Australia has doubled the maximum penalty for social media platforms that fail to remove violent or terrorist content, raising the fine to 10 per cent of global turnover. The amendment, passed by the Australian parliament late on Tuesday, represents one of the toughest regulatory measures against technology companies worldwide.
The move comes as Britain’s Online Safety Bill, which would impose similar obligations on platforms, faces renewed scrutiny from civil liberties groups and technology firms. Critics argue the legislation, currently before parliament, risks undermining free expression and could lead to excessive surveillance.
Australia’s new penalty, which replaces a previous 5 per cent cap, applies to platforms that do not swiftly take down material depicting abhorrent violent conduct, such as terrorist attacks or murders. The law also includes provisions for criminal liability of senior executives.
“This sends a very clear message to the tech giants: you will be held accountable for the content that spreads on your platforms,” said the Australian Minister for Communications in a statement. “The safety of Australians comes before your profits.”
The escalation in fines reflects growing frustration among governments worldwide over perceived inaction by social media companies to moderate harmful content. In Britain, the Online Safety Bill has been described as one of the most ambitious attempts to regulate the internet, but it has met with delays and opposition.
Under the bill, platforms would have a duty of care to protect users from legal but harmful content, including abuse and disinformation. However, technology companies, including Meta and Google, have warned that the legislation could criminalise legitimate speech and impose burdensome compliance costs.
“The Online Safety Bill, as currently drafted, could have a chilling effect on online expression,” said a spokesperson for a technology trade group. “We urge lawmakers to ensure that any regulation is proportionate and respects fundamental rights.”
Human rights organisations have echoed these concerns. Liberty, a British advocacy group, has argued that the bill grants the government too much power to decide what constitutes harmful content, which could be used to silence dissent.
“The bill risks creating a system of mass surveillance of our communications,” wrote Liberty in a briefing to parliamentarians. “We need a law that tackles real harms without destroying privacy and freedom of speech.”
Supporters of the bill, including campaigners against online child abuse, have countered that the current approach has allowed harmful content to proliferate unchecked. They argue that the legislation is necessary to hold platforms accountable.
“The status quo is not working. Every day, children are exposed to grooming and exploitation on these platforms,” said a spokesperson for the NSPCC. “The Online Safety Bill provides the legal framework to prevent this.”
Australia’s decision to double penalties adds momentum to the push for stricter regulation. The country has been a global leader in holding social media companies to account, having passed laws that compel platforms to identify users who make defamatory comments and to pay for news content.
Analysts suggest that the new penalty will force technology companies to invest more in moderation systems. However, questions remain about enforcement. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, the regulator responsible for enforcing the law, has limited resources to pursue cases against deep-pocketed corporations.
“The penalty is significant, but it is only effective if it is applied consistently,” said a legal expert. “We have seen similar laws in Germany, where fines have been imposed, but the overall impact on harmful content has been mixed.”
In Britain, the Online Safety Bill is expected to return to the House of Commons for further debate in the coming weeks. The government has signalled that it is open to amendments, but insists that the core provisions remain intact.
“We will not back down from protecting the British public online,” said a government spokesperson. “The Online Safety Bill will ensure that tech companies take responsibility for the content on their platforms.”
For now, Australia’s move sets a new benchmark for regulatory severity, and eyes will be on Britain to see if it follows suit. The outcome will have implications for how social media companies operate globally, particularly in markets where regulatory pressure is mounting.
In the broader geopolitical landscape, the tension between security and free expression continues to define the debate over internet governance. Australia and Britain represent two poles of a spectrum: one imposing heavy fines for non-compliance, the other crafting comprehensive duties of care. Both are watching each other closely, and the world is watching both.
