Australia is tightening the rules on children’s privacy – here’s how it will work (2026-03-19T11:51:00+05:30)

Beth Macdonald/Unsplash Tama Leaver, Curtin University Australia’s privacy laws have been woefully out of date for a long time – not fit to address the realities of the digital world. As part of the long overdue update, the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act in 2024 directed the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) to develop a code to better protect the privacy of young Australians in the digital world. This is urgently needed. By the time a child turns 13, around 72 million pieces of data will have been collected about them. This week, the OAIC published a draft of the Children’s Online Privacy Code, which is now open for public comment. What’s in the code? The code’s scope is much wider than just social media. It encompasses most online services, spaces and platforms that children use. Importantly, it also includes services that may contain children’s personal data but are used by adults. Everything from educational platforms to infant tracking apps will be subject to the code. The best interests of the child are embedded in it, and services will be expected to interpret and implement it. Data minimisation This specifies children’s personal data can only be collected by online services where there’s a clear and direct purpose for that collection, and that data should only be kept while it’s necessary to perform that purpose. Any further data collection requires explicit consent requested in a way that’s age-appropriate for the child. This ensures platforms only request what’s actually mission critical. The onus is on services to delete that personal data as soon as it’s not needed, to help prevent children’s data being caught up in data breaches. The right to delete Where platforms and services hold children’s personal data, children will now have a clear and explicit right to request that data is deleted. The “right to be forgotten” has been on privacy advocates’ wishlist for decades. It recognises individuals own their own data and should maintain control over it where possible. Geolocation transparency When children consent to having their geographic location tracked by digital devices and services, or their parents consent to this on their behalf for those under 15, children regardless of age will be notified when tracking services are sharing that information. Geolocation data can be particularly tricky, even within families. While some might find location tracking helpful, others view it as intrusive surveillance. Ensuring it’s at least transparent to children will help ensure they’re active and aware participants in these services. Age-appropriate explanations Saying you’ve read an app’s terms of service or privacy policies is one of the most common white lies told. That’s mostly because these are long, impenetrable, almost unreadable documents. When children are asked to consent to share their data, the code specifies the explanation for this request must be understandable and age-appropriate. If the request is aimed at a child who might be ten, the explanation needs to be clear to the average ten-year-old. This is vital. Not only does it allow children to make better choices, it also increases their digital literacy as they make meaningful choices about their own data. As part of this, deceptive design elements that might trick children into sharing personal data are explicitly not allowed. We can expect pushback from big tech There will undoubtedly be considerable pushback from big technology platforms about the scope of the code. It seeks to disrupt business as usual, and requires that children’s data is only collected for specific purposes, with explicit consent, and retained for as little time as possible. That’s the opposite of the “grab and keep as much data for as long as possible” logic that drives most tech companies and platforms today. Big data is still imagined to be the big oil of the digital world. Private, personal data is among its most valued forms. Artificial intelligence companies are even more thirsty for that personal data to train their systems. We’ll need more digital literacy For children under 15, the code relies on parental consent. That consent is visible to children, which is important in keeping them informed. However, there’s work to do to equip every parent with the tech literacy they need to make informed choices with their children. In some cases, children don’t easily have a parent or carer to turn to. For children in the most at-risk and challenging situations, there may be difficulties in ensuring that the consent process really can work in children’s best interest. In our Manifesto for a Better Children’s Internet, colleagues and I from the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child offer a roadmap for an internet better aligned with children’s needs and experiences. Crucially, we argue there should be more focus on protecting children within the digital environment, rather than from it. Maximising children’s opportunities in the digital world means trying to make as many digital spaces available to them, while ensuring those spaces are designed to be as safe and age appropriate as possible. The Children’s Online Privacy Code is set to make an important contribution in achieving that aim. It recognises children’s right to participation as much as their right to protection. What happens next? The OAIC has launched a Privacy for Kids website, which offers age-appropriate explanations of the code for children and adults. It provides a variety of tools and age-appropriate resources to allow children and adults to offer their thoughts on the draft code. That consultation is open until June 5 this year. After responding to the public consultation, the final version of the code must go live by December 10 2026. Tama Leaver, Professor of Internet Studies, Curtin University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Digital monitoring is growing in South Africa’s public service – regulation needs to catch up (2026-02-25T11:37:00+05:30)

