we're told that they

45:30

need to take some steps, and those steps

45:32

might be like, there might be not that

45:34

intrusive, and they might be actually quite like

45:36

non-stop. for example, if you had an account

45:39

on Facebook for 10 years, we'll decide, well,

45:41

you're probably over 16, because I doubt you

45:43

started out at six years old. All they

45:45

might even just say, whatever steps you're taking,

45:48

as long as we can be roughly sure,

45:50

based on everything from investigations to just vibes,

45:52

if we see no reason to think that

45:54

there are massive amounts of 16-year-olds on this

45:57

platform, you're fine. So in practice you might

45:59

have a policy that ends up being these

46:01

tech companies don't do anything that makes us

46:03

have to kind of crack down on you,

46:06

make it seem like you're doing enough and

46:08

we'll be happy. And in practice, we might

46:10

end up saying, you know, social media companies

46:12

still end up having like a significant amount

46:15

of teen users. It's just not enough to

46:17

cause any ruckus about it. So that could

46:19

happen and we could continue to see regulation

46:21

coming from other parts of like through other

46:24

policies as well. That being said I think

46:26

we will definitely see those major ones step

46:28

up their practices. And that's kind of where

46:30

I think really ends up some really interesting

46:33

questions, which is how did I actually do

46:35

that? And to what extent does the average

46:37

punter who's told either give me your face

46:39

or show me your driver's license, do they

46:42

blame the government for that? Or do they

46:44

keep blaming social media companies who end up

46:46

kind of copying the flag? Because I don't

46:48

think that's going to be very popular in

46:50

practice. I think the question is who ends

46:53

up being blamed, who ends up being more

46:55

vibes-based. Yeah, I was feeling that as well

46:57

when I was reading about it in the

46:59

sense that, you know, these companies already have

47:02

limits on users below the age of 13

47:04

using the platforms already have initiatives that they

47:06

take to try to, you know, limit how

47:08

many of those people are using the platforms

47:11

already, have accounts on the platforms. we can

47:13

debate about how good they are doing that

47:15

or how much work they actually put into

47:17

that kind of policing or you know do

47:20

they go really far and as you're saying

47:22

ask for the IDs and things like that

47:24

it feels like we've been down that road

47:26

before with the tech companies and they've already

47:29

felt the flack of like trying to ask

47:31

for people's IDs like in the case of

47:33

Facebook but you know maybe they that that

47:35

seems appealing to them so that they are

47:38

lobbyists and you know they are kind of

47:40

PR arms can try to blame the government

47:42

for it and get a fair bit of

47:44

blowback in that direction but yeah it depends

47:47

right and and that's kind of what I

47:49

wanted to ask you because you know this

47:51

bill has been passed as you said but

47:53

it doesn't take effect for I believe it's

47:55

like 12 months or something like that as

47:58

they work out exactly how that is going

48:00

to happen. and as I understand it, it's

48:02

the E Safety Commissioner that, you know, kind

48:04

of determines what these ultimate requirements will be.

48:07

How do you feel about that kind of

48:09

process? What do you think is going to

48:11

come of that? And I guess just broadly,

48:13

how do you feel about this position of

48:16

the E Safety Commissioner? Do you think that

48:18

they are often like a positive kind of

48:20

government liaison in that discussion with tech companies?

