Bryan Downie

Objectives:
This presentation explores how individual instances of online harm can function as critical intelligence, revealing systemic failures in platform design, systems and processes. It aims to demonstrate how collaborative engagement-between eSafety, digital platforms and law enforcement-can translate into preventative system improvements.

Methods:
Information sharing between eSafety and law enforcement is a critical enabler of coordinated action across key intervention points:
- Targeted referral of high-harm matters: eSafety shares actionable intelligence on illegal and restricted content with law enforcement to support investigations, while progressing regulatory intervention, including content removal.
- Coordinated engagement with industry: to ensure transparency and that best practice is shared
- International coordination: cross-border intelligence sharing with overseas law enforcement, regulators and hotlines supports disruption and removal of illegal material hosted offshore.
- Sustained intelligence exchange: ongoing information sharing between eSafety and law enforcement strengthens situational awareness, informs regulatory priorities and supports coordinated responses.

Drawing on complaints from the public, eSafety identifies instances of harm, including CSEA, that could indicate a lack of systems and processes on a platform. Insights are shared with eSafety�'s regulatory teams who assess compliance and take enforcement actions where online platforms are not meeting their obligations under the Online Safety Safety Act. This can be in relation to codes and standards that deal with illegal or age restricted material, as well as the social media minimum age and basic online safety expectations.

Results:
Individual harm incidents often indicate recurring issues such as moderation gaps, delayed response mechanisms, algorithmic amplification risks, and insufficient measures to deter and disrupt CSEA. When eSafety engages platforms, this can lead to strengthened trust and safety systems, improved reporting and escalation workflows, and enhanced trust and safety measures. This has resulted in measurable improvements in platform practices on services, case studies can be included.

Conclusions:
Treating individual reports as strategic intelligence rather than one-off failures enables eSafety to move from reactive responses to systemic prevention. Collaboration is central: regulatory insight, platform operational knowledge and investigations information together provide a fuller picture of risk and effective mitigation.
Key Learnings:
1) Individual cases can indicate systemic platform failures
2) Cross-sector information-sharing improves platforms
3) Future harms can be prevented by addressing recurring risks at the system level, including by enable compliance and enforcement action.