Lesedi Senamele Matlala, University of Johannesburg Government departments across South Africa are increasingly relying on digital tools to evaluate public programmes and monitor performance. This is part of broader public-sector reforms. Their aims are to improve accountability, respond to audit pressure and manage large-scale programmes with limited staff and budgets. Here’s an example. National departments tracking housing delivery, social grants or infrastructure rollout rely on digital performance systems rather than periodic paper-based reports. Dashboards – a way of showing visual data in one place – provide near real-time updates on service delivery. Another is the use platforms that collect mobile data. These allow frontline officials and contractors to upload information directly from the field. Both examples lend themselves to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to process large datasets and generate insights that would previously have taken months to analyse. This shift is often portrayed as a step forward for accountability and efficiency in the public sector. I am a public policy scholar with a special interest in monitoring and evaluation of government programmes. My recent research shows a worrying trend, that the turn to technology is unfolding much quicker than the ethical and governance frameworks meant to regulate it. Across the cases I’ve examined, digital tools were already embedded in routine monitoring and evaluation processes. But there weren’t clear standards guiding their use. This presents risks around surveillance, exclusion, data misuse and poor professional judgement. These risks are not abstract. They shape how citizens experience the state, how their data is handled and whose voices ultimately count in policy decisions. When technology outruns policy Public-sector evaluation involves assessing government programmes and policies. It determines whether: public resources are used effectively programmes achieve their intended outcomes citizens can hold the state accountable for performance. Traditionally, these evaluations relied on face-to-face engagement between communities, evaluators, government and others. They included qualitative methods that allowed for nuance, explanation and trust-building. Digital tools have changed this. In my research, I interviewed evaluators across government, NGOs, academia, professional associations and private consultancies. I found a consistent concern across the board. Digital systems are often introduced without ethical guidance tailored to evaluation practice. Ethical guidance would provide clear, practical rules for how digital tools are used in evaluations. For example, when using dashboards or automated data analytics, guidance should require evaluators to explain how data are generated, who has access to them and how findings may affect communities being evaluated. It should also prevent the use of digital systems to monitor individuals without consent or to rank programmes in ways that ignore context. South Africa’s Protection of Personal Information Act provides a general legal framework for data protection. But it doesn’t address the specific ethical dilemmas that arise when evaluation becomes automated, cloud-based and algorithmically mediated. The result is that evaluators are often left navigating complex ethical terrain without clear standards. This forces institutions to rely on precedent, informal habits, past practices and software defaults. Surveillance creep and data misuse Digital platforms make it possible to collect large volumes of data. Once data is uploaded to cloud-based systems or third-party platforms, control over its storage, reuse and sharing frequently shifts from the evaluators to others. Several evaluators described situations where data they’d collected on behalf of government departments was later reused by the departments or other state agencies. This was done without participants’ explicit awareness. Consent processes in digital environments are often reduced to a single click. Examples of other uses included other forms of analysis, reporting or institutional monitoring. One of the ethical risks that came out of the research was the use of this data for surveillance. This is the use of data to monitor individuals, communities or frontline workers. Digital exclusion and invisible voices Digital evaluation tools are often presented as expanding reach and participation. But in practice, they can exclude already marginalised groups. Communities with limited internet access, low digital literacy, language barriers or unreliable infrastructure are less likely to participate fully in digital evaluations. Automated tools have limitations. For example, they may struggle to process multilingual data, local accents or culturally specific forms of expression. This leads to partial or distorted representations of lived experience. Evaluators in my study saw this happening in practice. This exclusion has serious consequences especially in a country with inequality like South Africa. Evaluations that rely heavily on digital tools might find urban, connected populations and make rural or informal communities statistically invisible. This is not merely a technical limitation. It shapes which needs are recognised and whose experiences inform policy decisions. If evaluation data underrepresents the most vulnerable, public programmes may appear more effective than they are. This masks structural failures rather than addressing them. In my study, some evaluations reported positive performance trends despite evaluators noting gaps in data collection. Algorithms are not neutral Evaluators also raised concerns about the growing authority granted to algorithmic outputs. Dashboards, automated reports and AI-driven analytics are often treated as the true picture. This happens even when they conflict with field-based knowledge or contextual understanding. For example, dashboards may show a target as on track. But in an example of a site visit, evaluators my find flaws or dissatisfaction. Several participants reported pressure from funders or institutions to rely on the analysis of the numbers. Yet algorithms reflect the assumptions, datasets and priorities embedded in their design. When applied uncritically, they can reproduce bias, oversimplify social dynamics and disregard qualitative insight. If digital systems dictate how data must be collected, analysed and reported, evaluators risk becoming technicians and not independent professionals exercising judgement. Why Africa needs context-sensitive ethics Across Africa, national strategies and policies on digital technologies often borrow heavily from international frameworks. These are developed in very different contexts. Global principles on AI ethics and data governance provide useful reference points. But they don’t adequately address the realities of inequality, historical mistrust and uneven digital access across much of Africa’s public sector. My research argues that ethical governance for digital evaluation must be context-sensitive. Standards must address: how consent is obtained who owns evaluation data how algorithmic tools are selected and audited how evaluator independence is protected. Ethical frameworks must be embedded at the design stage of digital systems. Lesedi Senamele Matlala, Senior Lecturer and Researcher in Public Policy, Monitoring and Evaluations, University of Johannesburg This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

‘Digital colonialism’: how AI companies are following the playbook of empire (2025-12-04T12:05:00+05:30)

