This misleading #Australia Labor Government ‘survey’ is designed to show that you WANT a digital #ID and broad social media #surveillance
If you tick ANYTHING except NONE OF THE ABOVE – you are in fact ASKING the Australian Government to IMPOSE a DIGITAL ID on you and you family.
From George Christensen
There is a LABOR GOV 'survey' circulating that is designed to manipulate you into agreeing to the DIGITAL ID.
The URL for the survey is https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/digital-duty-care and here GREAT CARE is SUGGESTED in selecting the responses you give to that survey:
Q1: What kinds of harmful experiences or content should platforms prevent for Australians UNDER 18?
• Bullying and harassment, including volumetric attacks (‘pile ons’)
• Online hate speech against individuals or groups
• Pornography
• Content that promotes harmful behaviour (e.g. self-harm, suicide, extreme dieting)
• Online dares and challenges that could cause injury
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q2: What harmful features or products should platforms prevent for UNDER 18s?
• Algorithms that push harmful content
• Addictive features (autoplay, notifications)
• AI companions that behave inappropriately
• Ephemeral content (e.g. disappearing messages)
• Quantifiable social metrics (e.g. likes)
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q3: What harmful content should platforms prevent for ADULTS?
• Bullying and harassment
• Hate speech
• Violent pornography
• Content that promotes self-harm or drug use
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q4: What harmful features or products should platforms prevent for ADULTS?
• Algorithms that push harmful content
• Addictive design
• AI chatbots
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q5: What should platforms include in their dispute systems?
• Reports about harmful content
• Disputes over removed material
• Disputes about banned accounts
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q6: What types of platforms should the duty of care apply to?
• Social media
• Dating apps
• Messaging apps
• Gaming platforms
• App stores
• Search engines
• AI tools like ChatGPT
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q7: Do you have other comments?
Paste this or write something like it in your own words:
I do not support any Digital Duty of Care. This appears to be an attempt to revive the rejected “misinformation and disinformation” agenda, which would give the government indirect control over what adults may read, watch, or say online. Adults should be free to access lawful material without state permission. Protecting children from pornography and other harms can be achieved through existing laws, enforcement, and parental tools, not a new censorship regime.
If you tick ANYTHING except NONE OF THE ABOVE – you are in fact ASKING the Australian Government to IMPOSE a DIGITAL ID on you and you family.
From George Christensen
There is a LABOR GOV 'survey' circulating that is designed to manipulate you into agreeing to the DIGITAL ID.
The URL for the survey is https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/digital-duty-care and here GREAT CARE is SUGGESTED in selecting the responses you give to that survey:
Q1: What kinds of harmful experiences or content should platforms prevent for Australians UNDER 18?
• Bullying and harassment, including volumetric attacks (‘pile ons’)
• Online hate speech against individuals or groups
• Pornography
• Content that promotes harmful behaviour (e.g. self-harm, suicide, extreme dieting)
• Online dares and challenges that could cause injury
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q2: What harmful features or products should platforms prevent for UNDER 18s?
• Algorithms that push harmful content
• Addictive features (autoplay, notifications)
• AI companions that behave inappropriately
• Ephemeral content (e.g. disappearing messages)
• Quantifiable social metrics (e.g. likes)
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q3: What harmful content should platforms prevent for ADULTS?
• Bullying and harassment
• Hate speech
• Violent pornography
• Content that promotes self-harm or drug use
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q4: What harmful features or products should platforms prevent for ADULTS?
• Algorithms that push harmful content
• Addictive design
• AI chatbots
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q5: What should platforms include in their dispute systems?
• Reports about harmful content
• Disputes over removed material
• Disputes about banned accounts
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q6: What types of platforms should the duty of care apply to?
• Social media
• Dating apps
• Messaging apps
• Gaming platforms
• App stores
• Search engines
• AI tools like ChatGPT
• None of the above (TICK ONLY THIS OPTION)
Q7: Do you have other comments?
Paste this or write something like it in your own words:
I do not support any Digital Duty of Care. This appears to be an attempt to revive the rejected “misinformation and disinformation” agenda, which would give the government indirect control over what adults may read, watch, or say online. Adults should be free to access lawful material without state permission. Protecting children from pornography and other harms can be achieved through existing laws, enforcement, and parental tools, not a new censorship regime.
Forwarded from Telegram Info English (Sominemo)
Telegram Sues Australia Over Age Verification Law
Telegram has initiated a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia against the local regulator, eSafety. The messenger is challenging the legality of the "Online Safety Act 2021" and a significant fine imposed on it.
As a reminder, in February 2025, the Australian regulator fined Telegram over $600,000 for delaying the provision of information on its measures to combat terrorism and materials related to child exploitation.
Telegram's arguments in court:
• The company argues that under Australian law, it is not defined as a "provider of social media services" and is therefore not subject to the regulator's demands.
• Telegram states it never received the initial notification for the fine, claiming it was sent to an incorrect address.
• The company asserts that once it became aware of the request, it voluntarily provided the required information. The @tginfo team previously analyzed the details of that response.
Context of the dispute: The lawsuit comes as Australia prepares to introduce some of the world's strictest age verification rules, effective December 10, 2025.
• The new rules will require tech platforms (including Reddit, Facebook, and TikTok) to prevent users under 16 from accessing their services.
• Fines for non-compliance can reach A$50 million (~$33 million USD).
• Privacy advocates are concerned that to comply with these requirements, companies will have to collect sensitive biometric data or identity documents, jeopardizing the privacy of all users.
Similar age verification measures are being introduced in other countries. For example, earlier this year, Telegram launched facial age verification for users in the United Kingdom due to a new local "online safety" law.
This move is notable amid the numerous restrictions Telegram has faced this year. Unlike the situations in Vietnam, Nepal, Russia, or the UK, where the messenger has largely played a passive role, the company is now taking an active legal stance by challenging the regulator's actions in court.
#Australia #courts #fines
Telegram has initiated a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia against the local regulator, eSafety. The messenger is challenging the legality of the "Online Safety Act 2021" and a significant fine imposed on it.
As a reminder, in February 2025, the Australian regulator fined Telegram over $600,000 for delaying the provision of information on its measures to combat terrorism and materials related to child exploitation.
Telegram's arguments in court:
• The company argues that under Australian law, it is not defined as a "provider of social media services" and is therefore not subject to the regulator's demands.
• Telegram states it never received the initial notification for the fine, claiming it was sent to an incorrect address.
• The company asserts that once it became aware of the request, it voluntarily provided the required information. The @tginfo team previously analyzed the details of that response.
Context of the dispute: The lawsuit comes as Australia prepares to introduce some of the world's strictest age verification rules, effective December 10, 2025.
• The new rules will require tech platforms (including Reddit, Facebook, and TikTok) to prevent users under 16 from accessing their services.
• Fines for non-compliance can reach A$50 million (~$33 million USD).
• Privacy advocates are concerned that to comply with these requirements, companies will have to collect sensitive biometric data or identity documents, jeopardizing the privacy of all users.
Similar age verification measures are being introduced in other countries. For example, earlier this year, Telegram launched facial age verification for users in the United Kingdom due to a new local "online safety" law.
This move is notable amid the numerous restrictions Telegram has faced this year. Unlike the situations in Vietnam, Nepal, Russia, or the UK, where the messenger has largely played a passive role, the company is now taking an active legal stance by challenging the regulator's actions in court.
#Australia #courts #fines