The US Calls Australia’s Online-Safety Bill Censorship
Matthew Leo · September 23, 2026 · Business & Policy
The United States is pushing back against Australia’s proposed digital duty of care before the bill has even reached Parliament.
In a submission to Australia’s consultation, the US government said the plan could encourage platforms to suppress lawful speech and asked Australia to withdraw it or exempt American services. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese rejected the censorship label on September 23, saying the exposure draft is intended to give users more control over what reaches their devices.
The disagreement is worth watching in Canada because it shows how quickly domestic online-safety rules can turn into a trade and foreign-policy fight.
What Australia is proposing
The draft would place a duty on popular social platforms, online games, apps and AI chatbots used by people under 18. Providers would have to address specified harms such as pornography, content encouraging eating disorders, misogynistic material, dangerous stunts, abuse and bullying.
Australia’s eSafety commissioner would be able to issue removal notices, and companies would need to document what they have done to reduce risk. The government has also discussed requiring platforms to let account holders opt out of recommendation algorithms.
Those details are not final. Albanese stressed that the government has released an exposure draft, not introduced a finished bill. Parliament could still change the definitions, regulator powers and scope.
Why the US objected
The American submission argues that broad terms such as foreseeable harm could push platforms to over-moderate material that would be protected speech in the United States. It also says product changes made for Australia could affect users elsewhere because major platforms often operate one global system.
That is a practical concern, but the proposed law would not give Australia direct power over what Americans can say. The US argument is that companies may choose global design or moderation changes rather than build a separate Australian version.
Australia’s response is that leaving the design entirely to platforms has not protected children well enough. The government describes the opt-out proposal as a way for users to reduce algorithmic recommendations, not as a system for the government to choose political viewpoints.
Why Canada should pay attention
Canada has its own debates over platform responsibility, child safety, age checks and the reach of regulators. The European Union is also trying to pair stronger child protections with privacy-preserving age checks, an approach Mapletechie examined in Europe’s recent child-safety proposal.
The Australian dispute shows the questions Canada would need to answer clearly in any future proposal: which harms trigger a duty, who defines them, what evidence platforms must keep, how appeals work and whether a requirement can be met without monitoring everyone.
It also shows that US pressure is likely when rules apply to American companies. Calling a policy censorship does not settle whether the safeguards are adequate, but vague drafting gives that argument more force.
What happens next
Australia’s consultation and parliamentary process will determine whether the bill advances and how its definitions change. Until then, claims about the law’s final effect are predictions. The useful test will be the text that reaches Parliament, especially the definition of harm and the limits placed on the regulator.
Sources
- US Embassy in Australia: US response to the consultation, September 22, 2026
- The Guardian: Albanese responds to the US warning, September 23, 2026
Tags: Online Safety, Australia, United States, Social Media, Digital Policy