Hassan Khan
Australia’s federal government released draft Digital Duty of Care legislation on Tuesday, 8 September 2026, that would require social media platforms to let every user over 16 choose between an algorithmic feed and a feed showing only accounts they follow. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Communications Minister Anika Wells announced the “My Feed, My Way” measure, with non-compliance penalties of up to A$109.2 million and the eSafety Commissioner in charge of enforcement. The government intends to introduce the bill to Parliament this year after a targeted consultation.
How the opt-out would work
The Prime Minister’s media release sets out the mechanism. Platforms would have to send a notification to both new and existing users offering a choice over their default feed. A user can opt in to personalised content recommended by the algorithm, or opt out and see only posts from friends and creators they have chosen to follow. Wells said the choice must be easy to make and that platforms must respect it, and ABC News reports she added that users could switch “over and over” if they changed their mind.
The same package goes further for children. Online games, apps and AI chatbots would have to protect under 18s from design features with negative behavioural effects, including addictive mechanics, and from content that promotes eating disorders, hostility towards women, pornography, glorification of crime, or serious mental distress. ABC News reports the law would also require platforms to switch off personalised algorithms and endless scrolling entirely for anyone under 16, on top of the social media age ban already in force for that group.
Where the politics stand
The proposal has support from parents’ advocates and the Butterfly Foundation, and Teach Us Consent founder Chanel Contos, who campaigned for an algorithm opt-in system, called it a chance to “set a global standard”. The Greens said they would negotiate hard for a tougher version. The Coalition has not taken a position, though Nationals leader Matt Canavan raised censorship concerns. Wells said she could rule out the law ever being used to police misinformation, describing it as being “about the systems and the tools and the features that cause harm”.
Albanese framed the initiative as the next step after Australia’s world first social media age ban. The wording matters: this is an exposure draft for consultation, not a passed law, and the details on how platforms present the choice screen are still open.
A test case for anyone whose income depends on the algorithm
Australia is a small market, but the model it is proposing would make algorithmic recommendation something a user affirmatively picks rather than the default they are handed, which the government describes as an Australian first. For creators, social media managers and small business owners in Pakistan and the Gulf, the immediate concern is reach.
Recommendation feeds are how a Reel from Karachi ends up in front of a viewer in Melbourne who has never heard of the creator. If a meaningful share of Australian users opt out, discovery in that market shrinks, and growth shifts back to the older mechanics of followers, shares and search. What share will actually opt out is unknown, and Wells herself said many people will keep the algorithm.
The longer-term concern is precedent. Australia’s under 16 social media ban drew attention from governments elsewhere, and this proposal is being pitched as the next global standard. An opt-out law that works technically would give other governments a ready template, and Meta, TikTok and YouTube would rather build one global choice screen than a dozen. Freelancers who run short-form video and editing services for overseas clients should expect client questions about follower growth strategy, not just viral reach, if this spreads.
The open question
The design of the choice screen will decide everything. A notification that presents the algorithm as the obvious option and the follow-only feed as a downgrade will produce a very different opt-out rate from one that presents them as equals. The draft says platforms must offer the choice and respect it, but it does not yet say how the choice must be worded or displayed. That is the detail industry bodies, advocates and the platforms themselves will fight over during consultation, and it is the detail that determines whether this changes how content spreads or changes nothing at all.