48:22

Or, you know, is it part of Australian

48:25

tech policy or the government's approach to tech

48:27

that doesn't work so well? Yeah, I mean

48:29

God, I could literally talk about this for

48:31

so long. I would put it out in

48:34

two things. I think that the regulator role

48:36

itself has actually been given a crazy amount

48:38

of powers and they have the ability to,

48:40

for example, even block fourth app stores and

48:43

search engines to stop linking to websites and

48:45

apps. if they haven't complied with some of

48:47

their other laws. So there is actually this

48:49

incredible capacity in this role if it was

48:52

misused, I think, to be a very, very

48:54

powerful internet sensor. At the same time, I

48:56

think that the person who's held the role,

48:58

Julie Eminem and Graham, interestingly, like I think

49:01

her one of her first jobs, she was

49:03

like a Republican staffer. She then has worked

49:05

for Microsoft, she's worked in B Tech, and

49:07

then was appointed as the role when it

49:09

was first started in 2016. when it was

49:12

called the Children's E Safety Commissioner, and then

49:14

it was like largely powerless and more to

49:16

do with that kind of what I was

49:18

talking about before being that kind of interface

49:21

with tech companies to be like, you know,

49:23

you need to do something about this content

49:25

which I think seems to like, you know,

49:27

violate your own policies. I'm just like flagging

49:30

this with you. It's grown into this massive

49:32

role that now is going to be in

49:34

charge of writing guidelines that would determine what

49:36

steps companies will be expected to take and

49:39

it's incredibly powerful. I think that she has

49:41

for the most part kind of taken, I

49:43

would say very good politically, I'd say that

49:45

she has for the most part has kind

49:48

of been in Australian media as has helped

49:50

the Australian government with messages about cracking down

49:52

a big tech, but with mostly through I

49:54

think a very like amicable relationship with big

49:57

tech which has helped them. She hasn't used

49:59

the nuclear option really at any opportunity. She's

50:01

actually currently having some fights with Elon Musk

50:03

which has been like the biggest ones over

50:06

Twitter, but for the most part she's kind

50:08

of mostly I think avoided making waves. So

50:10

in terms of like how it's actually going

50:12

to work, I mean I like her office

50:15

has a really really strong sense of digital

50:17

literacy and I think the way that they've

50:19

kind of run the office while she's been

50:21

there has been very, I would tell you

50:23

like, you know, while she's definitely pushed for

50:26

things like age verification for explicit content and

50:28

stuff, she mostly has come from a place

50:30

of like I think understanding technologies and understanding

50:32

some of the privacy tradeoffs. So I kind

50:35

of think when she's kind of been tasked

50:37

to do something like this, I expect something

50:39

that will be like quite nuanced. Finally enough,

50:41

like while this whole process was happening while

50:44

the Prime Minister and the opposition leader was

50:46

saying we sport this policy, she was actually

50:48

in public subtly, politely saying that she didn't

50:50

actually support the policy, essentially saying that the

50:53

research, including research done by her office, doesn't

50:55

support the benefits of banning social media. She's

50:57

now in charge of actually figuring out how

50:59

it's going to work. I think it's a

51:02

very interesting position to be in. I think

51:04

there's, again, a very good chance that a

51:06

lot of the steps that companies are required

51:08

to take won't be like massively onerous. But

51:11

that being said, like, you know, I shouldn't

51:13

like mention as well, like... I think it's

51:15

very reasonable to that tech companies should be

51:17

figuring out ways to actually stop kids of

51:20

any age from accessing their services. So for

51:22

example, like, you know, Snapchat, which is, you

51:24

know, a major company, enormous, like, used by

51:26

children, obviously has an appeal to children, not

51:29

just like 13 to 16, but under that,

51:31

you know, the only way that they figure

51:33

out the age of their users is by

51:35

asking them. They say, hey, what's your birthday,

51:37

and then after then they just take their

51:40

word for it. Is it reasonable to assume

51:42

that tech companies are kind of doing something

51:44

more? I mean I think so, like I

51:46

think that the last, you know, like 20

51:49

years of the internet has kind of convinced

51:51

us that like, you know, essentially, like we

51:53

should just take people's word when they say

51:55

their age. I mean, I'll put my hands

51:58

up now, we're what, 50 minutes into the

52:00

podcast, so only people who are massive fans

52:02

are still listening, hopefully, and so hopefully no

52:04

one who's gonna get me in trouble, but

52:07

like, you know, like porn starts when I

52:09

was like... 15, like I was doing the

52:11

things saying that I was 18 and I

52:13

definitely wasn't. There are kind of like two

52:16

interesting questions when it comes to this. Like

52:18

one, what age should people be able to

52:20

access things? And two, how do you actually

52:22

figure out what age people are? Let's just

52:25

move aside whatever age you think people should

52:27

be able to access things and just say

52:29

that like there is an age, just make

52:31

up whatever age you want in your head.

