The Claim
“Lied by claiming that new legislation could not result in dating apps such as Tinder being banned in Australia, when their legislation clearly states in section 6.128.1.d that the relevant commissioner will be granted the power to ban those apps for a broad range of reasons.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The ABC Hack episode from March 17, 2021, confirms that Communications Minister Paul Fletcher made the following statement [1]:
"There is no intention to be banning online dating apps, just as there's no intention to be banning social media services," he told Hack.
Minister Fletcher stated explicitly that the legislation would not ban dating apps, and that the maximum penalty for platforms failing to comply with removal notices would be $110,000 [1].
The Online Safety Act 2021 was passed by Parliament on June 23, 2021, and received Royal Assent later that year [2][3]. The legislation gives the eSafety Commissioner powers to issue removal notices requiring service providers to remove content that is "unsuitable for a minor" or constitutes online abuse, cyberbullying, or related harms [4][5].
However, examination of the actual legislation reveals a critical factual error in the claim: The legislation does NOT contain a "section 6.128.1.d" [6]. This specific section number does not exist in the Online Safety Act 2021. The act does contain provisions regarding the Commissioner's powers:
- Section 109: Allows the Commissioner to issue removal notices to hosting service providers to remove particular material [7]
- Section 66: Empowers the Commissioner to issue removal notices requiring service providers to cease hosting material within 24 hours [8]
- Schedule 7: Outlines the Commissioner's powers regarding "unsuitable for a minor" content [6]
The removal notice power is limited to requiring removal of specific content from the service, not banning entire services or applications [7][8]. The legislation does not grant the Commissioner power to ban entire dating apps or social media platforms, only to mandate the removal of specific harmful material [5].
Missing Context
The claim omits several crucial details:
Limited regulatory scope: The removal notice power applies specifically to content that violates the Act—it does not provide the Commissioner with the power to shut down or ban entire platforms [7][8]. The Commissioner can require removal of specific material, not the entire service [5].
Checks and balances: Any decision by the Commissioner is subject to appeal in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, providing judicial oversight [1]. This safeguard was acknowledged by Minister Fletcher in the ABC interview [1].
Digital rights expert concerns were about overreach, not app bans: The ABC article cites concerns from Digital Rights Watch about the legislation's broad discretionary powers and unintended consequences for sexual content creators, not about dating app bans specifically [1]. Expert Lucie Krahulcova warned the bill gave unprecedented discretionary powers but did not argue the Commissioner could ban apps [1].
Context of statement: Minister Fletcher's statement reflected the actual legislative framework—removal notices target harmful content, not entire services. His guarantee aligned with the legislation's actual mechanisms [1].
Source Credibility Assessment
ABC Hack (source 1): ABC is Australia's state broadcaster and mainstream media outlet. Hack is a reputable program covering youth-focused issues. The article directly quotes Minister Fletcher and presents multiple perspectives, including from digital rights experts. This is a credible primary source [1].
Parliamentary record (source 2): This is a government legislative database providing official parliamentary records. Credible primary source but the claim about "section 6.128.1.d" cannot be verified through this or any official source, as this section does not exist [2].
Source credibility of the claim itself: The claim appears on mdavis.xyz, which presents Labor-aligned fact checks of Coalition government statements. While such sources can provide legitimate criticism, the specific citation to "section 6.128.1.d" appears to be either:
- A misremembering of section numbers
- A misunderstanding of the legislation's structure
- An invented section number
The non-existence of this specific section significantly undermines the claim's credibility, as it's the primary factual evidence offered.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
The Labor government (under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, which took office in May 2022) did not introduce legislation to ban dating apps. Instead, in 2024, the Labor government requested that online dating platforms voluntarily adopt an industry code of conduct to improve safety [9][10].
The Albanese government held a National Roundtable on Online Dating Safety and negotiated with dating app companies including Tinder, Bumble, Grindr, and others to develop a voluntary industry code that commenced October 1, 2024 [9][10]. This code requires platforms to implement safety measures but does not involve legislation banning apps—it's a voluntary industry self-regulation approach [10].
The fundamental difference: The Coalition's 2021 Online Safety Act (passed before the claim was made) focused on removal notices for harmful content. Labor's 2024 approach focused on voluntary industry codes without legislative bans. Neither party's approach involved legislatively banning dating apps [9][10].
Balanced Perspective
While critics argued that the Online Safety Act's broad discretionary powers to the eSafety Commissioner could potentially be misused, the actual legislative text does not support the claim that dating apps could be "banned" under the legislation [1][5].
The government's position had legitimate basis: Minister Fletcher's statement that apps wouldn't be banned reflected the actual mechanisms in the legislation. Removal notices are content-specific, not service-specific [7][8]. The act establishes that the Commissioner addresses harmful material, not entire platforms [5].
