- Australia is not pursuing outright bans or conventional censorship, instead placing platform responsibility at the centre of its regulatory approach.
- Australia is treating information security as a part of national security, a recognition aligned with modern geopolitical realities.
- The most important lesson from the Australian example is that it has focused on platform accountability, not user surveillance.
- Regulation of social media in Australia demonstrates that the protection of freedom of speech and the safeguarding of national security are compatible objectives.
Over time, social media sites have evolved from being basic means of communication to becoming powerful platforms that shape public opinion, influence political processes, and exacerbate social divisions. Democratic states now face the challenge of preserving free speech while limiting the harmful effects of digital platforms, including misinformation, radicalisation, and foreign interference. The ongoing proposal to tighten regulations on social media in Australia is one of the most serious and practical steps being considered globally to meet this challenge. The situation also has a lot to teach India, which is grappling with similar and often more complex concerns related to information security threats.
Australia’s Regulatory Recalibration: Beyond Free Speech Absolutism
Australia is not seeking to impose outright bans on social media platforms, nor is it resorting to conventional forms of censorship. Platform responsibility lies at the core of Australia’s regulatory discourse. The Australian government, represented by the eSafety Commissioner and communications regulators, is examining measures that would compel social media companies to take prompt action against clearly harmful content. Among these are disinformation during emergencies, terrorist recruitment, propaganda, and influence operations by foreign countries and actors that are not immediate but gradually create violence or harm to society.
Some of the major proposals that still need deliberation are fast content removal systems, the setting in law of time limits for compliance, higher standards for age verification, and even the imposition of temporary content restrictions during national emergencies. The focus is on ensuring that platforms cannot hide behind the claim of intermediary neutrality when their algorithms amplify hate to make profits off of an engagement-driven revenue model. What is noteworthy about Australia’s approach, though, is its legal clarity and proportionality. Instead of ad hoc executive actions, Australia seeks to institutionalise oversight through transparent legal frameworks, judicial review, and regulatory accountability. This is critical in maintaining public trust while asserting state authority over the digital information space.
Information as a Strategic Context: The Domain of Conflict
Australia’s concerns are not abstract. The phenomenon of foreign state and non-state actors harnessing social media for election interference, societal polarisation, and the weakening of democratic institutions has been openly recognised by the government. It has been noted that disinformation campaigns around such issues as COVID-19, climate policy, defence alliances, and Indigenous rights translated digital narratives into real-world political and social consequences. Thus, Australia is treating information security as a part of national security, a recognition aligned with modern geopolitical realities. Information warfare no longer requires tanks or missiles; it is now conducted through viral videos, manipulated pictures, and algorithmic boosting.
Why Australia’s Debate Matters for India
For India, the Australian regulatory push is of direct relevance and a matter of urgency. India is considered a major digital society globally and has one of the largest social media user bases in the world. The democratic opportunity that comes with such also carries some of the most serious liabilities. India is already facing problems such as deepfakes, cross-border propaganda, synchronised disinformation tactics, and the deliberate incitement of social divides, reflecting mainly religious, linguistic, and regional sensitivities. During elections, protests, and other occasions of national turmoil, social media has been the principal medium for the dissemination of divisive and inflammatory content.
Moreover, the global standing of India renders it more susceptible to foreign information operations targeting it. It often sees the anti-India narratives internationally being transmitted through encrypted messaging platforms, anonymous accounts, and algorithm-driven amplification. Such campaigns, however, are unlike traditional propaganda; they are decentralised, easily deniable, and extremely difficult to attribute. The experience of Australia teaches an important lesson to India: setting limits within democratic methods does not mean complete inactivity by the regulatory authorities. Democratic states may take a strong stand to defend their information ecosystems, and at the same time, they need not slide into authoritarian control.
Platform Accountability v/s User Censorship
The most important lesson from the Australian example is that it has focused on platform accountability, not user surveillance. It is not about tracking citizens but making corporations responsible for meeting minimum standards of conduct. For India, this is an important differentiation. Public debates around regulating social media are generally premised on apprehensions of overreach by the state. But greater accountability for platforms—clear timelines for takedowns, transparency of content moderation policies, in-country grievance redressal channels, and algorithmic audits—places the burden where it ought to be: on the platforms that build business models off of user engagement. Australia demonstrates that clear, consistent, and law-based rules reduce the risk of social media regulation being perceived as political censorship.
Emergency Powers and the Issue of Proportionality
Another contentious aspect of Australia’s discussion is the notion of temporary restrictions during emergencies, terror attacks, natural disasters, or public health crises. Such measures are always controversial. But Australia seeks to define them as narrow, time-bound, and subject to oversight. India has already experimented with internet shutdowns and platform-level restrictions, often inviting international criticism as a result. The Australian debate serves to underline the imperative of codifying emergency powers, rather than leaving these to discretionary executive action. The establishment of transparent legal criteria, the inclusion of expiry clauses, and the provision for after-the-fact review are among the major factors that help ensure that emergency measures are applied only in exceptional circumstances and do not become the norm.
Cooperation Among Democracies
The regulatory efforts in Australia are also, at the same time, addressing the globalisation of cooperation among democracies with similar political systems. Information threats are inherently transnational in character; a disinformation campaign originating in one country can have an immediate impact on another. By setting up similar regulatory standards and by sharing information on influence operations, the democracies have the power to turn the tables against unprincipled actors. For India, close coordination with Australia, Japan, the EU, and the US would be a way to reinforce collective resistance against the malicious use of internet-based technologies. Shared best practices around age verification, labelling AI-generated content, and counter-disinformation frameworks would be collectively advantageous for the participants.
Implications for India’s Policy Trajectory
India has taken the first step towards the implementation of a regulatory framework for digital platforms through the IT Rules and intermediary guidelines. Still, the real power of these regulations has been limited by a lack of enforcement, uneven compliance, and prolonged courtroom battles. Australia’s evolving regulatory framework offers useful reference points for India to adopt clearer benchmarks, strengthen institutional capacity, and ensure more predictable enforcement. At the same time, regulation must evolve in step with technological change. The use of AI to generate deepfakes, produce synthetic audio, and create automated bot networks requires governance that is proactive instead of reactive. Australia’s focus on anticipatory regulation, rather than crisis-driven responses, presents an important lesson.
Conclusion: Democracy and Its Guard in the Digital Era
The argument surrounding the regulation of social media in Australia is not merely a domestic administrative matter but an indication of the struggle between democracy and the digital world unfolding globally. Such cases demonstrate that the protection of freedom of speech and the safeguarding of national security are compatible objectives. The communication was explicit: a sound information system is the basis of social unity, electoral integrity, and autonomy in decision-making. There is much India can learn from Australia’s effective, balanced, law-based approach to strengthening its own digital governance framework while remaining aligned with democratic values. As information warfare becomes the hallmark of 21st-century geopolitics, democracies’ ability to responsibly regulate digital platforms may well become their litmus test of resilience in the years ahead.
Daljeet Singh holds a BTech in Computer Science and is currently pursuing an MA in Political Science. His interests range across geopolitics, international relations, and technology. An avid reader and writer, he is passionate about exploring the intersections of these fields. Views expressed are the author’s own.
Raghvendra Tripathi 
Aayush Pal 
Parag Gilada