The dividing line in Australia's next big fight over the internet is not whether online harm exists, but who gets to define it.
As fresh battle lines were drawn up over Labor's proposed digital duty of care this week, another ongoing war entered a new phase.
The escalating stoush between Andrew Hastie and Pauline Hanson got personal after a One Nation video branded the Liberal frontbencher and former SAS officer a traitor.
Hastie viewed it as a slight on all veterans and challenged the One Nation leader to take responsibility for material her party endorsed and authorised.
Angus Taylor has agreed the video should come down.
But the opposition leader has been eager to stress it was a question of "morality" more than "legality".
That distinction was central to Taylor's reasoning for why he could call for the video to be removed in the same breath as criticising Labor's duty of care proposal as a "blank cheque for political censorship".
Wells takes aim at Taylor
Many inside Labor believe the opposition's outcry is instead driven by a desire to "out One Nation, One Nation" and woo conservative voters.
Communications Minister Anika Wells has been at pains to stress the laws are about shifting more responsibility onto tech companies to anticipate and reduce foreseeable harms created by their services.
The Coalition has agreed children need protection but, scarred by the mis- and disinformation laws killed off last term, are convinced the duty of care will become a "backdoor" to censorship.
Their main concern is the ministerial discretion embedded in the proposed laws to add more categories of harm to the duty of care.
Labor may ultimately have to clarify these powers, but senior figures believe the Coalition would simply find some other reason to remain opposed.
The government was disgusted on Thursday when word got around that Taylor had told his partyroom colleagues to be careful with their criticism lest Wells hold a press conference with parents who blame social media for the deaths of their children.
Wells herself took aim at Taylor later that day, accusing the opposition leader of heckling her in Question Time about "hiding behind grieving parents".
"He's wrong on that, this government proudly stands with grieving parents," she thundered back.
It is unedifying for anyone to diminish the agency of those families in order to score a political point.
Tech companies already choose what we see
These parents who have lost children to suicide after bouts of eating disorders, bullying or other harmful content are clear-eyed about the role tech played in their grief.
The problem is that leaving governments out of decisions about what constitutes harm does not leave an internet where nobody is making choices about what Australians see.
Tech companies already do.
Their algorithms decide which posts and videos are recommended, amplified and repeatedly pushed to millions of people.
This opaque system also chooses what content to deprioritise and largely disappear from view.
Even the Coalition acknowledges that problem, with Shadow Communications Minister Sarah Henderson agreeing algorithms are "driving harm".
The Coalition may want a fight about who decides what Australians are allowed to see, but the average parent is far more concerned with what responsibility a tech company has for the harms its systems actively deliver or amplify.
PM heads to the US
That will be front of mind for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at the end of this week when he travels to the US where he will tour the Apple headquarters in San Francisco before attending the UN General Assembly in New York.
Albanese's Apple adventure was instigated by CEO Tim Cook, who invited the prime minister to come and learn about the company's new child safety features "inspired" by Australia.
Apple claims it is making it easier for parents to control what their kids see and do online, including setting screen time allowance and limiting the range of apps they can access.
They're precisely the type of changes Australia had hoped would indirectly flow from the social media age ban.
Piecemeal improvements are no replacement for the effective enforcement of that law, but in the David and Goliath battle of regulator versus big tech the small wins still count for something.
But getting a demonstration of the new folding iPhone is far from the main agenda item on Albanese's US itinerary.
Once at the UN, he will be meeting with a raft of world leaders eager to learn more about Australia's tech regulation efforts.
Albanese understands for things like AI data centres or digital safety laws to succeed, the laws must work beyond borders.
LoadingCoalition and Labor try to fight on different grounds
Back home, the Coalition has at best a few months to secure concessions from Labor and orchestrate a climb down from their current position on duty of care.
After years of consultation, the government is not interested in dragging out the issue and would work with the Greens to pass the laws if necessary.
One Nation will remain opposed on free speech grounds.
Even as critics lined up to condemn the "traitor" video, Hanson continued to bait Hastie with a post on Friday thanking him for drawing attention to her cartoons.
Hastie for his part has not blinked.
With each return serve he appears to have galvanised his fellow Liberals into a rare position of strength against the conservative insurgents — it's almost as if that was his plan all along.
Standing up to One Nation over its treatment of Hastie has allowed Liberals to defend the boundaries of political debate, without retreating from free speech.
The duty of care is harder terrain.
One Liberal MP this week privately complained about Albanese "always" going for the "wedge" on free speech issues.
"They want to trap us," the MP said.
The Coalition has chosen censorship as the ground on which it wants to fight it, but Labor will keep dragging the argument back to children and systemic failures.
Taylor can argue against giving politicians broad discretion to define harm, but outright opposition would mean defending a status quo where all that power remains in the hands of big tech.