Hanna Barakat & Archival Images of AI + AIxDESIGN, CC BY-SA Jessica Russ-Smith, Australian Catholic University and Michelle D. Lazarus, Monash University In the eyes of big AI companies such as OpenAI, the troves of data on the internet are highly valuable. They scrape photos, videos, books, blog posts, albums, painting, photographs and much more to train their products such as ChatGPT – usually without any compensation to or consent from the creators. In fact, OpenAI and Google are arguing that a part of American copyright law, known as the “fair use doctrine”, legitimises this data theft. Ironically, OpenAI has also accused other AI giants of data scraping “its” intellectual property. First Nations communities around the world are looking at these scenes with knowing familiarity. Long before the advent of AI, peoples, the land, and their knowledges were treated in a similar way – exploited by colonial powers for their own benefit. What’s happening with AI is a kind of “digital colonialism”, in which powerful (mostly Western) tech giants are using algorithms, data and digital technologies to exert power over others, and take data without consent. But resistance is possible – and the long history of First Nations resistance demonstrates how people might go about it. The fiction of terra nullius Terra nullius is a Latin term that translates to “no one’s land” or “land belonging to no one”. It was used by colonisers to “legally” – at least by the laws of the colonisers – lay claim to land. The legal fiction of terra nullius in Australia was overturned in the landmark 1992 Mabo case. This case recognised the land rights of the Meriam peoples, First Nations of the Murray Islands, as well as the ongoing connection to land of First Nations peoples in Australia. In doing so, it overturned terra nullius in a legal sense, leading to the Native Title Act 1993. But we can see traces of the idea of terra nullius in the way AI companies are scraping billions of people’s data from the internet. It is as though they believe the data belongs to no one – similar to how the British wrongly believed the continent of Australia belonged to no one. Digital colonialism dressed up as consent While data is scraped without our knowledge, a more insidious way digital colonialism materialises is in the coercive relinquishing of our data through bundled consent. Have you had to click “accept all” after a required phone update or to access your bank account? Congratulations! You have made a Hobson’s choice: in reality, the only option is to “agree”. What would happen if you didn’t tick “yes”, if you chose to reject this bundled consent? You might not be able to bank or use your phone. It’s possible your healthcare might also suffer. It might appear you have options. But if you don’t tick “yes to all”, you’re “choosing” social exclusion. This approach isn’t new. While terra nullius was a colonial strategy to claim resources and land, Hobson’s choices are implemented as a means of assimilation into dominant cultural norms. Don’t dress “professionally”? You won’t get the job, or you’ll lose the one you have. Resisting digital terra nullius So, is assimilation our only choice? No. In fact, generations of resistance teach us many ways to fight terra nullius and survive. Since colonial invasion, First Nations communities have resisted colonialism, asserting over centuries that it “always was and always will be Aboriginal land”. Resistance is needed at all levels of society – from the individual to local and global communities. First Nations communities’ survival proclamations and protests can provide valuable direction – as the Mabo case showed – for challenging and changing legal doctrines that are used to claim knowledge. Resistance is already happening, with waves of lawsuits alleging AI data scraping violates intellectual property laws. For example, in October, online platform Reddit sued AI start-up Perplexity for scraping copyrighted material to train its model. In September, AI company Anthropic also settled a class action lawsuit launched by authors who argued the company took pirated copies of books to train its chatbot – to the tune of US$1.5 billion. The rise of First Nations data sovereignty movements also offers a path forward. Here, data is owned and governed by local communities, with the agency to decide what, when and how data is used (and the right to refuse its use at any point) retained in these communities. A data sovereign future could include elements of “continuity of consent” where data is stored only on the devices of the individual or community, and companies would need to request access to data every time they want to use it. Community-governed changes to data consent processes and legalisation would allow communities – whether defined by culture, geography, jurisdiction, or shared interest – to collectively negotiate ongoing access to their data. In doing so, our data would no longer be considered a digital terra nullius, and AI companies would be forced to affirm – through action – that data belongs to the people. AI companies might seem all-powerful, like many colonial empires once did. But, as Pemulwuy and other First Nations warriors demonstrated, there are many ways to resist. Jessica Russ-Smith, Associate Professor, Social Work and Deputy Head of School, School of Allied Health, Australian Catholic University and Michelle D. Lazarus, Director, Centre of Human Anatomy Education, Monash University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Digitalization increasing risk of losing cultural identity: Sharingain (2025-06-14T11:39:00+05:30)

