Andrew Lowenthal retweeted
Australia banned under-16s from social media last December. A University of Chicago study found about 73% of the 14 and 15 year olds it covers are still on the banned apps. The platforms have already closed more than 5 million accounts and set AI loose on people’s posts looking for mentions of birthdays and school grades. It didn’t work.
So the government doubled the maximum fine to A$109.2 million. That didn’t work either.
Now it’s preparing to sue Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube. The eSafety Commissioner has new powers to summon current and former employees and question them under oath. Anyone who refuses to answer faces 12 months in prison.
Nobody in charge has stopped to ask whether the law is the problem. Kids keep getting around it, and the only way to close the gaps is to check the age of every Australian, adults included. That was always where this was heading.
Andrew Lowenthal retweeted
I recently spoke with @NAffects, journalist and founder of @liber_net, about Australia’s proposed Digital Duty of Care Bill and its implications for free speech and privacy.
We examined vague definitions of online harm, potential government surveillance through AI-powered "sock puppet" identities, plus the @AlboMP government’s failed world-first under-16 social media ban.
With absolutely zero knowledge as to the motivations or circumstances of Helen Haines' alleged attacker, the @guardian waited zero seconds to blame social media and call for more censorship and state repression, how "progressive" - theguardian.com/australia-ne…
Andrew Lowenthal retweeted
Tune in to America This Week on Election Night!
Join @walterkirn and me for an America This Week Reunion Special, as we watch returns and ponder the coming end of the world
open.substack.com/pub/taibbi…
Andrew Lowenthal retweeted
According to the @eSafetyOffice you are a dangerous far right incel if you either A. hate women or B. are fiber-maxxing.
Andrew Lowenthal retweeted
Australia’s Digital Duty of Care Bill gets a rewrite. The government retreats on parts of its power grab while slipping in troubling new provisions.
@MikeNayna and @NAffects assess the damage.
networkaffects.substack.com/…
Andrew Lowenthal retweeted
"Worst job in the world"
$530k salary, 200 taxpayer funded staff.
But OMG "personal abuse and growing workload" 😭
Does Australia’s eSafety Commissioner have the worst job in the world?
Amid personal abuse and a growing workload, Julie Inman Grant’s job is set to be split up
politico.com/news/2026/10/15…
#tyranika Wells unveiled Australia's Digital Duty of Care Bill on Thursday, routinely comparing it to the introduction of seat belts - if only it were that simple. Despite walking back some aspects due to public backlash, the Bill remains fundamentally incompatible with free speech and a democratic society. @MikeNayna and I explored the changes. More at: substacktools.com/sharex/4aW…
Andrew Lowenthal retweeted
Australia’s new Digital Duty of Care bill threatens platforms with fines of up to A$109 million if they fail to keep users “safe,” and it never defines where safe ends. Section 26A(3) even bars them from weighing the cost of compliance.
The minister says she gave up the power to define new harms. Section 25E(1)(f) still covers anything that “may cause serious harm to children,” and that list has no end.
Platforms must also switch off feeds, likes and stories for under-16s. They can only do that by checking the age of every user.
The eSafety Commissioner gets to run fake accounts under rules it writes with the federal police. It can also summon people for private questioning, and anyone who stays silent faces 12 months in prison.
The government says this is not censorship. The bill is built to produce it anyway.
reclaimthenet.org/australia-…
RT @shellenberger: Wow, wow, wow. I just left the National Press Club where Minister of Communications @AnikaWells spoke. She repeatedly an…
This quoted post is unavailable.
Andrew Lowenthal retweeted
The Digital Duty of Care Bill is now before Parliament.
The detail of legislation like this matters. It should be referred to a parliamentary committee to ensure we get it right.
Important questions about human rights and fundamental freedoms - including freedom of expression - deserve careful consideration before legislation of this significance is passed.
Andrew Lowenthal retweeted
Australia’s Prime Minister called his new online censorship bill “change from the bottom-up, my Government listening and acting.”
The campaign group standing beside him at the launch had lobbied his office for it in a private letter. That same group gets 89 percent of its funding from his government. Its revenue jumped 975 percent in a single year, and Canberra has since handed it another $4.4 million.
The bill lets the eSafety commissioner run fake accounts, order content removed, and fine platforms up to A$109.2 million.