52:34

I do think at the moment the fact

52:36

that for the most part a lot of

52:38

the internet is just kind of based off

52:40

the trust system and the technology is what

52:43

we do have like interesting technologies which again

52:45

like a complex and her tradeoffs about you

52:47

know whether they limit people's access who you

52:49

know, for instance, people who might not have

52:51

government ID, whether they're invasive for things like

52:54

facial scanning, at the very least, like, there

52:56

are kind of other novel ways that we

52:58

should be like, I think, probably like investigating

53:00

a bit more, but they're really, really not

53:03

used even by these most massive companies who

53:05

have enormous like capacity to a very complex

53:07

and nuanced conversation. I agree with you with

53:09

that, right? I think that we should be

53:12

exploring these options in the way that we

53:14

used to have laws like limiting what advertising

53:16

could be directed at young people and you

53:18

needed to know like what age these people

53:21

were in order for those things to be

53:23

effective. I think it's reasonable that we should

53:25

have those, you know, those checks in place

53:27

for the internet and I feel like even

53:30

discussing that can often be headed off by

53:32

these conversations. oh, now everyone's going to be

53:34

asking for your ID and all this kind

53:36

of stuff online. I think that we should

53:39

be open to discussing that, to talking about

53:41

potential solutions, to accepting that maybe we wouldn't

53:43

be okay with everyone having to present their

53:45

ideas, but maybe there are other ways of

53:48

doing these forms of authentication. And it will

53:50

be interesting to see if, you know, that

53:52

examination from the E-safety commissioner of these trials

53:54

that they're running will. have any interesting results

53:56

that maybe we can learn from. And I

53:59

feel like it was fascinating when you were

54:01

talking about the e-safety commissioner. Usually when you

54:03

hear like former Republican formerly work with big

54:05

tech, it's not usually someone you inherently trust,

54:08

right? So it's interesting to see that in

54:10

this position, this person has actually done some

54:12

reasonably good things and we'll see how that

54:14

continues. But to close off our conversation, I

54:17

wanted to ask you this, right? Because we've

54:19

been talking a lot about this particular bill,

54:21

to tech policy more generally. Is there anything

54:23

else that as an international audience we should

54:26

be paying attention to with regards to tech

54:28

in Australia? You mentioned earlier a misinformation bill

54:30

and changes to the privacy bill. Yeah, is

54:32

there anything else that we should be kind

54:35

of watching that is important for maybe international

54:37

viewers to be paying attention to in the

54:39

Australian context? Yeah, I mean, so the mis-disinformation

54:41

bill, I think I mentioned before, the bill

54:44

has the powers to get records from tech

54:46

companies to say, we want to be able

54:48

to know certain facts about your platforms, so

54:50

we can kind of audit it ourselves. And

54:53

also, we want to be able to, similar

54:55

to those other codes I was talking about.

54:57

require that you take some steps, you can

54:59

suggest what steps you're taking to deal with

55:02

misinformation. And then if we don't like those

55:04

steps, we can instead write our own, and

55:06

then we can also then enforce those steps

55:08

that you're supposed to be taking to make

55:10

sure that you're actually carrying out what you

55:13

say you are. Obviously anything around like the

55:15

ideas of centering and acting on people and

55:17

specifically I should say platforms because there was

55:19

never anything in this law about like for

55:22

example like jailing people for sharing you know

55:24

a conspiracy theory it was always about understanding

55:26

the platforms and their responsibilities. It's a very

55:28

sensitive area and obviously it's incredibly inflammatory. I

55:31

can kind of understand, you know, I think

55:33

it's reasonable at some level to just be

55:35

like at the end of the day, like

55:37

I'm uncomfortable about that. But I do think

55:40

like one of the massive things that's happening

55:42

in tech at the moment, I still just

55:44

don't think gets enough scrutiny and attention is

55:46

the fact that like all the social media

55:49

companies are becoming increasingly opaque about their platforms.

55:51

You know, Twitter, you can't get API, like

55:53

an outside. More than ever before we have

55:55

no idea what's happening on these platforms other

55:58

than what we can kind of like cobble

56:00

together from the outside. So a wall like

56:02

this which yes was being like we can

56:04

potentially fine you if you're not doing enough

56:07

about misinformation on your platform. I can understand

56:09

how people might get uneasy about that. But

56:11

at least half of it, which was about

56:13

saying, we have the right and the ability

56:16

to compel you to give us some information

56:18

about what's happening. I was like, I want

56:20

to see, you know, I think the first

56:22

step in regulation around tech is understanding what's

56:24

happening inside because at the moment, these tech

56:27

companies, they hold all the cards and that

56:29

allows them to really influence how the debate

56:31

happens. So they got kind of abandoned by

56:33

the government, but that was a kind of

56:36

interesting aspect of it. And yeah, like I

56:38

mentioned, you know, the quiet work of the

56:40

E Safety Commissioner with these kinds of regulations.

