As Australia shapes its Digital Duty of Care legislation, a children's charity is pressing for something the law has not yet fully embraced: the recognition that platforms bearing children into digital life carry the same moral and legal weight as any manufacturer who builds a product a child might hold. The Alannah & Madeline Foundation argues that harm online is not incidental but architectural — written into the design choices of systems built for engagement, not wellbeing. Their call is not for stricter parenting, but for a shift in where responsibility is legally anchored.
Children's charity pushes child-centric design in Australia's Digital Duty of Care laws
Children commonly encounter violent or disturbing content online, are contacted by strangers, and struggle with device addiction, with most negative experiences unreported.
Platforms should face the same safety obligations as toy manufacturers
Mark
So the Foundation backs the Digital Duty of Care bill. What's the disagreement, then?
Mimi
They support the direction, but they think it doesn't go far enough. The bill focuses on harmful content and design features, which is good. But the Foundation wants platforms to have a legal duty to put children's best interests at the center of how they build their services in the first place.
Luke
That's a meaningful distinction. But I want to know: what does "best interests of the child" actually mean in law? That phrase exists in child welfare frameworks, but it's notoriously hard to enforce. How would a regulator measure whether a platform is meeting that standard?
Mimi
That's exactly why the Foundation made twelve recommendations—to define what that means in practice. Standards for user empowerment tools, recognition of compulsive use as harm, definitions that can adapt to new threats.
Mark
The Foundation says most children don't report negative experiences. Do we know why? Is it shame, or do they not realize what happened to them was harmful?
Mimi
The source doesn't break that down. It just notes the fact—most don't report. And that's the point: if you're waiting for complaints to drive regulation, you're missing the majority of harm.
Luke
Fair. But I should flag: the Foundation is making a causal claim here—that platform design, not individual behavior, is the driver of these harms. That's probably true in many cases, but the source doesn't provide evidence for that claim. It's an argument, not a finding.
Mimi
Right. They're saying the design choices matter. The algorithms, the notifications, the engagement mechanics—those are deliberate. And they shape what kids see and how they behave.
Mark
The toy and car seat comparison keeps coming up. Is that actually a useful analogy? Those products are physical; they have clear safety standards. How do you set a safety standard for an algorithm?
Luke
That's the real question the Foundation is dodging. They're right that the comparison is rhetorically powerful, but it doesn't answer how you'd actually regulate it. What does compliance look like?
Mimi
The Foundation seems to be saying: start by making it a legal obligation, then work out the details. The bill already focuses on harmful design features, so there's a framework emerging.
Mark
And the parental controls point—that they don't work because parents don't use them. Is that a design problem or a behavior problem?
Mimi
The Foundation would say it's both. But their argument is: if you're relying on parents to solve a problem that platforms created, you're putting the burden in the wrong place.
El Pulso
- Children routinely encounter violent content, stranger contact, and compulsive device use — not because of personal failings, but because platforms are engineered to maximize engagement at any cost.
- Most negative online experiences go unreported, and parental controls are widely unused, leaving enormous gaps that families alone cannot close.
- The Alannah & Madeline Foundation has submitted twelve formal recommendations demanding that child welfare be embedded into platform design from inception, not bolted on as an afterthought.
- The Foundation is pushing regulators to recognize compulsive or dysregulated use as a harm in its own right — a category current frameworks have not yet named.
- Australia's proposed Digital Duty of Care bill is moving in the right direction, but the Foundation warns it must go further: child-safe design should be a legal obligation, not an industry best practice.
As Australia shapes its Digital Duty of Care legislation, a children's charity is pressing for something the law has not yet fully embraced: the recognition that platforms bearing children into digital life carry the same moral and legal weight as any manufacturer who builds a product a child might hold. The Alannah & Madeline Foundation argues that harm online is not incidental but architectural — written into the design choices of systems built for engagement, not wellbeing. Their call is not for stricter parenting, but for a shift in where responsibility is legally anchored.
