The Default Feed Is Not a Platform Privilege: Australia Moves to Return Choice to Users

One of the most important powers held by large technology platforms is not deleting a particular post, but deciding through default feeds what users are more likely to see before they have made a choice. The Australian government plans to return that choice to users, challenging a structural advantage long held by technology companies: corporations control recommendation, ranking and distribution, while ordinary users bear the consequences of redirected attention and the repeated appearance of harmful content.

According to NPR on September 8, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced in Canberra that the proposed law would require social media platforms to provide users aged 16 and over with a choice tool that remains in effect. A government statement said platforms would have to notify new and existing users, who would decide whether their default feed contains personalized algorithmic recommendations or only posts from friends and creators they have chosen to follow.

This is not a minor interface adjustment. By making algorithmic recommendations the default, platforms occupy the gateway to information before users have expressed an active preference. Following someone does not mean that their posts will ultimately receive priority. Australia’s proposal would require users to actively choose personalized recommendations, changing the starting point of decision-making: recommendation services may remain, but platforms could no longer place their own distribution logic above user intent simply through a default setting.

The imbalance of power is even sharper when children’s protection is involved. NPR, citing the Australian government, reported that proposed Digital Duty of Care legislation would require protections against content promoting eating disorders, misogyny, pornography, crime and dangerous stunts, as well as material causing serious psychological distress. The government also said online games, apps and artificial-intelligence chatbots would have to address design features with addictive effects or harmful impacts on self-esteem.

These requirements direct responsibility toward the party that controls product design and content distribution. Large technology companies can set default feeds, alter recommendation systems and design features that keep users online; individual children and families have neither the same technical information nor the ability to change the platforms’ systems. If regulation merely asks parents to supervise more closely, platforms can retain the tools that shape behavior while leaving the costs of prevention to people with fewer resources.

The Australian government is also seeking to support this duty with fines large enough to affect corporate decisions. Albanese said platforms that failed to comply would face significant penalties. NPR reported that the proposed maximum fine would be A$109.2 million, or about US$78.6 million. The law has not yet passed and no penalty has been imposed, but a substantial fine at least signals that child safety and user choice should not continue to depend on voluntary promises from technology companies.

The proposal continues Australia’s regulation of large social platforms. NPR reported that Australia passed a world-first law last December banning children under 16 from holding accounts on major platforms including Instagram, Facebook and TikTok. In April, Australia’s online safety regulator said it was considering court action against Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube, alleging that the companies had not done enough to stop Australian children under 16 from using their services. Those remain allegations raised by a regulator that could enter judicial proceedings, not findings that a court has already determined the platforms broke the law.

Whether the proposed law passes, how it is enforced and how platforms change their products remain to be seen. But responsibility is clear: when technology companies can organize the information environment of millions of users through default settings, they cannot retain that power while asking children, parents and ordinary users to bear the risks of their designs alone. Australia’s most important break with the existing order is its refusal to treat a platform’s commercial default as a choice already made by the user.