In an age where the digital world is as integral to our daily lives as the air we breathe, the safety and integrity of our online experiences have never been more important. For the over 60s, who may be particularly vulnerable to online scams, the call for greater accountability from tech giants is a pressing concern. This brings us to the recent uproar surrounding Meta, the parent company of Facebook, and the demand from experts for it to establish an operational base within Australian shores.

The push for Meta to be anchored in Australia is not just a whim; it's a strategic move aimed at curtailing the company's ability to sidestep responsibility for scams and other harmful content that proliferates on its platforms. Currently, Meta operates under the protective umbrella of US law, specifically 'Section 230,' which shields it from liability for user-generated content. This legal loophole has allowed Meta to claim that it can only be sued in the United States, leaving Australians with little recourse when they fall prey to scams on Facebook.

The issue has been thrust into the spotlight by none other than mining magnate Andrew Forrest, who is embroiled in a legal battle with Meta in the US courts over a series of scam ads featuring his likeness. Forrest's case highlights the broader problem of 'jurisdictional arbitrage,' where companies like Meta exploit legal systems to their advantage, often at the expense of users' safety and countries' tax revenues.

Experts said that the federal government should force Meta to operate from inside Australia. Credit: Shutterstock

It's not just individuals like Forrest who are calling for change. News Corp Australia's executive chairman, Michael Miller, has also criticized Meta's reliance on US law to dodge responsibility for toxic content in Australia. Furthermore, the Let Them Be Kids campaign, backed by News Corp, parents, and experts, is urging the federal government to raise the age limit for social media access to 16 to protect young Australians from the dangers of social media.

The financial implications of Meta's legal maneuvering are significant. By shifting profits from ad sales to Ireland, a well-known corporate tax haven, Meta has reportedly cut its Australian tax bill by an estimated $262 million annually. This practice of 'jurisdictional arbitrage' is the flip side of the same coin that sees Meta avoiding responsibility for the content on its platforms.

Legal experts and policy researchers are adamant that bringing Meta within Australian jurisdiction is essential. Alice Dawkins, the executive director of Reset.tech Australia, emphasizes that without this, Meta remains beyond the reach of Australian regulatory enforcement or litigation seeking to compel better conduct. Dr. Forrest's lawyer, Simon Clarke, echoes this sentiment, suggesting that the Australian government should ensure that companies like Meta are subject to Australian law and regulated within the jurisdiction.

The call for Meta to operate from Australia is not without precedent. In December, Meta settled a defamation case in Ireland and publicly apologized for scam ads, pledging to do more to curb such content. This case demonstrates that Meta can be held accountable, but it requires the company to be within the legal reach of the countries it operates in.

While the Australian government has not yet committed to forcing Meta to establish a base in Australia, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland has stated that keeping Australians safe online is a top priority and that Australian e-safety law is enforceable outside the country. However, without a physical presence in Australia, enforcing these laws against Meta remains a challenge.

As members of the Seniors Discount Club, it's crucial to stay informed about these developments and understand the implications for our online safety. We must advocate for measures that will protect us from the scourge of online scams and ensure that global corporations like Meta are held to the same standards as other entities operating within our borders.

Key Takeaways

• Experts and influential figures are advocating for Meta to establish an operational base within Australia to address legal and regulatory issues.
  
• They argue that Meta's use of US law to avoid responsibility for scam advertisements and other misconduct on Facebook is problematic.
  
• Proposals suggest that by having Meta domiciled in Australia, it could be held accountable under Australian law and regulations.
  
• There is discussion about the broader implications of jurisdictional arbitrage and how multinational corporations should be subject to the same laws and enforcement as domestic entities.

We invite you to share your thoughts and experiences with online scams. Have you or someone you know been affected by scams on social media platforms? What measures do you think should be taken to enhance online safety for seniors? Join the conversation in the comments below and let's work together to stop scammers in their tracks!

 

[Pommyoz]

The sooner the better. Having to deal with American law must be awful, just as U.K. law is difficult from Australia to manoeuvre.

 

[JimmyFlatrock]

Anyone have any ideas on how to force Faceless or Zucherbloke to open up an office here in Australia? It would help, as the Australian government appear bereft of notions at this time. Seems the largest Celts population country have worked out how to keep the Faceless bloke under control. Sláinte ( "Slawn-cha") was the cheering cry of the Irish Celts on hearing news of this.

This operating in the ether which allows squillionaires to avoid paying taxes and do as they please will be sorted out one day. Just not anytime soon.

The septic tanks are indeed a bit irrational, (as pointed out by another) or maybe clueless, for other reasons as well as not seeing the reputational harm they are doing to themselves in the eyes of most other countries.

But a lot in my family don't see the Faceless thingy as a bad choice. The poor behaviour of Zucherbloke is not on their minds as it is mine. So I don't bag Faceless as much as I used to.

Biggest side-ripping laugh made by Murdoch press bloke Miller. Fancy him having a crack at Zuchers when the mob he works for doesn't pay taxes in Australia anyway! Jeez, what a hide on the bloke. Thinks we're all mugs. Plus Miller wants to have a go at Faceless content. Strewth, have a look at your own mob MM.

Onya Twiggy, have a red hot go at Faceless.

 

[Luckyus]

Irefuse to have any dealing with these shite media outlets.

 

[marni]

Anyone have any ideas on how to force Faceless or Zucherbloke to open up an office here in Australia? It would help, as the Australian government appear bereft of notions at this time. Seems the largest Celts population country have worked out how to keep the Faceless bloke under control. Sláinte ( "Slawn-cha") was the cheering cry of the Irish Celts on hearing news of this.

This operating in the ether which allows squillionaires to avoid paying taxes and do as they please will be sorted out one day. Just not anytime soon.

The septic tanks are indeed a bit irrational, (as pointed out by another) or maybe clueless, for other reasons as well as not seeing the reputational harm they are doing to themselves in the eyes of most other countries.

But a lot in my family don't see the Faceless thingy as a bad choice. The poor behaviour of Zucherbloke is not on their minds as it is mine. So I don't bag Faceless as much as I used to.

Biggest side-ripping laugh made by Murdoch press bloke Miller. Fancy him having a crack at Zuchers when the mob he works for doesn't pay taxes in Australia anyway! Jeez, what a hide on the bloke. Thinks we're all mugs. Plus Miller wants to have a go at Faceless content. Strewth, have a look at your own mob MM.

Onya Twiggy, have a red hot go at Faceless.

We are all mugs. No doubt about it, businesses and churches (who have huge business interests) not paying tax - aagggh