The fundamental question for consumers is whether they will regain control over their digital environment or whether commercial platforms will increasingly shape not only consumer behaviour but democratic debate itself, writes Paul Budde.
AUSTRALIANS INCREASINGLY VALUE the convenience of digital services but are uncomfortable with the commercial practices, manipulation and loss of privacy accompanying them.
Deloitte's Media & Entertainment Consumer Insights 2026 report provides revealing evidence of these contradictions.
Based on a survey of more than 2,000 Australians, it shows consumers becoming more selective about digital spending, increasingly sceptical of online information and concerned about artificial intelligence.
However, the underlying issue goes beyond entertainment. It concerns the growing power of digital companies over individuals and, increasingly, our democracy.
The attention economy is reaching its limits
Australians spend an extraordinary 45 hours and 20 minutes each week consuming media and entertainment. Some 42% regularly engage with two media activities simultaneously.
Human attention has become a valuable commercial commodity.
Digital platforms compete relentlessly for that attention. Their algorithms primarily maximise engagement and advertising revenue rather than information quality or users' wellbeing.
This creates a fundamental conflict between commercial incentives and the public interest.
The problem is not technology itself, but the business model underpinning much of the digital economy.
Consumers want greater control
Deloitte reports that 75% of Australians are concerned about cumulative subscription costs, while 76% periodically review them.
Consumers are becoming more selective, but their ability to exercise similar control over personal information remains limited.
More than 25 years ago, I argued that digital marketing should operate on a permission-based model. In my 2001 submission to the Productivity Commission, I advocated new business models built around permission-based marketing and open networks.
Rather than companies collecting personal information and offering complicated opportunities to opt out, individuals should determine what information they share and for what purpose.
Instead, businesses collect and commercialise personal data while consumers navigate complex privacy settings.
Deloitte also found that 44% of Baby Boomers actively dislike personalised advertising. Indifference towards advertising should not be confused with informed consent to personal surveillance.
AI introduces another layer of uncertainty
Artificial intelligence is accelerating these developments.
Deloitte found that 75% of Australians believe AI-generated content makes determining what is real online more difficult. An overwhelming 84% want mandatory labelling of AI-generated material.
This reflects a growing crisis of trust.
AI offers enormous benefits in productivity, research and access to information. However, it also enables industrial-scale misinformation, manipulation and increasingly convincing fabricated content.
When integrated into existing advertising and social media business models, AI enables companies to personalise content with unprecedented sophistication.
Without safeguards, this further shifts power towards digital platforms.
Democracy is becoming collateral damage
My greatest concern extends beyond consumer protection to the impact on democracy.
As I discussed in Democratic promise to algorithmic power: How social media reshaped truth, social media's original promise of strengthening democratic participation has increasingly been undermined by algorithms rewarding outrage, division and emotional reactions.
These systems reinforce existing beliefs, create information bubbles and make constructive political debate increasingly difficult.
This is particularly dangerous in adversarial political systems where parties already have strong incentives to attack opponents rather than seek common ground. Algorithmic amplification intensifies these divisions, making compromise appear like weakness.
Democracy does not require agreement, but it depends on citizens sharing sufficient factual foundations to debate their differences.
Deloitte reveals another troubling contradiction. Traditional Australian news publishers remain among the most trusted information sources, yet only 3% of surveyed households hold paid news subscriptions.
As independent journalism struggles financially, social media and AI increasingly influence what information people encounter.
The danger is not simply misinformation. It is the gradual erosion of the shared reality on which democratic decision-making depends.
From consumer protection to democratic responsibility
Australia's proposed Digital Duty of Care represents an important step towards making platforms responsible for the environments they create.
As I argued in Digital Duty of Care: Making Big Tech socially responsible, regulation must address harmful platform design and algorithmic amplification, not merely individual pieces of content.
Governments should not determine acceptable political opinions. However, freedom of expression does not give corporations unlimited rights to manipulate public attention for profit.
We need enforceable responsibilities covering personal data, algorithmic transparency, AI-generated content and manipulative commercial practices.
These are not obstacles to innovation. They are essential safeguards for a functioning digital society.
The fundamental question is whether citizens will regain control over their digital environment or whether commercial platforms will increasingly shape not only consumer behaviour but democratic debate itself.
Deloitte's research suggests Australians are becoming uncomfortable with the present arrangement.
The challenge is no longer simply protecting consumers. It is protecting democracy.
Paul Budde is an IA columnist and managing director of independent telecommunications research and consultancy, Paul Budde Consulting. You can follow Paul on Twitter @PaulBudde.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.
Related Articles
- Democracy belongs to the people, not the political machine
- Democracy for sale: The powerful institutions escaping their own scrutiny
- Democracy and the wealth divide: When prosperity fails the people
- Democracy fails when corruption becomes a system
- Democracy begins before the ballot box