Women showcase the traditional art of winnowing rice during the Moatsu Festival, which began on May 1 in Mokokchung town. (Morung Photo) Moatsü Festival 2025 begins in Mokokchung with celebration and reflection: The Moatsü Festival 2025 (Mini Hornbill)—the premier celebration of the Ao Naga community—officially began on May 1 at the Imkongmeren Sports Complex, Mokokchung. Held under the theme “Celebrating Our Roots,” the three-day event is organized by Ao Senden and is being described as the largest Moatsü celebration to date. It is presented as a “collective celebration initiated by the Ao legislators and the government of Nagaland.” Naga cuisine recipes Sharingain Longkumer, Speaker of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly and special guest of the opening day, expressed gratitude to the organizing committee for what he called a “privileged honour.” Reflecting on the blessings and achievements of the Ao community, he stated that the tribe has made significant contributions to the state across various sectors, attributing this progress to the grace of God. A man demonstrates bamboo cutting using a dao during the Moatsu Festival, which began on May 1 in Mokokchung town. (Morung Photo) He emphasized the need for introspection, urging the community to reflect on the legacy of their forebears. “In this changing world, as we pursue progress, we often forget the blessings we already have,” he said. “Too often, what we have becomes a victim of what we desire. Desire and need are not the same.” Touching on culture and tradition, he remarked on how modernization and digitalization have made the world smaller, increasing the risk of losing cultural identity. “This should be a time of deep retrospection—of what we have, where we stand, and what direction we are taking.” Naga cuisine recipes He further reminded that Ao Senden is in its 45th year, with only five years to go before its golden jubilee. “As we approach that milestone, we must be clear in our vision and purpose. Let this be a time of awakening and revival for our tribe—to return to the simple values passed down by our forefathers and guide our youth with purpose.” Earlier, Limanungsang, DB, highlighted the historical and spiritual significance of the Moatsü Festival. He explained that the festival traditionally marks the completion of sowing seeds and is a time to seek divine blessings for an abundant harvest. He credited the Ao Kaketshir Mungdang (Ao Students’ Conference) for standardizing the celebration to May 1–3 across all Ao villages—an effort to unify the community and ensure inclusivity, regardless of status or background. Limanungsang underscored that the festival is also a day of forgiveness—an opportunity to reconcile differences between villages, neighbours, families, and individuals. “Through forgiveness and togetherness,” he said, “blessings will follow, and the land will prosper.” The opening ceremony was compered by Dr Limasenla Jamir and Lanuakum Jamir. The event was hosted by Lanutoshi Aier, President of the Ao Students’ Conference (AKM). A welcome address was delivered by Thsüvisie Phoji, Deputy Commissioner of Mokokchung, followed by a special performance by the Note Grid School of Music. Indigenous games such as spear throwing (Nü Tsüshishi), bamboo cutting (Nokjem) and winnowing rice (Jang Sepa Litet) saw enthusiastic participation from ward and range teams. The Inter-Ward Tug of War (Mepu Tsüngda Ar-Atsütep) was officially launched by Imkongmar, MLA and Advisor for Sericulture and Minority Affairs. Cultural stalls were inaugurated by Sharingain Longkumer, and the evening saw a folk song competition (Sobaliba Kenten Toktep) graced by TN Manen (IAS), Advisor for Law & Justice and Land Revenue. The day ended with a special performance by Dreamz Unlimited.On May 2, Ao Senden will host a grand civic reception for Chief Minister Dr Neiphiu Rio — reportedly, the first time Rio is accorded such a reception in Mokokchung. Digitalization increasing risk of losing cultural identity: Sharingain | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

Indian edtech sector bridging geographical divide: Report (2025-06-14T11:08:00+05:30)

New Delhi, (IANS): The Indian edtech sector is actively bridging the geographical divide in education and making quality learning accessible to millions, according to a report on Friday. The report jointly by the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) and Grant Thornton Bharat released today at the India Digital Summit (IDS) showed that 98 per cent of teachers and 69 per cent of parents recognise the role of edtech in overcoming geographical barriers. It underlines that edtech platforms provide access to high-quality education services, resources, and courses that may not be available locally. This includes video lectures, interactive modules, and virtual classrooms, ensuring that students from diverse backgrounds can receive quality education regardless of their geographic location. The report also highlights that 94 per cent of students and 84 per cent of teachers find edtech content engaging, and the platforms are bridging the gap between academic knowledge and industry demands. This alignment is fostering employability across fields, supporting India’s vision for an inclusive, future-ready education system. About 85 per cent of students believe edtech improved their learning outcomes, while 86 per cent of users highlight the economic accessibility of edtech courses, and 87 per cent of students value its contribution to real-world skills like coding and AI, underscoring its relevance in workforce development. “Edtech platforms may prove to be a game changer as they remove the barriers of physical classrooms and can take education to the remote corners of the country. While doing so, the sector needs to solve certain hurdles like creating low-bandwidth solutions and safeguarding data privacy,” said Prateek Maheshwari, Co-Founder of PhysicsWallah (PW) and Chair of the India Edtech Consortium (IEC). “Technology is vital to education delivery, but effective outcomes need supportive environments. India’s EdTech sector is transforming education delivery, enhancing accessibility, and empowering learners and educators, fostering a more equitable knowledge economy,” added Dharmender Jhamb, Partner, Grant Thornton Bharat. The report also points out that by leveraging the 4A framework: academic quality, accessibility, affordability, and advancing employment, the Indian edtech sector has addressed key gaps in traditional education systems. Edtech’s commitment to accessibility is particularly evident in rural and underserved regions, where it plays a key role in increasing student participation.--IANS Indian edtech sector bridging geographical divide: Report | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com

