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.

The draft also brings a range of welcome legal protections and clauses to enable independent scrutiny of big tech platforms.

Among these, approved researchers and the eSafety Commissioner would be expressly permitted to use “sock puppet identities” to observe and test how platforms operate.

Critics have seized upon this provision to warn of government-sanctioned fake accounts, government surveillance, or to suggest ordinary Australians would need permission to remain anonymous online.

This is not what the draft bill states. Let’s unpack what the “sock puppets” provision actually entails.

What does the bill mean by a ‘sock puppet’?

Part of the concern may stem from the term itself. Online, a “sock puppet” often means a false identity deployed deceptively – to manipulate a discussion, make one person appear to be many, harass others, or disguise the source of a message.

The draft bill, however, separates the identity from how it’s used. It defines a sock puppet simply as a “false or fictitious identity” assumed while using, or doing anything in relation to, an online service.

It then sets out distinct purposes and limits for researchers and the eSafety........

© The Conversation