Online safety reform needs independent appeals pathway

Facebook user Elizabeth speaks out at Senate enquiry

Back in February, Elizabeth was locked out of her Facebook page of 20 years. She was told she had breached advertising guidelines, despite never running ads. She appealed and was told her account was permanently disabled.

Elizabeth contacted the platform, her local MP, consumer groups, the TIO, and even spoke to a journalist about her experience but was still unable to get her account restored.

Left with no recourse, Elizabeth has been isolated from members of her community who have supported her from afar through health challenges and the deaths of loved ones.

This week, Elizabeth spoke to a Senate inquiry about her experience, asking for a proper appeals process so digital platforms can be accountable to their users.

A missing piece in the government’s digital agenda

The Digital Duty of Care Bill introduces internal complaint and dispute resolution processes to the Online Safety Act, in an important step towards greater accountability for digital platforms.

The TIO is calling on the Government to finish the job by requiring platforms to participate in an external dispute resolution scheme by expanding the TIO.

Without clear dispute resolution pathways, digital platform users are left in the same position they are today – stuck between automated responses, unclear escalation pathways and powerful global platforms, and reaching out to MPs, senators, journalists and anyone else who might be able to help.

It could get worse too. With stronger standards for online safety, more Australians may face automated social media processes locking them of their accounts for suspected breaches of community guidelines and no accessible avenue to appeal.

Repro Uncensored tracks digital censorship and has identified Australian accounts as among the hardest to recover following wrongful account lockouts.

Growing support for independent, accessible escalation pathways

Support is growing for Parliament to strengthen the Digital Duty of Care Bill by giving people an independent avenue to resolve complaints against digital platforms.

At this week’s Senate inquiry hearings, Meta and tech industry lobby group DIGI backed this approach, while the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia backed a clear ombudsman jurisdiction for small businesses locked out of their online accounts without explanation or practical appeal options.

The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network and the Consumer Policy Research Centre specifically supported a role for the TIO, while the Alannah and Madeline Foundation, the Centre for Excellence in Child & Family Welfare, Human Rights Law Centre and Rule of Law Institute also spoke in support of an ombudsman.

The Australian Jewish Association and Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney also agreed on the need for an independent dispute resolution mechanism.

Public health researchers and Harm Reduction Australia wrote submissions recommending an Ombudsman to ensure an independent mechanism to oversee unjustified removal and “over-capture” of public health information.

Join the call for someone to turn to

The TIO is calling for our role to expand to include digital platforms, so people like Elizabeth have a free, fair, independent and human place to turn when they can’t get the help they need.

Australians already have access to independent dispute resolution for sectors they rely on every day, including telecommunications, utilities, financial and government services. This vital safety net is still missing for the digital world.

As digital platforms become an increasingly important part of how we communicate, work and participate in everyday life, people need meaningful protections when things go wrong, and somewhere to turn when those protections fail.

Have you had an experience like Elizabeth, or agree with our calls for taking on the digital platforms jurisdiction as Communications Ombudsman?

Add your voice by sharing your story with us.