Australia Allows Sock-Puppet Accounts for Platform Safety Audits
Australia's safety bill permits verification using disguised identities by researchers. Sorting out confusion and the system's aims.
Based on an article by Daniel Angus, Professor of Digital Communication, Director of QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology, reported in The Conversation - Technology.
Australia’s new Digital Duty of Care bill proposes a significant shift in online safety. Rather than simply responding to harmful content after it appears, platforms would be required to identify “all reasonably foreseeable risks” of harm in their services and take “effective measures” to tackle them.
Among these, approved researchers and the eSafety Commissioner would be expressly permitted to use “sock puppet identities” to observe and test how platforms operate.
For approved researchers, these accounts are not a licence to manipulate other users. They’re only allowed to engage with other users as much as it’s necessary to prevent the account from being closed, such as for inactivity.
Editorial Opinion
In the short term, we expect misunderstandings to spread during deliberations and distrust in the system to increase. Unless the purpose and conditions of sock-puppet research are communicated accurately, opposition movements could delay legislative work. We assess that the focus will be on whether a consultation framework between researchers and operators can be put in place.
In the long term, we see the potential for proactive safety assurance to become standardized. If methods for auditing recommendation systems are established, they will become entrenched as a means of ensuring transparency. We expect spillover effects on institutional design in other countries, making the scope of research powers a point of contention. We also see a connection to the debate over testing infrastructure discussed in Inspired by GNOME OS Test Center and Apple TestFlight.
The remaining question is where to draw the line between research powers and anonymity. We see a need to examine whether university affiliation and ethics review are appropriate conditions. How to ensure the scope of disclosure and the independence of verification results is at issue, in our assessment.
References
- “It’s true, Australia won’t ban ‘sock puppet’ accounts on social media. Here’s why”, by Daniel Angus, Professor of Digital Communication, Director of QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology — The Conversation - Technology, 2026-10-06T23:45:22.000Z (CC BY-ND)
- Source URL: https://theconversation.com/its-true-australia-wont-ban-sock-puppet-accounts-on-social-media-heres-why-293353
Frequently Asked Questions
- How does sock-puppet auditing differ from ordinary user monitoring
- In our editorial view, the essential point is that the target is system behavior, not tracking individuals. It is a conditionally authorized act of verification and differs in nature from ongoing surveillance.
- Will Japanese operators be affected
- In our editorial view, there will be no direct application. However, ensuring transparency of recommendation systems is a common challenge, and sharing of verification methods may advance. Companies will need to clarify their response policies, in our assessment.
Comments