Australia is advancing a Digital Duty of Care framework, and the Alannah & Madeline Foundation is making clear that support for the bill comes with a firm condition: platforms must be legally required to place children's best interests at the center of how they are designed and operated.
Ariana Kurzeme, the Foundation's Director of Policy & Prevention, drew a pointed comparison in a statement released September 24. Toy manufacturers and car seat makers are held to strict legal safety standards. Digital platforms — used daily by billions of young people — should face the same. The burden of staying safe online, she argued, cannot rest on children and parents navigating systems that were never built with them in mind.
The Foundation's submission to the bill's exposure draft makes the case that the harms children face online are not accidents. Violent content, contact from strangers, and compulsive use are consequences of deliberate design choices — algorithms, notification systems, and engagement mechanics that companies have built and can change. Parental controls and user safety tools, the Foundation warns, are not sufficient answers. Most children never report negative experiences. Many parents stop using controls as children age. These are structural gaps, not personal failures.
Among the Foundation's twelve recommendations: enshrine the best interests of the child as a legal design obligation, recognize compulsive use as a regulatory harm, and build definitional flexibility into the framework so it can respond to threats that do not yet exist. Kurzeme closed with a clear line — child welfare cannot be something platforms add later. It must be built in from the start, the same way safety is mandatory in every other industry that serves children.
Australia is moving toward a Digital Duty of Care framework, and a major children's charity is insisting the law must do more than it currently proposes. The Alannah & Madeline Foundation supports the government's direction but is pushing hard for something specific: platforms must be legally required to design their services with children's best interests as a foundational principle, not an afterthought.
Ariana Kurzeme, the Foundation's Director of Policy & Prevention, framed the issue plainly in a statement released on September 24. Children and their parents should not have to shoulder the entire burden of staying safe in digital spaces that were built without them in mind. The comparison she drew was direct: toy manufacturers and car seat makers face strict legal obligations to ensure their products are safe for children. Digital platforms, which billions of young people use daily, should face the same standard.
The problem, as the Foundation sees it, runs deeper than individual choices or parental vigilance. Children regularly encounter violent or disturbing content online. They are contacted by strangers. They struggle to regulate their own use of devices, games, and apps. These are not accidents of human nature—they are consequences of how platforms are designed and operated. The algorithms that determine what content appears, the notification systems that drive engagement, the mechanics that reward time spent—these are deliberate choices made by companies, and they shape what children experience.
The Foundation's submission to the exposure draft of the Digital Duty of Care bill makes this case systematically. It warns that relying on user safety tools and parental controls to solve the problem is insufficient. Most children who have negative online experiences do not report them. Many parents do not use parental controls, especially as their children grow older. These gaps are real, and they cannot be closed by asking families to work harder. The regulatory approach needs to shift from complaint-driven enforcement to something that addresses design itself.
The Foundation has offered twelve specific recommendations. Among them: make the best interests of the child a legal responsibility that platforms must embed into their design and operations from the start. Recognize highly dysregulated or compulsive use as a potential harm that regulators should address. Establish clear standards for the tools that give users control over their own experience. Build flexibility into definitions so the framework can adapt as new threats emerge.
Kurzeme returned to this point in her closing statement: for the Duty of Care to have real and meaningful impact, child welfare cannot be treated as something to add later. It must be built in from the beginning. The bill's existing focus on harmful design features is a step in the right direction, but the Foundation is arguing that the law needs to go further—to make child-centric design not just a good practice but a legal obligation, the same way safety is mandatory in every other industry that serves children.
Citas Notables
Children and parents should not bear the burden of keeping themselves safe in digital environments that were never designed with their best interests in mind.— Ariana Kurzeme, Director of Policy & Prevention, Alannah & Madeline Foundation
For the Duty of Care to have real and meaningful impact, the best interests of the child must be built into the design and operation of these services from the start, not treated as an afterthought.— Ariana Kurzeme, Alannah & Madeline Foundation
Quieres la nota completa?
Lee el original en cyberdaily.au ↗