Subscribe Sign in

Science / United States

Australia claims it is a global pioneer in preventing online harm – should other countries follow suit?

The Guardian Australia
1 min read Rewritten in plain language

Social mediaAnthony AlbaneseDigital MediaTechnologySocial Media Ban

Show what we removed Rules applied: A1×4 A2×2 A3×3 A9 D2×11 D3×11 D4 E3×6 F2×6 all 30 rules
  • As Anthony Albanese heads to the US to discuss social media reform, he has shown a level of leadership not always expected from a smaller country.
  • Attending the UN leaders week in September last year, Albanese hosted a stylish event in a room overlooking the East River, talking up Australia’s world-leading moves to ban children under 16 from having social media accounts.
  • A DemosAU poll this week found only 13% were opposed to the plan.
  • Similarly, last month, Meta agreed to a US$18bn settlement with state governments across America to resolve claims that Facebook and Instagram harmed children.

4 sentences from our version of the report, chosen to cover it. Nothing here is written; every line is in the article below. How

Headline check

There is nothing in this headline a machine can check against the report: no figure, no name and no quotation.

Nothing was measured here, so nothing is claimed. How this is checked

As Anthony Albanese heads to the US to discuss social media reform, he has shown a level of leadership not always expected from a smaller country.

Over the years, the United Nations has seen all kinds of world leaders.

Determined to rein in the power of social media giants harming the lives of children, the Australian prime minister believes only a concerted effort by countries around the world will be enough to force change.

Attending the UN leaders week in September last year, Albanese hosted a stylish event in a room overlooking the East River, talking up Australia’s world-leading moves to ban children under 16 from having social media accounts.

A year later, the ban is responsible for the closure of as many as 5m accounts in Australia.

As he flies to the US, where one of his first stops will be at Apple’s California headquarters for talks with its chair and former chief executive, Tim Cook, Albanese will be buoyed up by polling showing two-thirds of voters support opt out requirements for algorithms. A DemosAU poll this week found only 13% were opposed to the plan.

In the digital safety space, Tama Leaver, a professor of internet studies at Curtin University in Perth, says Australia has shown a level of leadership not always expected from a smaller country.

Leaver points to the Netherlands, where a legal challenge found Meta was not compliant with the European Union’s Digital Services Act.

Similarly, last month, Meta agreed to a US$18bn settlement with state governments across America to resolve claims that Facebook and Instagram harmed children.

Shortened to 1 minute of reading, this version reads 8 on the Niral Score.

You are reading our version, not theirs. This is The Guardian Australia's report shortened to its most important sentences, in plainer words, with verdicts and loaded words taken out. Plain description stays, and so do adjectives that carry a fact, such as "former" or "federal". The reporting, the facts and the quotations are theirs — quotations are never edited — and the indicators beside it measure this version. Hover or tap Adjectives to see every one left in the text.

How this outlet filed it, and how we rewrote it

No other newsroom we read has filed on this event, so there is nothing to compare it with yet.

Outlet Niral ScoreAdjectivesSourcingSentimentHappiness
The Guardian Australiaas they published this story 10.5 34 59 -0.1 45.5
Mundane Readneutralized from The Guardian Australia 8.7 31 59 -0.1 45.5

Sign in to react.

Comments

Nothing here yet.

Sign in to comment.

Questions

Readers can ask a question about this story here. Questions and answers are for subscribers. Sign in to read them.

Comments are read before they appear where anything in them needs a person to look. Nothing posted here is ever deleted; a comment taken down keeps its text and the reason, so the decision can be looked at again. How this works