The problem with social media in Australia and how to fix it

Social media can have many benefits but there is growing concern that these platforms are responsible for a range of harms to users. These include anxiety, depression, self harm, suicide, body anxiety, low self esteem, cyber bulling, online predators, loneliness, sleep disturbance, internet addiction, false information and more.

The role of social media as a major cause of  problems continues to be debated but over time we have seen an increasing number of studies and reports indicating that the currently (2025) popular social media platforms really do cause serious harm to many people, particularly adolescents.

The basic cause of the harms done by social media entities as they currently function is that their platforms are operated by the proprietors for the financial benefit of the proprietors and advertisers.

The proprietors have no interest in the welfare of users beyond enticing them to subscribe to the platform, remain engaged and preferably addicted.  They have no interest in checking the veracity of assertions posted by users. I think it is likely that they welcome wild claims and extravagant conspiracy theories as these generate more activity and there for income  than thoughtful discussion.

They have no interest in providing news if they have to pay for it.

The product which the proprietors are selling to the advertisers is the users themselves and a great deal of information about those users. Corporate social media platforms in common use in 2025 are essentially exploitative in nature.

My purpose in this post is to present a model for social media which enables the benefits while reducing the risk of harms. The model seeks to encourage freedom of expression with responsibility for the potential effect of that expression on others.

This model makes users, not proprietors, principal  beneficiaries of the platform and utilises artificial intelligence to that end.

Here is my proposed model and how it could work in Australia.

1. The Australian Federal Government establishes a social media regulating authority. Let us call this AusConn.  Any entity wishing to operate a social media platform in Australia must be approved by AusConn.

2. Any prospective social media operating entity must be a non-profit organisation with its books open to AusConn.

3. Individuals, groups and organisations can post.  All must register to participate providing verified name, address and contact details similar to those required to open a bank account or (for individuals) apply for a passport.

4. All posts are public. They can be viewed by anyone with access to the internet.

5. Each user, individual, group or organisation, can make no more than one post per day and one response per day, except in emergency such as bushfire, flood and similar threats to public safety.

There is a limited  number of words or minutes per post or response.

6. No re-posting is permitted. No “likes” or similar are allowed.

7. All posts and responses will be moderated using a hybrid model. An AI driven content moderation tool performs an initial scan. Matters requiring further judgement are referred to the human moderation team.

7a. No commercial advertising is permitted. The AI moderator will remove any post flagged as  commercial advertising and will post a notice in place of the original post to that effect. There will be cases when there is a dispute as to whether a post constitutes a review or a public notice as distinct from a commercial advertisement. These will be referred to the human moderation team for decision.

7b.  There are many Australian laws which could be broken by a post on social media.  These relate to treason, sedition, defamation, discrimination, privacy, copyright, contempt of court, incitement to violence, classified information, trade secrets, offensive behaviour and others. If the AI moderator identifies a post as illegal it will notify the poster of this and give the poster 24 hours to give reason why the post should be regarded as lawful.

The original post, the AI response and any other responses are all in the public domain.

There will be cases where the legality or otherwise of a post is disputed. If there is no resolution in 24 hours the post will be referred to the human moderation team for decision as to further action which could include removal of the post. The original poster will have the option of leaving the original post in place and risking prosecution by police or other authority.

7c. If the AI moderator identifies a post as factually incorrect, misleading, fake, mischievous or otherwise in bad faith but not actually unlawful, it will append a comment to the original post indicating the perceived problem and inviting comment from platform users.

8. The platform will be funded by subscription with an annual rate for individuals, concession holders, small groups and large groups.

9. Platform users wishing access to news will pay a news subscription in addition to the basic subscription. The proceeds of this will go to news providers.

10. A social media ombudsman will deal with complaints.

Concepts and principles:

* The social media model outlined here aims to encourage freedom of expression, contest of ideas and civil discourse within a set of regulations designed to limit the harms which have been attributed to corporate social media platforms popular in 2025.

* If a civil society wishes to avoid lapsing into anarchy, freedom of expression must be constrained by responsibility for the potential effects of that expression on others.

* Responsibility for published content is shared between platform host and contributors.

My position on this is that any platform host which thinks it is not responsible  for material posted by contributors has abdicated its duty to society.  I regard section 230 of the United States Communications Decency Act of 1996 to be an invidious piece of legislation which has enabled this abdication, to the detriment of civil society. The problem is greatly magnified globally because legislation in one country (USA) affects all other countries whose citizens use social media owned by corporations based in USA.

* I am astonished and disappointed that humans are still debating whether social media should be regulated. I think this is due to the pervasive power of multinational corporations and oligarchs, who benefit from freedom to operate in an unregulated domain.

In fact, functional societies in which people choose to live have many regulations about pretty much all goods, services and activities. Can you imagine what driving a car might be like if there were no regulations regarding the design and construction of cars and roads and no road traffic rules ? It would be total chaos with a horrendous death toll.