The government paid for the public demand and then answered the call.
reclaimthenet.org/teach-us-c…
Andrew Lowenthal retweeted
This is exactly the way journalists should interview government officials when they spout blatant bullshit and refuse to answer the most basic questions.
The British PM claimed that Russia interfered in the Brexit vote, but his foreign minister can't and won't say how. Listen:
This was one of the most PAINFUL CAR CRASH interviews you’ll ever see with Labour foreign minister Stephen Doughty on @GMB about Andy Burnham saying Russia interfered in the Brexit referendum.
Susanna Reid grows increasingly frustrated as he refuses to answer her questions, and even Ed Balls eventually tears into him for the “embarrassing waffle”.
Doughty is asked again and again about the Prime Minister’s claims but he just keeps ignoring the questions and repeating the same empty line: that Russia has been attempting to interfere with our democratic processes for many years.
Susanna tries to force him onto the 2016 vote itself. She asks what Russia actually did, whether it influenced voters, and whether it affected the result. He refuses to give any specifics and just repeats the line.
When she asks “Why are you not getting into specifics when the Prime Minister has just got into the specifics?”, he claims Burnham was only speaking more broadly.
She keeps pressing. He keeps repeating the line like a robot. She asks if the Prime Minister was wrong.
Doughty: “The PM has been very clear about Russian attempts to interfere in our democratic processes.”
By now Susanna is openly angry and accuses him of “muddying the waters not clarifying them”.
He almost laughably says the same thing again. He isn’t listening. He might as well have come on just to read a statement.
Susanna points out that if the result of such a huge decision was influenced, the public deserves answers about what the interference actually was.
Doughty claims the PM only said “attempted to interfere”. Susanna cuts in immediately: “He doesn’t say ‘attempted to interfere!’”
They play Burnham’s actual comments. Doughty goes straight back to the identical line. Susanna tries one final time. Same response.
It is at this point that Ed Balls, clearly fed up, lays into him:
“This is EMBARRASSING. It’s really bad for politics when you just blatantly don’t answer the question on something so important and go back to a nonsensical line, which is contradicted by what the Prime Minister just said!”
He goes further: “Either answer Susanna’s question or just say I’m not going to. This waffle is embarrassing!”
Doughty: “It’s not waffle at all Ed!” Then repeats the line yet again.
It is waffle, and I never thought I’d say this but well done Ed Balls for bluntly calling him out. It was embarrassing.
Andy Burnham should never have said it. We’ve been through all this. Russia did not in any way, shape or form influence the outcome of that referendum. Dragging this nonsense back up is reckless and a disgrace.
Andrew Lowenthal retweeted
As Australia’s new Digital Duty of Care Bill heads to Parliament, liber-net CEO @NAffects & I dug into the PR campaign behind it. What we found was one of the strangest pieces of political theatre in recent Australian history. 🧵
Andrew Lowenthal retweeted
Another worrying indication around the so-called 'Digital Duty of Care'.
Government-funded NGOs and flawed studies front the Australian Labor Party’s new censorship push, the Digital Duty of Care. With thanks to @MikeNayna
substacktools.com/sharex/A-u…
Government-funded NGOs and flawed studies front the Australian Labor Party’s new censorship push, the Digital Duty of Care. With thanks to @MikeNayna
substacktools.com/sharex/A-u…
Andrew Lowenthal retweeted
Credit to @MikeNayna and @NAffects who broke this story
Australia's Digital Duty of Care allows the government to create “sock puppet accounts”, false identities that can observe and record material and, in some circumstances, interact with users. Kudos to @MikeNayna for uncovering this last week for @liber_net's parliamentary submission. Full story at:
substacktools.com/sharex/h4R…
Australia's Digital Duty of Care allows the government to create “sock puppet accounts”, false identities that can observe and record material and, in some circumstances, interact with users. Kudos to @MikeNayna for uncovering this last week for @liber_net's parliamentary submission. Full story at:
substacktools.com/sharex/h4R…
More details at: networkaffects.substack.com/…
Labor has buried extraordinary “sock puppet” powers in its proposed internet regime which would give the eSafety Commissioner the power to assume false identities and generate online material using AI.
news24.com.au/politics/austr…



























