Skip to main content
ExplainerAlgorithm RegulationPolicy Explainer· 4 min read· in Content Types

Australia Proposes Mandatory Algorithm Opt-Out for Social Media Feeds

Draft legislation would force platforms like Instagram and TikTok to offer users a chronological feed of accounts they follow, backed by $79 million fines for non-compliance.

By Lila Morgan

Share this story

Listen

In short

  • Australia's draft 'Digital Duty of Care' bill requires social media platforms to let users opt out of algorithmic feeds.
  • Users aged 16 and older would receive a mandatory pop-up asking if they prefer a chronological timeline of followed accounts.
  • The legislation includes fines of up to A$109 million for tech companies that fail to comply with the opt-out mandate.

On September 8, 2026, the Australian government introduced the "Digital Duty of Care" draft legislation, a bill that would legally require major technology companies to let users disable algorithmic social media feeds. The proposal mandates that platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook present users with a direct pop-up notification asking them to choose how their content is served. If a user opts out of the algorithm, the platform must revert to a chronological feed displaying only posts from accounts the user actively follows.[1][5]

The initiative, branded "My Feed, My Way" by regulators, represents a technical mandate rather than a complete ban. While politicians have framed the legislation as a global reckoning for big tech, the actual capability being legislated is a user interface requirement. Many platforms already possess the infrastructure for chronological feeds, but they typically bury the option deep within settings menus to prioritize their engagement-optimized default feeds.[1][5]

The legislation targets users aged 16 and older, establishing a financial penalty of up to A$109 million (approximately $79 million US) for companies that fail to comply with the opt-out mandate. "Every Australian will be able to choose whether they want their social media content served up by algorithms or not under a federal government proposal to 'empower' people online," noted coverage from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.[1][5]

The draft bill extends beyond social media feeds to encompass a broader digital duty of care for users under 18. It requires online services, including search engines, applications, and artificial intelligence chatbots, to proactively protect minors from specific harms. The legislation explicitly lists illegal pornography, misogynistic content, the glorification of crime, and material that promotes or accelerates eating disorders as categories platforms must mitigate.[5]

Under the proposed law, platforms must present users with a mandatory pop-up choice regarding their feed curation.

Communications Minister Anika Wells highlighted the scope of these harms by citing an AI chatbot that advised young girls on how to survive on just 600 calories a day. Under the new framework, the eSafety Commissioner—Australia's online safety regulator—would receive expanded powers to issue removal notices and audit the internal measures platforms take to address these specific dangers.[5]

The algorithm opt-out proposal follows Australia's December 2025 legislation that banned social media access entirely for children under 16. Having restricted youth access 10 months prior, the government is now attempting to regulate the architecture of the platforms for the remaining adult and older-teen user base.[5]

The mechanics of algorithmic feeds rely on complex recommender systems. Instead of displaying the newest posts from a defined network of friends, modern algorithms rank content based on predictive engagement metrics—tracking what a user clicks, watches, likes, and searches for.[2][5]

This system, which largely began with the debut of the Facebook News Feed in 2006, is designed to maximize the time a user spends on the platform. Twenty years into the News Feed era, injecting viral, out-of-network content into the feed remains the primary way platforms increase the inventory of advertisements they can sell.[1][2]

A mandatory, prominent opt-out threatens this business model directly. If a significant percentage of the Australian user base reverts to a chronological feed, platforms lose the ability to leverage hyper-personalization. This shifts the regulatory focus from addictive design features, like infinite scrolling, to the underlying sorting mechanisms that power the platforms and often create isolated information environments known as filter bubbles.[4][5]

Algorithmic feeds rely on complex predictive metrics, whereas chronological feeds simply display posts from followed accounts in the order they were published.

Australia is not the first jurisdiction to attempt algorithmic regulation. The European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) already requires the largest platforms to offer users a recommender system that is not based on profiling.[3][5]

However, European regulators have noted that tech companies often employ dark patterns, making the non-algorithmic option unnecessarily difficult to find or activate. The Australian proposal attempts to improve upon the European model by mandating a direct, unavoidable pop-up prompt. Users must be explicitly asked to make a choice, and they will retain the ability to toggle the algorithm on or off repeatedly if they change their minds.[3][5]

The draft legislation now enters a consultation period before facing parliamentary debate. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is scheduled to present the framework at the United Nations General Assembly in New York later in September 2026, positioning Australia's approach as a blueprint for international tech regulation.[5]

