'The algorithm did not know my son,' bereaved mother welcomes proposed Digital Duty of Care laws

0:00All the warning that this next interview will include references to suicide and self-harm. The Federal Government has unveiled its digital GDF Care Laws, which will give Australians the choice to opt out of algorithms online. The My Feed My Way initiative is an attempt to crack down on harmful content and addictive features on social media platforms. This is not about giving government control. It's about giving people control. It's about putting choice back into the hands of Australians online. Through our digital GDF Care, we will require platforms to protect children from harmful content. That's the Prime Minister announcing the legislation yesterday. Well, the draft laws will require online platforms to reduce foreseeable harms or face fines of more than $100 million. My next guest has long advocated for reforms and was part of the government's consultation

1:03for the legislation. Mia Bannister lost her son Oli to suicide when he was 14 years old after he sustained online bullying and an eating disorder, which she says was fueled by social media algorithms. Mia Bannister joins me now. Thank you very much for making some time to come on breakfast this morning. Hi, Sally. It's really good to be with you again this morning. Thanks for having me. How important is this legislation in your view? Look, extremely important. I absolutely support it. And I think the minimum age legislation was a good first step, but it was never going to be the end of the conversation. I think keeping younger children off these platforms for longer gives them breathing space and a digital duty of care addresses the other side of that equation, making digital environments themselves safe, safer, I believe. So we regulate the safety of products, children interact with every day. So we wouldn't expect or accept rather a playground or a car or a toy being deliberately designed

2:03in a way that could harm a child. So digital products should not be treated differently at all. And again, I think I've always said this, Sally, and you've heard me say it, it's about shifting responsibility for too long. We've asked parents and children to somehow outsmart some of the most sophisticated technology companies in the world. And safety needs to be built into the product, not bolted on after someone has been harmed. I mean, what's been put forward by the government? Does it meet all that you are looking for? Is there more to be done? Look, I think it's a significant step forward, Sally, but legislation is obviously only as strong as implementation and enforcement. I think giving Australians genuine control over their feed is important. And I personally think there's a legitimate conversation to be heard about whether the safest setting should be the default, particularly for our young users who really shouldn't be on there anyway. And choice has to mean genuine choice. We can't have a situation where opting out takes six clicks, where people are repeatedly

3:04pushed back towards the algorithm or when the non-algorithmic experience is deliberately degraded for people. And as we know, regulation is only one part of this. Education has to sit alongside it. When you need young people, parents and educators to understand how these systems work, why certain content is being served to them and how to navigate digital environments critically. I mean, I didn't grow up in this digital world for going to say, I had Texas Instrument Computer with basic language. So digital literacy and well-being need to be embedded, not bolted on. I mean, legislation is one thing. The reality can sometimes be a bit different. We've seen with the social media band that there are still a large number of under-16s online. What do you think of that and what more needs to be done in your view? Look, I don't think child safety should depend on whether we trust a technology company to do the right thing. We know that they are not doing the right thing.

4:07That's why we need the legislation, independent oversight and really meaningful enforcement. These are some of the wealthiest and most technologically sophisticated companies in the world. And if they can build algorithms capable of understanding our behaviour with such extraordinary precision, they are capable of building systems that comply with Australian safety laws. So we shouldn't be asking whether platforms want to comply, we should make sure they have to comply. And that's exactly what they're not doing, Sally. They're just taking the Mickey out of Australia at the moment. Our kids aren't doing anything wrong by putting themselves back on the platforms. The problem is the platforms, well, we look at that the latest settlement in the US, 17.1 billion dollars. And Zuckerberg has said, we're going to put some parameters around this under 16s can't be on the platforms between say it's midnight and 6am or whatever it is. So he's basically saying that they can identify under 16 accounts.

5:09They can identify them. They just choose not to. What do you think about some critics of this legislation who are concerned about this perhaps being a curb on freedom of speech when it comes to identifying the definition of harm? Look, that is something I was concerned about was definition of harm, but I think it is relatively well covered in the draft document. And there's a two week consultation period now on this as well. So people can have their say, I don't think it curves the right to anyone's free speech or anything like that. It actually gives you the choice. It gives you the choice as to whether you want to be fed those algorithmic feeds or whether you don't want to be fed them. It's pretty simple. Yeah, just finally the loss of your son, Ali, was an incalculable loss for your family and those who knew him as a society, what do we lose when these young people are lost?

6:11Well, we're losing our children, our most vulnerable. And we need to protect our most vulnerable children, all he needed to be protected and the algorithm didn't know my son, but it certainly knew his behaviour. So it didn't recognise a vulnerable 14 year old boy who needed protection. What it recognised, sorry, Sally, is engagement and it just fed him more and more. So I'm actually really grateful with a part of, well, with the digital duty of care because seeing eating disorders specifically recognised in it matters, it matters. And we need to remember that eating disorders don't just affect girls and harmful online content does not discriminate by gender. So for me, as a society, this again is another step in the right direction to save our children and the most vulnerable and our children need to be protected. Mia Bannister, I really appreciate you coming on to breakfast again.

7:12Thank you very much. Thank you for having me, Sally. Thank you. Mia Bannister is an advocate for the social media ban, which was introduced by the government for under 16s and also the My Feed My Way initiative after losing her son Oli to suicide. And if you or anyone you know needs help, you can call Lifeline on 131114 and for help with eating disorders, you can call the butterfly national helpline on 1-800-234673. I'll give that number to you again. That's the butterfly foundation on 1-800-234673.