However, expert concerns were legitimate: Digital rights experts raised genuine concerns about the breadth of "unsuitable for a minor" definition, which could theoretically affect dating apps disproportionately if the Commissioner interpreted the provision expansively [1]. These concerns focused on regulatory overreach, not app bans [1].
Key context: After multiple years of the Online Safety Act's operation (since January 2022), the eSafety Commissioner has not attempted to ban dating apps, and the legislation's framework confirms this would not be possible under the removal notice regime [4][5]. The Commissioner has instead focused on removing specific harmful content and addressing cyberbullying and image-based abuse [4].
This is not unique to the Coalition: Labor's 2024 approach with dating apps also involved regulatory involvement (albeit voluntary) rather than app bans, suggesting cross-party acceptance that dating apps should remain operational with improved safety measures [10].
FALSE
3.0
out of 10
The core claim contains a factual error that undermines its credibility. The specific citation to "section 6.128.1.d" does not exist in the Online Safety Act 2021, making the primary evidence for the claim false [6]. While the legislation does grant the Commissioner broad powers to require removal of harmful content, the actual mechanisms do not support the claim that entire dating apps could be "banned" [7][8].
Minister Fletcher's statement that dating apps wouldn't be banned was consistent with the legislation's actual framework of content-specific removal notices, not service bans [1]. While digital rights experts raised legitimate concerns about regulatory overreach, their concerns focused on harmful content definitions, not app bans [1].
The claim conflates the Commissioner's power to remove specific harmful content with the power to ban entire services—a mischaracterization of how the legislation actually functions [7][8].
Final Score
3.0
OUT OF 10
FALSE
The core claim contains a factual error that undermines its credibility. The specific citation to "section 6.128.1.d" does not exist in the Online Safety Act 2021, making the primary evidence for the claim false [6]. While the legislation does grant the Commissioner broad powers to require removal of harmful content, the actual mechanisms do not support the claim that entire dating apps could be "banned" [7][8].
Minister Fletcher's statement that dating apps wouldn't be banned was consistent with the legislation's actual framework of content-specific removal notices, not service bans [1]. While digital rights experts raised legitimate concerns about regulatory overreach, their concerns focused on harmful content definitions, not app bans [1].
The claim conflates the Commissioner's power to remove specific harmful content with the power to ban entire services—a mischaracterization of how the legislation actually functions [7][8].
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (12)
-
1
abc.net.au
The government has promised a new online safety bill will make the internet safer, but not everyone’s convinced.
triple j -
2
aph.gov.au
Helpful information Text of bill First reading: Text of the bill as introduced into the Parliament Third reading: Prepared if the bill is amended by the house in which it was introduced. This version of the bill is then considered by the second house. As passed by
Aph Gov -
3
loc.gov
On June 23, 2021, the Australian Parliament passed the Online Safety Bill 2021 (Cth). The bill was introduced on February 24, 2021, to address the issue of cyberabuse and cyberbullying against Australian adults and to establish an enforcement mechanism through the eSafety Commissioner. The Parliament also passed a complementary bill, the Online Safety (Transitional Provisions … Continue reading “Australia: Online Safety Bill Passed”
The Library of Congress -
4
esafety.gov.au
Esafety Gov
-
5
esafety.gov.au
Esafety Gov
-
6
legislation.gov.au
Federal Register of Legislation
-
7
classic.austlii.edu.au
SECT 66 Removal notice given to a hosting service provider
-
8
classic.austlii.edu.au
SECT 109 Removal notice given to the provider of a social media service, relevant electronic service or designated internet service
-
9
ministers.dss.gov.au
Ministers Dss Gov
-
10
infrastructure.gov.au
Infrastructure Gov
-
11
hrlc.org.au
eSafety Commissioner v X Corp [2024] FCA 499The high-profile dispute between the Office of the eSafety (‘eSafety’) Commissioner and X Corp (formerly known as Twitter) has tested key powers of Australia’s Online Safety Act and stimulated spirited debate on the interplay between online safety laws and rights to freedom of expression. eSafety sought enforcement of a removal notice pertaining to a bundle of content showing the high-profile stabbing in Sydney of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel. The Federal Court refused to extend an ex parte interim injunction against X Corp, and held that geo-blocking is a reasonable step for removing content pursuant to a removal notice under section 109 of the Online Safety Act. The judgment suggests Parliament should clarify the meaning of ‘all reasonable steps’ in the context of the Online Safety Act.
Human Rights Law Centre -
12
au.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com
Au Practicallaw Thomsonreuters
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.