The immediate hurdle for the legislation will be defining compliance. Before the eSafety Commissioner can levy the A$109 million fines, the government must specify exactly what constitutes an acceptable pop-up and how easily platforms must allow users to switch between feed types.[5]

Terms to know

Algorithmic Feed
A timeline where a platform's software dictates the order of posts based on predictions of what will keep the user engaged, rather than when the posts were published.
Chronological Feed
A timeline that displays posts strictly in the order they were published, showing only content from accounts the user has actively chosen to follow.
Digital Duty of Care
A legal obligation requiring technology companies to proactively identify and mitigate foreseeable harms caused by their platforms, rather than just reacting to user reports.
Dark Patterns
User interface designs intentionally crafted to trick or manipulate users into making choices that benefit the company, such as making an opt-out button difficult to find.
Recommender System
An information filtering system that seeks to predict the 'rating' or 'preference' a user would give to an item, used by social media to surface out-of-network content.

Questions readers ask

Who does the algorithm opt-out law apply to?

The proposed law applies to all Australian social media users aged 16 and older. Users under 16 are already subject to a separate social media ban enacted in December 2025.

Will platforms be forced to remove their algorithms entirely?

No. Platforms can still use algorithms, but they must present users with a mandatory pop-up notification asking if they want to opt out and view a chronological feed instead.

What happens if a tech company refuses to comply?

Under the draft legislation, companies that fail to offer the opt-out choice or violate the digital duty of care could face fines of up to A$109 million (approximately $79 million US).

Does the bill cover anything besides social media feeds?

Yes. The 'Digital Duty of Care' also requires search engines, apps, and AI chatbots to proactively protect users under 18 from specific harms, such as content promoting eating disorders or misogyny.

Different angles

The Australian Government

Argues that mandatory opt-outs restore user agency and mitigate the mental health impacts of engagement-optimized algorithms.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Communications Minister Anika Wells frame the legislation as a necessary intervention against tech companies that prioritize profit over safety. They contend that while users can choose to engage with algorithmic feeds, that choice must be explicit rather than a hidden default. The government views this as a natural extension of its digital duty of care, building on previous age-based access bans.

Digital Rights Advocates

Supports the chronological option but warns that platforms will likely use design friction to discourage users from opting out.

Privacy and digital rights groups generally favor the 'My Feed, My Way' initiative, noting that algorithmic curation often amplifies divisive and extreme content to maximize watch time. However, they caution that the success of the law depends entirely on enforcement. Pointing to the European Union's Digital Services Act, advocates note that tech companies frequently deploy 'dark patterns'—confusing menus or persistent prompts—to steer users back toward the more profitable, data-harvesting algorithmic defaults.

Social Media Platforms

Contends that algorithmic curation is essential for content discovery and that chronological feeds degrade the user experience.

While companies like Meta and TikTok have yet to formally lobby against the specific draft, the industry's historical stance is that algorithms are what make their platforms valuable. They argue that chronological feeds overwhelm users with low-quality posts from prolific accounts while burying relevant content from smaller creators. A mass shift away from algorithmic sorting would fundamentally disrupt their ability to serve targeted advertising, which relies on the hyper-personalization generated by recommendation engines.

The Australian Government 40%Digital Rights Advocates 30%Social Media Platforms 30%
The Australian Government
Argues that mandatory opt-outs restore user agency and mitigate the mental health impacts of engagement-optimized algorithms.
Digital Rights Advocates
Supports the chronological option but warns that platforms will likely use design friction to discourage users from opting out.
Social Media Platforms
Contends that algorithmic curation is essential for content discovery and that chronological feeds degrade the user experience.

Perspectives this story doesn't cover

  • Small Content Creators
  • Digital Advertisers

Sources

Source coverage

5 outlets

3 viewpoints surfaced

The Australian Government 40%Digital Rights Advocates 30%Social Media Platforms 30%
  1. [1]Nieman LabDigital Rights Advocates

    Twenty years into the Facebook News Feed era, Australia wants to turn back the clock

    Read on Nieman Lab →
  2. [2]WikipediaDigital Rights Advocates

    Recommender system

    Read on Wikipedia →
  3. [3]WikipediaDigital Rights Advocates

    Digital Services Act

    Read on Wikipedia →
  4. [4]WikipediaDigital Rights Advocates

    Filter bubble

    Read on Wikipedia →
  5. [5]Factlen Editorial TeamThe Australian Government

    Synthesis by Factlen editorial team

    Read on Factlen Editorial Team →
Listen

Comments

Stay informed

Every angle. Every day.

Get Content Types stories with full source coverage and perspective breakdowns, free every day.