Labor’s law would allow choice for social media users and build accountability into the internet rather than allow the tech industry to operate with impunity.
The Coalition and One Nation tripped over each other to condemn the government’s digital duty of care legislation.
At its heart is the confused and contradictory binary of safety and freedom; a false trade-off that has actively fuelled the online world these laws seek to purify.
Over those 25 years, the right has been willing backers of this erosion of personal freedoms.
A general duty of care is not a novel concept; it underpins workplace safety laws.
5 sentences from our version of the report,
chosen to cover it. Nothing here is written; every line is in the article below.
How
Summarized version
Alongside privacy laws also before parliament, this is structural reform to reset the way the internet works: enforceable standards on the collection of your data and how it is used and deployed against us.
Headline check
The one thing this headline claims did not turn up in the report.
“Peter Lewis” is named in the headline. We could not find it in the report.
Figures, names and quoted words in the headline, looked for in the report itself — not in the summary above. Names are matched as they are spelled, so a report that says “New South Wales” where the headline says “NSW” is queried here when it should not be. One name in this headline is spelled almost the same as a word in the report — the difference between a country and its adjective, for instance. We cannot tell whether they are the same thing, so that one was not checked either way rather than reported as missing. How this is checked
The article, shortened and in plain language
Labor’s law would allow choice for social media users and build accountability into the internet rather than allow the tech industry to operate with impunity.
W hen you hear them cry “freedom”, you know a culture war is brewing.
The Coalition and One Nation tripped over each other to condemn the government’s digital duty of care legislation. For their fracturing base, it’s another reason to hate on the government.
At its heart is the confused and contradictory binary of safety and freedom; a false trade-off that has actively fuelled the online world these laws seek to purify.
We can partly explain this political response as a self-interested attempt to protect the algorithms that are driving the rise of the populist right.
Over those 25 years, the right has been willing backers of this erosion of personal freedoms.
The principle is simple: if you are offering an online product you need to be awake to its impact and take steps to make it safe. Whether you are producing a car, a financial service or a toy, that’s what is expected of you in the real world: that it will be safe.
If trying to codify these limits of government power has the perverse effect of giving the freedom warriors a focal point to attack, a better approach might be to establish a more general duty of care to be shaped by the courts reflecting evolving community expectations.
A general duty of care is not a novel concept; it underpins workplace safety laws.
Shortened to 1 minute
of reading, this version reads 15.7 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.
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