Germany considers 10% tax on internet giants (2025-06-09T12:52:00+05:30)

Germany is weighing plans for a 10 percent digital tax for internet giants such as Alphabet and Meta, a senior official said Friday, despite the risk of stoking further trade tensions with the United States. "This is a question of tax justice," parliamentary state secretary in the digital ministry Philip Amthor told Die Welt newspaper. "Large digital corporations in particular are cleverly engaging in tax avoidance" while German businesses are "treated with no mercy, everything is taxed." "A fairer system must be created here so that this tax avoidance is addressed," he said about the plan to tax advertising revenue from platforms such as Meta's Instagram and Facebook. Germany's media and culture commissioner Wolfram Weimer said earlier the government was drafting a proposal for such a digital tax but would first invite Google and other big tech companies for talks. Weimer -- the former editor of Die Welt and other media -- on Thursday told Stern magazine that "the large American digital platforms like Alphabet/Google, Meta and others are on my agenda". He said he had "invited Google management and key industry representatives to meetings at the chancellery to examine alternatives, including possible voluntary commitments". "At the same time, we are preparing a concrete legislative proposal," Weimer added. This could be based on the model in Austria, which has a five percent tax, he said, adding that in Germany "we consider a 10 percent tax rate to be moderate and legitimate". He said that "monopoly-like structures have emerged that not only restrict competition but also over-concentrate media power. This puts media diversity at risk". "On the other hand, corporations in Germany are doing billion-dollar business with very high margins and have profited enormously from our country's media and cultural output as well as its infrastructure. "But they hardly pay any taxes, invest too little, and give far too little back to society."Weimer stressed that "something has to change now. Germany is becoming alarmingly dependent on the American technological infrastructure." Germany considers 10% tax on internet giants

3 in 4 people experience abuse on dating apps. How do we balance prevention with policing? (2025-02-11T11:09:00+05:30)

Kath Albury, Swinburne University of Technology and Daniel Reeders, Australian National University A 2022 survey by the Australian Institute of Criminology found three in four app users surveyed had experienced online abuse or harassment when using dating apps. This included image-based abuse and abusive and threatening messages. A further third experienced in-person or off-app abuse from people they met on apps. These figures set the scene for a national roundtable convened on Wednesday by Communications Minister Michelle Rowland and Social Services Minister Amanda Rishworth. Experiences of abuse on apps are strongly gendered and reflect preexisting patterns of marginalisation. Those targeted are typically women and members of LGBTIQA+ communities, while perpetrators are commonly men. People with disabilities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and people from migrant backgrounds report being directly targeted based on their perceived differences. What do these patterns tell us? That abuse on apps isn’t new or specific to digital technologies. It reflects longstanding trends in offline behaviour. Perpetrators simply exploit the possibilities dating apps offer. With this in mind, how might we begin to solve the problem of abuse on dating apps? Trying to find solutions Survivors of app-related abuse and violence say apps have been slow to respond, and have failed to offer meaningful responses. In the past, users have reported abusive behaviours, only to be met with a chatbot. Also, blocking or reporting an abusive user doesn’t automatically reduce in-app violence. It just leaves the abuser free to abuse another person. Wednesday’s roundtable considered how app-makers can work better with law enforcement agencies to respond to serious and persistent offenders. Although no formal outcomes have been announced, it has been suggested that app users should provide 100 points of identification to verify their profiles. But this proposal raises privacy concerns. It would create a database of the real-world identities of people in marginalised groups, including LGBTIQA+ communities. If these data were leaked, it could cause untold harm. Prevention is key Moreover, even if the profile verification process was bolstered, regulators could still only respond to the most serious cases of harm, and after abuse has already occurred. That’s why prevention is vital when it comes to abuse on dating apps. And this is where research into everyday patterns and understanding of app use adds value. Often, abuse and harassment are fuelled by stereotypical beliefs about men having a “right” to sexual attention. They also play on widely held assumptions that women, queer people and other marginalised groups do not deserve equal levels of respect and care in all their sexual encounters and relationships – from lifelong partnerships to casual hookups. In response, app-makers have engaged in PSA-style campaigns seeking to change the culture among their users. For example, Grindr has a long-running “Kindr” campaign that targets sexual racism and fatphobic abuse among the gay, bisexual and trans folk who use the platform. Other apps have sought to build safety for women into the app itself. For instance, on Bumble only women are allowed to initiate a chat in a bid to prevent unwanted contact by men. Tinder also recently made its “Report” button more visible, and provided users safety advice in collaboration with WESNET. Similarly, the Alannah & Madeline Foundation’s eSafety-funded “Crushed But Okay” intervention offers young men advice about responding to online rejection without becoming abusive. This content has been viewed and shared more than one million times on TikTok and Instagram. In our research, app users told us they want education and guidance for antisocial users – not just policing. This could be achieved by apps collaborating with community support services, and advocating for a culture that challenges prevailing gender stereotypes. Policy levers for change Apps are widely used because they promote opportunities for conversation, personal connection and intimacy. But they are a for-profit enterprise, produced by multinational corporations that generate income by serving advertising and monetising users’ data. Taking swift and effective action against app-based abuse is part of their social license to operate. We should consider stiff penalties for app-makers who violate that license. The United Kingdom is just about to pass legislation that contemplates time in prison for social media executives who knowingly expose children to harmful content. Similar penalties that make a dent in app-makers’ bottom line may present more of an incentive to act. In the age of widespread data breaches, app users already have good reason to mistrust demands to supply their personal identifying information. They will not necessarily feel safer if they are required to provide more data. Our research indicates users want transparent, accountable and timely responses from app-makers when they report conduct that makes them feel unsafe or unwelcome. They want more than chatbot-style responses to reports of abusive conduct. At a platform policy level, this could be addressed by hiring more local staff who offer transparent, timely responses to complaints and concerns. And while prevention is key, policing can still be an important part of the picture, particularly when abusive behaviour occurs after users have taken their conversation off the app itself. App-makers need to be responsive to police requests for access to data when this occurs. Many apps, including Tinder, already have clear policies regarding cooperation with law enforcement agencies. Kath Albury, Professor of Media and Communication and Associate Investigator, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making + Society, Swinburne University of Technology and Daniel Reeders, PhD Candidate, ANU School of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet), Australian National University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Australia could tax Google, Facebook and other tech giants with a digital services tax – but don’t hold your breath (2025-02-04T11:58:00+05:30)

