RMIT University Media Release
Social media companies could be forced to identify anonymous accounts accused of online vilification, under new laws being proposed in Victoria. An RMIT expert explains why this could reshape online accountability and why platforms are likely to fight them.
Dr Dana Mckay, Senior Lecturer in Innovative Interactive Technologies, School of Computing Technologies says that:
“Until now, if an individual has experienced online hate, they have needed the platform to intervene. The person acting hatefully has been able to remain anonymous, usually with, at most, a short ban from the social media platform.
“Platforms have maintained they will only hand over details to law enforcement, but Victoria wants to change that. Under the proposal, people could report hateful behaviour to VCAT, which could then direct social media companies to identify anonymous users, exposing them to anti-vilification laws in Australia.
“If it works, this could be very effective in changing the tone of social media – after all, most people don’t spew hate in the street, where they can be easily identified.
“In other recent cases, social media companies have fought regulation and responsibility very strongly, so it seems likely they will fight this too.
“Either way, VCAT supporting Victorians to access online protections would be another legal mechanism where social media companies are being held to account, in an environment where the tide of public opinion is turning against them.”
Dana McKay is Associate Dean, Interaction, Technology and Information in the School of Computing Technologies at RMIT University. Dana’s research focuses on ensuring advances in digital information technologies make the world a fairer and more equitable place.
Also by RMIT University
Why Australia’s new office marks a turning point for AI governance
What Hanson’s plan to defund the SBS and paywall the ABC could mean for Australia
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless independent voice – holding power to account and delivering journalism that matters.
Running this site isn’t cheap. Rising costs mean we need your support now more than ever. Every donation, big or small, keeps our servers running, our writers working, and our stories free for everyone.
Donate here:
PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below
Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund for hosting and future improvements.
Thank you for standing with us. We couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude,
The AIMN Team
Well let’s hope this works.
I remember Stan Grant who quit his job with the ABC largely due to online racism which evidently couldn’t be reined in or the platforms required to demonstrate meaningful oversight.
Are we finally designating the online platforms as publishers ?
Such is the absurdity of the Royal Commission into antisemitism and social cohesion’s pandering to the feelings of those who feel strongly that their feelings matter more than human lives that even what would seem common sense law such as this proposal begs consideration of possible abuse.
Could we see Zionists doxxing people who criticise Israel or their genocide against the Palestinians by making vexatious complaints to VCAT on the basis that they feel a strong attachment to Israel and so feel the criticism was online hate directed at them?
If seeing someone wearing a keffiyah is sufficient to claim an incident of antisemitism in the Royal Commission, and that was taken as a threat to someone’s safety, then how will online criticism of Israel be treated.
If doctors and nurses can be silenced and threatened into abandoning their responsibility to call for protection of doctors caught in a genocide, by Zionists claiming that would be anitsemitic and offensive to them, then what chance these new laws wouldn’t be abused by Labor and other pro-Israel zealots to silence critics of Israel’s genocide of Palestinians.
Such is the absurdity of the Royal Commission, well, in my eyes at least, and the insidious nature of Labor’s repression of free speech.
Great, can we prosecute Pauline Hanson for hate speech? It just beggars belief how she can say things like ‘there are no good Muslims’ publicly and it is not considered a breach of federal or state vilification laws; everyone just looks the other way and maybe tut tuts a bit at best. It’s not good enough. It is being allowed to happen because the media are making a fortune off this every time she says something outrageously bigoted and hateful, which she usually backtracks on and says she never said it or it was taken out of context. We had to put up with years of Tony Abbott saying one thing on camera in the morning and then going on TV in the evening and denying it. I like many have HAD ENOUGH OF IT.
Excellent point Hanson Matwatt, but how is it that she hasn’t already been charged for hate speech under the new hate laws that Labor brought in after Bondi, that say:” The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 (the Bill) represents a comprehensive package of reforms which would further criminalise hateful conduct, and ensure that those that seek to spread hate, division and radicalisation are met with severe penalties.”
Or were the laws just brought in by Labor and the Liberals to target protestors against Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians?