Australia wants to let users switch off the algorithm - critical summary review

How your feed decides what you see

Open TikTok, Facebook, Instagram or YouTube and what you get is not a list of what your friends posted in order. It is a selection made by programming rules, the algorithms, which predict what you will engage with, whether that is something you like or something that riles you. The prediction is built from what you have interacted with or posted, plus information such as your age, job, location and marital status. The code behind it is closely guarded by the companies, the "secret sauce" that drives traffic to their platforms.

Researchers and activists say the effect is by design. Mark Williams, honorary professor of cognitive neuroscience at Macquarie University, has said the platforms "have engineered addictive features that keep children and adults online longer than they intend, often at the expense of sleep, wellbeing and real-world connection". Steven Roberts, of Monash University, has said the recommendations "are designed to hold our attention, and too often that means privileging provocative and extreme content because outrage drives engagement and engagement drives profit".

That is the system the Australian government now proposes to make optional.

What 'My Feed, My Way' would require

The Labor government released draft legislation on Tuesday, for targeted consultation, under the name "My Feed, My Way". Platforms would have to explain to users how the default feed works and offer two options: keep the personalised recommendations, or switch them off and see only posts from friends and creators the user has actively chosen to follow. New and existing users would get a notification asking them to pick their default. The tools are aimed at people over 16.

Companies that fail to comply could face penalties of up to 109.2 million Australian dollars, roughly 79 million US dollars, enforced by eSafety, the country's online safety regulator. Platforms would also have to document the measures they take to reduce risk and show they keep working over time.

"This is not about giving government control. It's about giving people control," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters, calling the plan "sensible, pragmatic, practical reform". Communications Minister Anika Wells said tech companies had for too long run "real-time, unregulated product testing" on Australians. Before the bill reaches Parliament, expected before Christmas, the government says it will hear from tech companies, industry bodies, civil society and user advocacy groups. Albanese is expected to promote the plan at the United Nations General Assembly in New York later this month.

Opt-out is not opt-in, and that is the fight

The draft offers a choice through a pop-up, but it does not settle the question that decides how much the law changes: whether the algorithm arrives switched on, with users having to turn it off, or switched off, with users having to ask for it. Wells told the national broadcaster ABC the government would take "expert advice" on which way to go.

That gap is what the government's own likely allies are pushing on. With the Coalition and One Nation opposed, Labor needs the Greens to pass the Senate, and the Greens want opt-in. "Opt out is not acceptable," the party's communications spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young, said, arguing it is "a recipe for big tech to manipulate and to get around it". She also wants a lower threshold for what counts as harm and penalties set as a percentage of global revenue.

Chanel Contos, the consent campaigner who founded Teach Us Consent, called for opt-in in a speech at the National Press Club in Canberra and warned that "it is too easy for big tech to design schemes that appear as structural reform but actually suit them just fine". She called the draft a good first step: "You cannot introduce harmful features into our digital lives without asking for our consent first." A comment piece in the Guardian, written by the parliamentarian who tabled a private member's digital duty of care bill in 2024, argued that an opt-out "maintains the onus on the consumer".

The opposition is arguing the other way. Opposition leader Angus Taylor said he was "deeply sceptical" and feared "an attempt by the government to censor social media". Nationals leader Matt Canavan said Labor could not be trusted with "censorship powers". One Nation's Pauline Hanson posted that Australia "should be moving away from government censorship, not building the Orwellian machinery for it". DIGI, the industry group representing companies including Meta, Snapchat and Google, defended algorithms as useful for finding diverse content and said it "welcomes the discussion", supporting "an approach that gives people meaningful choice and control over the content they see, while managing safety risks". Meta declined to comment on the proposal; TikTok and Snap did not immediately respond to requests.

The other half: a duty of care for under-18s

The feed switch is the visible part of a wider bill called the Digital Duty of Care. It would oblige online games, apps and artificial intelligence chatbots, not only social networks, to protect under-18s from design features considered harmful, including addictive ones and those that affect self-esteem.

It also lists content minors must be shielded from: pornography, material that promotes or accelerates eating disorders, misogynistic content, content glorifying crime or life-endangering stunts, and content causing serious mental health distress, including abuse and bullying. The eSafety commissioner would gain the power to issue removal notices for harmful or illegal material, and researchers would get new powers to investigate compliance. Free speech advocates say the expanded powers open room for censorship, a criticism Albanese has rejected.

Whether anyone flips the switch

Australia is not the first to try this. The European Union's Digital Services Act has required since 2024 that platforms let users turn off the profiling used to personalise recommendations. Regulators complained that some platforms made the option hard to find. Several apps already offer something similar without being told to: TikTok has a Friends tab, Facebook a friends-only feed, Instagram Following and Favorites, YouTube Subscriptions.

The other question is demand. In a 2025 survey of more than 6,000 people across six countries, only one in five said they would switch off personalised recommendations if they could, a figure noted by Lisa Harrison, a lecturer in communication and media at Flinders University. "The government has handed Australians a switch. Whether anyone flips it is another matter," she said.

Enforcement is the third unknown. Australia banned under-16s from holding social media accounts in December 2025, the first country to do so, and studies by the eSafety Commissioner found that three months in, more than 81% of Australian children were still using at least one age-restricted platform, against 86% before. Wells acknowledged that no tech company has been fined over the ban. In April, the regulator said it was considering court action against Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube for not doing enough.

What to do with this information

Three concrete things decide whether this matters, and none of them is the announcement itself.

First, the wording of the final text due in Parliament before Christmas. If it still says opt-out, the Greens have said publicly that is not acceptable, and Labor needs them in the Senate. That single word is the difference between a default most people never change and one they have to ask for.

Second, whether the penalties are ever used. The under-16 ban is the government's own model for this bill, and so far it has produced no fine despite research showing most affected teenagers are still on the platforms.

Third, what the companies say during the consultation. DIGI has framed its position as support for "meaningful choice"; Meta declined to comment. Watch whether the industry's asks land in the final draft.

For readers outside Australia, this is a preview rather than foreign news. France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Greece, Denmark, Germany and New Zealand have all moved toward under-16 restrictions after Australia acted first. If the feed switch passes, its design is the one likely to travel.