Tech giants like Google, Facebook and Netflix make billions of dollars from Australian users every year. But most of those profits are not taxed here. To address this tax gap, some countries have introduced a new kind of tax called the digital services tax, or DST. It applies to revenue earned from users in a country, even if the company has no physical operations there. Some European Union member countries, the UK and Canada have all introduced such a tax. In Australia, it is estimated the five largest tech giants recorded A$15 billion in revenue in Australia last year, but combined they paid only $254 million in tax. Australia has never contemplated imposing a similar tax. New Zealand tried but backed down last week after the United States threatened to impose higher tariffs on New Zealand goods. So what’s holding Australia back? How 20th-century tax treaties create 21st-century problems To understand why Australia thinks its hands are tied on the taxation of the multinational tech giants, we need to step back in time. About 100 years ago, Australia and other developed nations decided to tax residents on all their income earned worldwide, while non-residents were taxed only on income earned locally. After the second world war, Australia entered into tax treaties so foreign companies selling to Australian customers would no longer be taxed here. Instead, those companies’ home countries would tax all their profits. As the world moved to digital products this century, it became easy for giant multinational enterprises offering advertising on social media (such as Facebook and Instagram), advertising on search platforms (Google), and streaming services (Netflix) to provide those services from abroad. Little or no activity is conducted through local branches. But countries where the sales are made have increasingly questioned the wisdom of having forfeited their taxing rights over income by foreign providers. The rise of the digital services tax The obvious solution would have been to renegotiate the treaties. This would restore the right of countries like Australia to tax foreign companies’ profits made from local customers or users. However, treaty renegotiation is slow and complex. So several European countries, beginning with France in 2019, came up with a short-cut solution. They introduced a discrete new tax on sales of digital services, called digital services taxes (DSTs). While the specific design varies by country, most DSTs apply a low tax rate, typically between 3% and 5%, on revenue rather than profits. They target large digital platforms that earn money from users within the taxing country, regardless of the company’s location. Because DSTs are levied on revenue and are structured as separate from income tax, governments argued they could be introduced without breaching income tax treaties. The new taxes quickly became popular and spread widely. In Australia, the Greens have called for a DST, but both major parties have remained steadfast in their objection to a new tax. This is due to the concern that the US may impose retaliatory tariffs on Australian goods. How big is the tax loss? Australians are enthusiastic consumers of digital products. Depending on which companies are included in the calculation, the annual revenues vary between $15 billion and $26 billion a year, but only a fraction of that is taxed here. At a time when the federal budget is forecasting deficits for the foreseeable future, Australia is foregoing potentially millions in lost revenue from these digital giants. While Australia has avoided a DST as a solution to the income tax loss, it has been willing to regulate and tax foreign digital companies in other ways. Australia collects 10% goods and services tax, or GST, on digital services provided to Australian companies, including streaming platforms and app subscriptions. This helps ensure foreign providers are taxed similarly to domestic ones when it comes to the GST. Australia has also imposed non-tax obligations on digital giants such as the requirement that digital platforms pay Australian media outlets for using their news content. Serious hurdles for reform In February, the Trump administration described DSTs as tools used by foreign governments to “plunder American companies” and warned retaliatory tariffs would be imposed in response. The accompanying White House fact sheet singled out Australia and Canada, arguing the US digital economy dwarfs those countries’ entire economies. It suggested any attempt to tax US tech companies would not go unanswered. Six weeks later, the US imposed a 10% tariff on most Australian exports to the US and a 25% tariff on steel and aluminium exports. The US sees its penal tariff plans as a useful negotiating tool to pressure trading partners into retreat on a broad range of peripheral complaints, including the digital services tax. To date, only two countries have retreated: New Zealand and India. Other countries are standing firm. In Australia, the Greens have called for the adoption of a DST, but the current and previous governments remain firm in their opposition. There is concern about antagonising the US at a delicate time when our broader trade relations are under scrutiny. For the foreseeable future, the digital giants will continue to earn billions from Australian users. Most of those profits will remain beyond the reach of Australian tax law. Fei Gao, Lecturer in Taxation, Discipline of Accounting, Governance & Regulation, The University of Sydney, University of Sydney and Richard Krever, Professor of Tax Law, The University of Western Australia This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

