Skip to content
TrackPodcasts
newsSep 9, 20265:57

Federal government announces 'opt-out' social media algorithm digital duty of care regulation

About this episode

Technology expert Leigh Stark joined Tom Elliott to discuss the Federal Government's 'Digital Duty of Care' announcement in an attempt to regulate social media algorithms.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Get every episode summarized

Each time 3AW Mornings with Tom Elliott publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.

Email me new episodes

Free for 3 shows. No card needed.

Hosts & guests

Transcript ready

45 searchable segments. Every word is indexed and playable.

Federal government announces 'opt-out' social media algorithm digital duty of care regulation

3AW Mornings with Tom Elliott

0:00
5:57

Full transcript

3AW Mornings with Tom ElliottFederal government announces 'opt-out' social media algorithm digital duty of care regulation. Machine-transcribed; use the interactive transcript above to jump the player to any line.

I've read all these news articles today about how the federal government is going to have a day of reckoning with big tech and we're going to tame the algorithm. I look at it and I look at it and I think, okay, I don't really understand what this means. Like, do I get to decide what I see and don't see or does the Albanese government decide for me and excuse technology experts and write it with online tech website picker. Lee Stark, good morning. How are you going? Well, good. So what is this this day of reckoning with big tech? What does it actually mean? It effectively means that the ability to serve you up things based off what they've learned about you. It can effectively go away. It's opt out the logic. So you're you're getting basically information content videos on an algorithm. Now, we're going to define specifically to you and it sounds just like a whole bunch of mumbo jumbo. It basically means that there's a set of rules that systems like Facebook and to talk learn about you as you use them and they use that to find what they can give you.

So that could be people you follow that could be posts that you'd like. It could be things like that and it could be related to those sorts of things that other people like you. So for example, about a week ago, I was researching this story which we discussed earlier today about they're going to have the Olympic rowing in 2032 in the crocodile and first of the future river. And sure enough, I started getting a lot more clips and stories about the sport of rowing, which is fine. I mean, I used to do it and I'm sort of vaguely interested in it. But I mean, is that what we mean? Because I've looked up rowing for a while. I get served a lot of rowing content or I bought any pair of shoes a few months ago and you know, I keep it. He adds for similar sorts of shoes now like is that what we mean? It's probably more the former than the latter. You'll still get ads even with an opt out policy and you can depending on the phone or tablet you're using. You can also determine whether those ads are taking data that you have actual first party data or you can have it be completely anonymous and just have it serve random stuff.

It's more the former. It's usurping for something and having that information automatically added to your feed. That's distinct from say the way some services work, which is that they'll serve you up. The information that you intentionally follow. So friends, family, celebrities, things like that. That's more of what an opt out system would look like. Okay. So, like I'm also interested in surfing. So at the moment, if I look at surfing things, I get fed more surfing things. But if I opt out, the only surfing content I will get would be you know, other people's accounts that I followed. Correct. That's right. All of that is correct. And is this is this world wide or just Australia? At the moment, it's just Australia that there's not really been a plan to opt out in other parts of the world. Australia is on the first place. It's Sweden Drive the social media ban. So we're this is kind of an attempt to I guess improve life for anyone under 18. It's also an attempt to improve social media in general. There's a lot of information that goes on there that can lead you into a bit of an abyss or a rabbit hole at times. And so this is an attempt to stem some of that. It's optional, though. You have the option of opting out. You might like that.

But I'm trying to look at the harm that we're trying to avoid here. So for example, if I show interest in XYZ topics or issues and I get fed more of that sort of stuff, like why is that bad? It's not necessarily bad. It's also how engagement is measured. So for instance, if you hover over a video, but you're not really interested, but you kind of hate watching it, which is something we do, the system doesn't really have a way of determining whether that's a positive or a negative engagement. And so it might just start feeding you more of what you don't like simply because you've watched a little bit of it. And that same sort of effect can occur, I guess, throughout the entire ecosystem. So if friends of yours start watching that something that is harmful, potentially harmful, because their friends of yours, the algorithm can then say, well, you might want to see that as well. And so we end up with this awkward ecosystem where you're not necessarily being served up things that are actually desirable on your timeline and Facebook and other services aren't checking it. So, all right, but if I go and actively search out things that some people might find harmful, I'll still get served harmful things.

Yes, that's right. And that's your choice. Yeah. I mean, so it seems to be like they're trying to wind back social media like 10 years. Like 10 years ago, you only saw the things of people that you followed. And then the algorithm came along and said, here's a whole lot of similar stuff. So we're trying to say, let's get rid of the similar stuff. I think they're trying to restrain it effectively. So we don't know how most of the algorithms work beyond that they do have the ability to put things forward that are shaped by, I guess, a publisher months like how a publisher has the right to kind of change. They're just I'm struggling to understand here how social harm and the insiders going to be improved by doing this. It seems to me. If you're hunting at bad stuff, well, you will say bad stuff. And if you're not hunting it out, chances are you won't I just don't say that this changes things. That's the part that people don't understand if you're not looking forward, but if it can relate to similar people like you or the fact that you're hovering on videos, the algorithm algorithm could still give you things that you don't actually want like the serious mental disorder.

Well, do you think this Chinese Australian government is making will it work? Will it make society a better place? I don't actually don't believe it will work. I think I think most social networks will either say we're not actually going to adhere to it or they'll do something like X and largely ignore it. And we've seen that sort of approach. I like that the government is trying it. I just don't think it'll work. Yeah, a bit like trying to keep teenagers off social media like there were so many work around that it didn't work. I think I have a better understanding of it now. At least start their technology expert and writer.

More episodes

More from 3AW Mornings with Tom Elliott

View all episodes →