Social Media 'Monetising Hate': What Canberra's Regulators Must Decide Next

Canberra's regulatory institutions face a critical fork in the road after the eSafety Commissioner revealed that major social media platforms are actively profiting from the distribution of gore, antisemitic material, and fringe extremist content—evidence that will force federal policymakers to confront whether existing powers are sufficient.

The submission to the parliamentary antisemitism inquiry, tabled this week, has crystallised a debate that has simmered among public servants and researchers at the Australian National University and University of Canberra for months: do platforms' algorithmic recommendation systems constitute a form of regulatory capture that existing legislation cannot address?

For public service workers across Canberra's corridors—from the Department of Infrastructure in Parkes to Attorney-General's Department offices on Constitutive Street—the implications are stark. The eSafety Commissioner has identified a structural incentive problem: platforms earn advertising revenue when extreme content drives engagement, regardless of harm.

The evidence presents three immediate decision points. First, whether the Online Safety Act requires amendment to explicitly regulate algorithmic amplification as a breach of community standards. Second, whether the regulator needs expanded enforcement powers to impose financial penalties comparable to European frameworks. Third, whether Australia should establish a dedicated unit to track platform compliance in real time, rather than responding to complaints after harm occurs.

Sources close to the inquiry suggest the federal government is weighing a consultation period through August, with draft legislation possible by September. However, timing matters: the government is already juggling budget pressures, the ongoing light rail stage 2 debate consuming ACT resources, and departmental concerns about balancing innovation with safety.

The submission also highlights that platforms have exploited gaps between Australian and international standards. Content flagged as violating policies in Europe or the United States often remains live for Australian users, suggesting a deliberate strategy to minimise compliance costs.

Researchers at ANU's school of cybernetics and digital policy have pointed to a more troubling finding: algorithmic systems actively directing users toward extremist material appear to be driving up housing-related tensions in growth suburbs like Gungahlin, where community divisions have become increasingly polarised through online networks.

The eSafety Commissioner's next move will likely involve formal investigations into three major platforms' advertising models. But enforcement alone cannot solve the problem. Regulatory sources in Canberra indicate the real battle will be legislative: whether Parliament can craft rules that address algorithmic harms without stifling legitimate speech or imposing unmanageable compliance burdens on smaller platforms.

The commission is expected to report in full by October. By then, the question of what happens next will have moved from inquiry chambers to drafting offices across the capital.

This article was compiled by AI and screened before publishing. See our editorial standards.