As the ‘digital oligarchy’ grows in power, NZ will struggle to regulate its global reach and influence (2025-02-03T13:32:00+05:30)

Alexandra Andhov, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau The images of President Donald Trump at his inauguration surrounded by the titans of the global tech industry is a warning of what could come: a global digital oligarchy dominated by a tiny tech elite. Companies like Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, X Corp, and OpenAI (all based in the United States) now operate beyond the control of most governments. Countries like New Zealand are increasingly struggling to keep these companies in check. In the past decade, New Zealand has taken several measures to curb the influence of powerful tech companies through voluntary agreements and tax legislation. But the digital age has fundamentally changed national sovereignty – the right of individual countries to decide the rules within their own borders. Big tech companies are gradually taking on functions traditionally reserved for government institutions. For example, these companies have begun to function as the arbiters of speech, controlling the visibility of certain ideas and comments. As recently as this month, Meta obscured searches for left-leaning topics including “Democrats”, later blaming the issue on a “technical glitch”. And as was widely covered in the media, Amnesty International released a report claiming that Facebook’s algorithms “proactively amplified” anti-Rohingya content in Myanmar, substantially contributing to human rights violations against the ethnic group. New Zealand’s attempts to regulate big tech A number of governments are now facing the question of how to temper the influence of these companies within their current legal frameworks. As New Zealand (among others) has discovered in the past decade, influencing the behaviour of these companies is easier said than done. It has repeatedly found itself struggling to effectively manage big tech’s impact on its society and economy. In 2018, for example, New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner said Facebook had failed to comply with its obligations under the New Zealand Privacy Act. The company told the commission the Privacy Act did not apply to it. When the Christchurch terrorist attack was livestreamed on Facebook (owned by Meta), New Zealand authorities found themselves largely powerless to prevent the video’s spread across global platforms. This crisis prompted then-prime minister Jacinda Ardern to launch the Christchurch Call initiative aimed at combating online extremism by fostering collaboration between governments and tech companies. The goal was to develop and enforce measures such as improved content moderation, removal of extremist material, and the creation of safer online environments. While gaining support from more than 120 countries and tech companies, its effect depends on voluntary ongoing cooperation. Recent events suggest this ongoing cooperation is unlikely. In January, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced plans to get rid of content moderation in the US and possibly elsewhere. Zuckerberg has also pushed back against European Union regulations, claiming the EU’s data laws censored social media. Taxing big tech In 2019, New Zealand proposed a 3% digital tax on big tech revenue. A similar measure was introduced by France in 2020 and by Canada and Australia last year. While these proposals signify important steps toward holding big tech accountable, their implementation remains uncertain. Although the relevant tax provisions have been adopted in New Zealand, the law includes clauses allowing tax collections to be deferred until as late as 2030. Meanwhile, big tech continues to push back aggressively against regulation in various ways. These have included threatening reduced services (such as the brief closure of TikTok in the US) to leveraging their relationships with the Trump government against other countries. Using competition regulation to rein in big tech In December 2024, the Australian government unveiled draft legislation on big tech to level the playing field. The proposed law seeks to foster fair competition, prevent price gouging, and give smaller tech and news companies a chance to thrive in a landscape increasingly dominated by global giants. The legislation would grant the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission the authority to investigate and penalise companies with fines of up to A$50 million for restricting competition. The targeted behaviour includes tactics such as restricting data transfers between platforms (for example, moving contacts or photos from iPhone to Android) and limiting third-party payment options in app stores. The proposed law aims to put an end to these unfair advantages, ensuring a level playing field where businesses of all sizes can compete and consumers have more choices. Democractic governance in the digital age The growing power of tech platforms raises critical questions about democratic governance in the digital age. There is an urgent need to reconcile the global influence of tech companies with local democratic processes and to create mechanisms that safeguard individual and national sovereignty in an increasingly digital world. Governments need to recognise these platforms are not immutable forces of nature, but human-created systems that can be challenged, reformed or dismantled. The same digital connectivity that has empowered these corporations can become the very tool of their transformation. Alexandra Andhov, Chair in Law and Technology, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

