Calls are growing for Australia’s Digital Duty of Care Bill to do more than encourage safer platforms. Equality Australia says the proposed law should require digital companies to address targeted anti-LGBTIQ+ hate while protecting people’s access to reliable information about sexuality, gender identity, sexual health and relationships. The debate is about who should bear the burden when online abuse spreads.

A duty of care needs teeth

A law intended to make the internet safer could still leave a major gap if platforms aren’t expected to tackle targeted abuse, Equality Australia warns. The organisation is urging the Australian Government to strengthen its Digital Duty of Care Bill, arguing that users shouldn’t have to manage serious online harm alone while companies profit from attention-grabbing content. [2], [3]

The proposal recognises gender-based violence as an online safety risk, but Equality Australia says protections should clearly cover all LGBTIQ+ people and address hate more broadly. That distinction matters: online abuse can threaten people directly, but it can also dehumanise them or spread stereotypes that make hostility seem ordinary. [2], [3], [4]

What online hate can look like

The issue isn’t limited to one slur or one ugly comment. In its evidence to a Senate inquiry, Equality Australia described content that threatens or dehumanises LGBTIQ+ people, promotes harmful stereotypes, or targets trans people with vilification. [2], [3]

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner also provides guidance on online hate and discrimination, and has researched young LGBTIQ+ people’s digital experiences. That wider picture is a reminder that online spaces can offer connection and useful information, while exposing people to abuse that’s difficult to avoid. [4], [5], [6]

Platforms shape what people see

Social media companies have considerable influence over which posts reach users and how widely they spread. Equality Australia argues that platforms should have clear responsibilities to prevent and reduce serious harm, rather than relying on individuals to report abuse after it appears. [2], [3]

That’s a practical question as much as a legal one. If harmful content is amplified or left up, the burden of blocking accounts, documenting abuse and finding support can fall on the people being targeted. eSafety’s material on online safety protections for people at greater risk offers further context on why responses need to account for different communities’ experiences. [4], [6], [7]

Safety rules must protect useful information too

There’s a balance to strike. Measures aimed at serious harm shouldn’t make it harder for people to find trustworthy information about gender identity, sexuality, sexual health or relationships, Equality Australia says. [2], [3]

For users, a sensible first step when encountering online hate is to use platform reporting and blocking tools, and seek support if the abuse feels threatening or persistent. Those tools can help in the moment, though they don’t replace the broader responsibility that the organisation says platforms should carry. [4], [7]

What happens next?

The debate now turns on whether the Bill’s obligations will be clear enough to change platform behaviour, while preserving legitimate expression and access to information. Equality Australia has said it wants to work with the Government and parliament on that balance. [2], [3]

It’s a difficult line to draw, but a worthwhile one: safer online spaces should mean less targeted abuse, not fewer places to learn or find community. [3], [4], [7]

A stronger duty of care could make online safety a shared responsibility rather than a task left to those at risk. [2], [7]

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: