MECM90002 · Global Data Policy And Governance
The US, UK and Australia
If the EU writes the citizen’s rights into binding law, the Anglosphere sits at the other end of the spectrum — but not at a single point. Lecture 8 (“Neoliberalism, market-based orientation, and selective interventionism?”) groups three market-leaning regimes that intervene to very different degrees. The USA runs on free-market self-regulation: a Lockean heritage (life, liberty, property; limited government), two regulatory pillars (the First Amendment and antitrust), and a Silicon-Valley/VC engine — with the politics swinging between administrations (net neutrality flips; the Section 230 shield). The UK occupies the middle with a “duty of care” on online harm, enforced by Ofcom, carrying the tension that platforms become de facto ‘censors’. Australia is the course’s case of selective interventionism — targeted state action (the Online Safety Act, the News Media Bargaining Code, the under-16 ban) by ACMA, the eSafety Commissioner, the ACCC and DIGI. The payoff is one comparative grid, anchored against the EU rights-based pole; the single strongest contrast is that the US still has no federal privacy law.
What this chapter covers
- 01USA — free-market self-regulation, Lockean liberalism, the VC engine
- 02Antitrust (Sherman/Clayton/FTC), the FTC/FCC, and 'monopoly power'
- 03Net neutrality — the flip-flop that maps the politics
- 04Free speech, Section 230, and the cases (Matal v. Tam)
- 05UK — the 'duty of care' model and the 'platforms as censors' tension
- 06Australia — selective interventionism (Online Safety Act, Bargaining Code, under-16 ban)
- 07The three-way contrast grid — anchored against the EU
Worked example: place an actor on the spectrum, then localise it
- +1Place it on the spectrum. The US is light-touch self-regulation, the UK a duty of care, Australia selective interventionism — all market-leaning, at increasing degrees of state involvement; the EU is the rights-based pole.
- +1Name the logic. The Bargaining Code is targeted state action on a chosen front (gatekeeper power over news), not a comprehensive rights regime — the textbook selective-interventionism move.
- +1Lead with the sharpest contrast. Anchor against the US: no federal privacy law there, while the EU exported one to four continents (Cervi 2022) — Australia sits between, acting case by case.
- +1Use a case as evidence. Meta’s 2024 withdrawal from the Code shows the intervention’s logic — and its limits against a globally mobile actor.
- +1Surface the internal tension. Is the Code (or the under-16 ban) legitimate protection or brittle paternalism? Tension shows analysis, not summary — and an AU case is high-value home ground for a UniMelb pitch.
Key terms
- Free-market self-regulation (US)
- The US philosophy: the private sector should lead, with light-touch government. It rests on a Lockean heritage (life, liberty, property; limited government) and two regulatory pillars — the First Amendment (speech) and antitrust (competition) — powered by a Silicon-Valley/venture-capital engine. There is no federal data-protection law; privacy is a state patchwork (CCPA etc.).
- Section 230
- Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act (1996), the liability shield that protects online intermediaries from being treated as the publisher of user content. It is the legal foundation of the US light-touch model for platforms — and a recurring target in debates over platform responsibility.
- Duty of care (UK)
- The UK’s middle-path model (from 2019): a legal duty of care on services that host or curate public content to address ‘online harm’ (deliberately broader than ‘fake news’), enforced by Ofcom. Its standing tension, flagged by a 2019 Lords committee, is that it delegates ‘too much power’ to platforms acting as de facto censors.
- Selective interventionism (Australia)
- Australia’s model: not a comprehensive EU-style rights regime nor pure US laissez-faire, but targeted state action on chosen fronts — the Online Safety Act, the News Media Bargaining Code, the Digital ID Act, the under-16 ban — via ACMA, the eSafety Commissioner, the ACCC and the DIGI co-regulator.
- Antitrust / 'monopoly power'
- The US tradition of regulating competition rather than data: the Sherman Act (1890), Clayton Act (1914) and FTC Act (1914). Section 2 of the Sherman Act targets monopolisation — the lecture’s phrasing is ‘not monopoly but monopoly power’ (possession of monopoly power plus exclusionary conduct), enforced by the FTC and FCC.
The US, UK and Australia FAQ
What is the single sharpest contrast in this chapter?
The US has no federal privacy law, while the EU exported one to four continents (Cervi, 2022). It is the cleanest essay anchor: build the comparison on that asymmetry, then place the UK (duty of care) and Australia (selective interventionism) between the US self-regulation pole and the EU rights-based pole.
Why does US tech policy keep reversing itself?
Because it swings with administrations. Net neutrality is the clearest illustration: the Obama-era FCC treated the internet as a Title II public utility (2015); the Trump-era FCC repealed it (2018, ‘Restoring Internet Freedom’); states sued and some passed their own rules. The same intervene/deregulate/litigate cycle recurs — a useful internal tension to surface in an essay.
How is the UK 'duty of care' model different from the EU and US?
It is a middle path. Unlike the US, it imposes a positive duty on platforms (to address online harm, enforced by Ofcom); unlike the EU, it is harm-focused rather than a comprehensive rights/data-protection regime. Its built-in worry — that it hands platforms censor-like power — is exactly the tension a strong answer names.
Why is Australia good territory for a UniMelb pitch or case study?
Because the selective-interventionism frame applies directly to home ground. The News Media Bargaining Code, the eSafety Commissioner’s harm-removal powers and the under-16 social-media ban are concrete, current Australian cases you can analyse as a policymaker — high-value for the A2 pitch and A3 case study, and easy to localise with real detail.
Exam move
Learn the chapter as a spectrum, not a list. Fix the three Anglosphere positions — US self-regulation, UK duty of care, Australia selective interventionism — then anchor them against the EU rights-based pole using the one killer fact (no US federal privacy law). Carry one case per model as evidence (US v. Google for monopolisation; Meta ‘going dark’ on the Bargaining Code; the under-16 ban) and always surface an internal tension — the net-neutrality flip-flop, the UK ‘censors’ worry, the under-16 ban as protection-or-paternalism. As a UniMelb subject, an Australian case is your highest-value territory: it lets you apply the frame to home ground for the pitch and case study.