US ‘TikTok refugees’ are fleeing to Chinese app RedNote. It’s a new phase of the digital cold war (2025-01-24T11:13:00+05:30)

Jian Xu, Deakin University Social media giant TikTok is preparing to shut down its app in the United States this Sunday – the day that legislation signed by President Joe Biden last year banning the app takes effect. There is a slim chance this dramatic development might not happen if the US Supreme Court accepts a last minute legal argument from TikTok’s Chinese owner, ByteDance, that the ban is unconstitutional – or if ByteDance divests its US operations. But the 170 million users of TikTok in the US aren’t taking any chances. Many self-described “TikTok refugees” have begun to flee to alternative social media sites, mocking the alleged security concerns on TikTok in the process. “Goodbye to my Chinese spy” has become a new TikTok trend. The most popular alternative that has emerged is the Chinese social media app Xiaohongshu (known as RedNote in English). On January 13, the app surged to number one in the US Apple App Store, attracting more than 700,000 new users. This mass digital migration of social media users marks a new phase in the ongoing digital cold war between the US and China. But there are many questions about whether RedNote – or any other alternative platform – will be a viable, long-term refuge for US TikTok users if the ban goes ahead. What is RedNote? Owned by Shanghai-based Xingyin Information Technology and established in 2013, RedNote is a Chinese-language lifestyle, social networking and e-commerce platform. It has a hybrid style of Instagram-meets-Pinterest and approximately 300 million monthly active users – the majority of whom are in China. RedNote stores its users’ personal data in China, in compliance with China’s data protection and cybersecurity laws and other regulatory policies. But RedNote isn’t the only alternative platform users are migrating to. Another is Lemon8, also owned by ByteDance, which bills itself as a “lifestyle community”. First launched in Japan in 2020, it had the second top spot in the Apple App Store – after RedNote – earlier this week. The app allows existing TikTok users to migrate their account handles and data. Like TikTok, Lemon8 stores data of users outside China, including in the US and Singapore. However, if the US government does ban TikTok it could easily use the same rationale to ban Lemon8. Other local US-based alternative platforms, such as Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts, are not seen as ideal options by many users. This is because they are less creator-friendly and lack a strong sense of community. Many see RedNote as the best alternative given its similar content style and algorithms to TikTok and community-driven appeal. More importantly, the platform is beyond the control of the US government and cannot be directly banned. At the time of writing, the hashtag “TikTok refugee” had garnered about 250 million views and over 5.5 million comments on RedNote. Some US users satirically explained their move to the platform out of spite: since the US government is worried about our personal data being taken by China, let’s just hand it directly over to the Chinese government. Are you going to take away my mobile? A ‘Western awakening movement’ Chinese users of RedNote are enthusiastically embracing TikTok refugees from the US. For example, they are producing tutorial videos to teach new users how to navigate the app. This hospitality is summed up by one popular comment from a Chinese user on the platform who said: “friends who come over from TikTok, I want to say, you are not refugees, you are brave explorers.” The new migration to RedNote has also intensified national pride of Chinese internet users. They vividly refer to the migration as a “Western awakening movement”, which allows US citizens to open their eyes to see the world outside the centre of the west. This phrase was coined in reference to the “self-strengthening movement” in China in the late 19th century – a reform effort aimed at modernising China by adopting Western technologies, knowledge and values. The unexpected migration has seen some RedNote-related stocks surge by as much as 20% earlier this week. People-to-people diplomacy The positive interactions between American and Chinese internet users help promote the Communist Party of China’s idea of “people-to-people diplomacy”. This idea is best summed up by Chinese President Xi Jinping, who in July 2024 said the hope of the China-US relationship lies in the people, its foundation is in the two societies, its future depends on the youth, and its vitality comes from exchanges at subnational levels. However, RedNote might not be a viable, long-term refuge for US TikTok users. Their sudden migration to RedNote could be more like a flash mob protest against the TikTok ban. It may not be easy for them to get used to a very different digital ecosystem – and make a decision to permanently reside on the Chinese app. RedNote has already posted a job ad to urgently recruit content moderators who understand English to cope with the dramatic growth of English-speaking users. It’s also worth nothing that the migration to RedNote is still very small, and only a fraction of the 170 million people in the US who use TikTok. The US government also has the authority to pressure Apple to remove RedNote from the US App Store if it thinks the migration poses a national security threat. Regardless of whether this happens, the mass migration of TikTok refugees to RedNote – even if it is temporary – shows the US’s regulation of digital technologies, driven by geopolitical competition, has significantly fractured the global internet. Fortunately, we have witnessed the spirit of optimism and humanitarianism among US and Chinese internet users amid the tension of the digital cold war. Jian Xu, Associate Professor in Communication, Deakin University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.