56:42

They're very interesting and a lot of other

56:45

governments around the world have kind of copied

56:47

this E-50 role. You're seeing it more and

56:49

more. Seeing the kind of regulation happen, I

56:51

mean, on one hand it kind of goes

56:54

on of the radar. It's got names like

56:56

the basic online safety act codes, class one

56:58

and two content that, you know, if you

57:00

weren't already into tech, you probably fall asleep

57:03

now when I just mentioned that. You know,

57:05

you don't really get much public debate about

57:07

it, which makes me kind of a little

57:09

bit uneasy and largely leaving it to one.

57:12

unelected regulator again makes me kind of uneasy

57:14

but the same time like coming up with

57:16

more like nuanced regulations that allow them to

57:18

say hey let's avoid some of the populism

57:21

that kind of you know happened with this

57:23

teen social media ban and that's like trying

57:25

come up with really, really sophisticated expectations, I

57:27

think is really cool. You know, I've kind

57:30

of sounded like a bit of a safety

57:32

booster here. In some regards, I think it's

57:34

like, you know, this co-regulatory response is you're

57:36

always going to kind of end up a

57:38

bit like. closer to the tech companies as

57:41

a result of it and I think sometimes

57:43

that's frustrating but I think sometimes and I

57:45

don't mean to say like you know we

57:47

should be kindly working with tech companies I

57:50

think it's the opposite we should actually be

57:52

saying in a country like Australia we set

57:54

the rules for what happens in Australia. In

57:56

the same way that when we had commercial

57:59

television, or when television was the biggest format,

58:01

and there's only a handful of television stations,

58:03

we decided that we want to regulate it

58:05

because there wasn't a bunch of choice. And

58:08

so as a result, government needs to do

58:10

something about it. I think it's kind of

58:12

the same with how tech works these days,

58:14

because the utopian idea of tech that essentially,

58:17

like, there'll be an infinite amount of choice.

58:19

And so you'll be able to decide, you

58:21

know, we want to go. if a company

58:23

isn't serving your interest and you go somewhere

58:26

else. You know, we've kind of ended up

58:28

with a century of the same model as

58:30

television. We've ended up with a handful of

58:32

massive companies who kind of are now increasingly

58:35

these wall gardens who walk all this information

58:37

in and make it very hard for people

58:39

to choose. I think that we should be

58:41

trying to regulate them and in Australia, particularly

58:44

where like, you know, many of them don't

58:46

even have that many employees here. That doesn't

58:48

mean we shouldn't have expectations about how expectations

58:50

about how Australians should be able to use

58:52

these these these platforms. I am really supportive

58:55

of regulation around the stuff. I like the

58:57

idea that we're saying, hey I don't really

58:59

care if you know you're a multinational organization

59:01

who doesn't even think Australia is that important.

59:04

If you want to operate here you've got

59:06

to run by our rules and we want

59:08

to set these rules in an interesting way

59:10

that like you know again maybe it's a

59:13

little bit too close to tech but the

59:15

very least it's kind of allowing some kind

59:17

of changes to happen instead of these kind

59:19

of populous policies aren't Oh wow either. Yeah,

59:22

I'm completely on the same page that we

59:24

need to be going more aggressively. No one

59:26

will be surprised about that. And I think

59:28

the point that you bring up about the

59:31

opaque these platforms and

59:33

how that really compels further

59:35

regulation, not just to

59:37

find out what's going

59:40

on on these platforms,

59:42

but also to know, address

59:44

the the further problems

59:46

that come of that is

59:49

a a really good

59:51

point and something that

59:53

we need to be

59:55

paying more attention to

59:57

and bringing more into

1:00:00

these conversations. these Cam, it's

1:00:02

been fantastic to learn

1:00:04

more about what's been

1:00:06

happening in Australia, not

1:00:09

just about this under

1:00:11

not just media ban, but

1:00:13

the broader context of

1:00:15

what's happening down in

1:00:18

your part of the

1:00:20

world. Thanks so much

1:00:22

for taking the time

1:00:24

to talk to the world.

1:00:27

Thanks, Paris. Cam Wilson

1:00:29

is the associate editor at Tech Won't Save Us made Save

1:00:31

Us is made in partnership with The Nation and

1:00:33

is is hosted by Marks. Production is by is by

1:00:35

Eric Wickham and transcripts are by Pollu Frye. Tech Won't Save

1:00:37

Tech Won't Save Us relies on the support

1:00:39

of listeners like you to keep providing critical

1:00:41

perspectives on the tech industry. You can You can

1:00:43

join hundreds of other supporters by going to

1:00:45

patreon.com Tech Won't Save Us and making a pledge of

1:00:47

your own. Thanks for listening and make sure

1:00:49

to come back next week. week.