Australia Proposes Legislation to Force Platforms to Offer "Algorithm-Free Feed" Option, Directly Targeting Big Tech's Unilateral Control Over Content Distribution

According to The Hindu, the Australian government released the draft "Digital Duty of Care" on September 8 for targeted consultation. The core measure is a mandatory requirement called "My Feed, My Choice" — social media platforms must send pop-up notifications to both new and existing users, allowing them to choose between algorithm-driven personalized feeds and non-personalized feeds displayed chronologically or through user-selected follow lists.

This is the most significant institutional challenge to platform algorithm control in any Western country to date. Australian Communications Minister Anika Wells said in a statement: "The Digital Duty of Care will ensure online service providers — including some of the most powerful companies in the world — take on more responsibility to protect Australians from harm on their platforms." Prime Minister Anthony Albanese drew a distinction from another angle: "This is not about giving control to the government; it is about returning control to the people."

The draft also proposes expanding the powers of Australia's online safety regulator, eSafety, to enable it to issue content removal notices to apps and websites.

The draft stipulates that companies failing to comply with obligations will face fines of up to AUD 79 million. Platforms will also be required to assume clear responsibility for protecting users under 18, preventing addictive features and harmful content — including content promoting eating disorders, hostility toward women and gender equality, content glorifying crime or life-threatening dangerous behavior, severe psychological harm, and pornography — from affecting minors. Companies must also document and identify measures taken in response to known risks.

The report notes that algorithms have become the core tool for social media platforms to compete for user time, with their design logic built on users' past likes, comments, and browsing data, locking users into continuously scrolling feeds. Recently, Meta reached a USD 16.68 billion settlement with U.S. states over allegations that its platform design led to child addiction. This figure itself is a footnote on the scale of the platforms' business model.

Meanwhile, the European Union's Digital Services Act, passed in 2022, already contains provisions allowing users to opt out of personalized content delivery, but according to The Hindu, the relevant companies have not made it easy for users to change their settings. In 2025, a Dutch rights organization sued Meta for failing to provide non-user-profile-based feeds in violation of the Digital Services Act, and the court has ordered Meta to modify its platform to comply. This means that even EU laws that have been in effect for several years still rely on individual judicial cases to enforce them in practice.

DIGI, an industry lobbying group representing major tech companies including Meta, Snapchat, and Google, has defended algorithms, saying they are helpful for users seeking diverse content. A spokesperson for the organization told The Guardian: "We support an approach that gives people meaningful choice and control over what they see, while managing safety risks." However, DIGI has not specified how "meaningful choice" should be implemented in practice, nor has it explained why, years after EU law took effect, opt-out options on relevant platforms are still widely considered obscure and hard to find.

The report also notes that some opposition lawmakers in Australia have expressed reservations about the legislation, warning of censorship risks. The draft is still in the targeted consultation phase, with the government seeking input from digital platforms, industry groups, civil society organizations, and advocacy bodies. The final content and form of the bill have not yet been determined.

In her statement, Australian Communications Minister Wells described the platforms as "among the most powerful companies in the world" — a characterization rarely articulated so directly by a Western government official. From the USD 16.68 billion settlement to the weakness in EU law enforcement to industry lobbying groups' preference for vague phrasing like "meaningful choice," the true posture of big tech on algorithm governance is gradually becoming apparent. Whether Australia's draft can break through the past predicament of "easy to legislate, hard to enforce" remains to be seen.