Australia’s government has introduced a package of laws to parliament that would require social media platforms to let users turn off recommended content. The centrepiece is an algorithm switch that would allow people to see only posts from accounts they follow. The reforms also sit within a wider Digital Duty of Care bill aimed at big tech.
Supporters say the measures are meant to protect people from harmful material and to help Australians become happier and healthier. Critics, however, question whether the government can take on large technology companies, and some, including the Trump administration, argue that the reforms threaten free speech.
Users describe being drawn into harmful feeds
Varsha Yajman was already self-conscious about her appearance when she joined social media at 13. Her feeds quickly filled with workout videos making unrealistic promises, along with girls urging her to take part in dangerous calorie challenges. Some users openly posted their height, weight and even the number of times they had been hospitalised.
Now 24 and in recovery from anorexia, Varsha says she still receives weight loss content, even with every safety setting switched on and a long list of banned words in place. She says social media made her eating disorder worse. “I would find that I’d be down these really deep rabbit holes… it was like no matter how hard you tried to get out, you couldn’t.”
Flynn Martin, from Melbourne, describes a similar pull. About four years ago, when he was 20, his feeds were overwhelmed by content from self-proclaimed misogynist influencer Andrew Tate and other manosphere figures. Flynn, who was later diagnosed with bipolar disorder, says he was insecure and struggling with his mental health at the time, and that he fell for their rhetoric. He only left that world after a period of psychosis and a hospital stay.
Both say social media alone is not to blame for the hardest periods of their lives, but both describe it as a key factor. Their experiences reflect a wider concern that algorithms shaping what people see are harming users.
Australia’s proposed algorithm switch and duty of care rules
The Digital Duty of Care bill would require online services, including social media firms, gaming sites and chatbots, to “ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, a safe online environment”. Children would be protected from harmful material and design features, such as pornography and content that encourages eating disorders or harmful attitudes towards women. Adults would be protected from a narrower set of seriously harmful material and conduct.
Breaches of the law could attract fines of up to A$100m, equivalent to about £52m or $70m. Communications Minister Anika Wells said the broader duty addresses gaps left by the social media minimum age law. “It shifts the onus of responsibility from the shoulders of victims onto the shoulders of the big tech operators,” she said.
The government said in September that it had listened to campaigners and would introduce a version of the algorithm switch, though it stopped short of requiring that the setting be switched off automatically. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the aim was to give people control rather than give government control. “If people want to doom scroll… that’s fine, that’s up to them,” he said.
Tech firms stay quiet as doubts over enforcement grow
Meta, Snap, TikTok, X and Google, which owns YouTube, have declined requests for comment and have not made public statements about the legislation. In the days after the announcement, Instagram chief Adam Mosseri argued that non-algorithmic feeds would mean users saw fewer posts from friends. He also said he did not believe his app was addictive, although a US jury recently ruled otherwise. He told a press briefing in Sydney that people often use the word “addicted” loosely, which differs from clinical addiction.
Right-wing parties in Australia and the Trump administration have argued that the algorithm proposal and the wider bill risk forcing over-moderation and censorship. Wells rejected that concern, saying adults could still follow whom they wanted and share their views, memes or podcasts without restriction.
Doubts remain about delivery. Surveys suggest most children who were on social media before the country’s ban are still using it, and no fines have been issued under that ban. The European Union’s attempt at algorithm controls in 2023 is also seen as a warning. After that rollout, platforms offered following-only feeds, but take-up of such features has reportedly been low.
Researcher Chris Zomer, from the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, has argued that platforms comply in a way that makes the options hard to use. “Platforms do what the law orders, but in such a clunky way that users don’t actually enjoy the option and stick with the default, algorithmic experience,” he wrote in The Conversation. On Instagram, for example, turning off the algorithm also removes access to direct messages and profile settings, and the feed reverts when users return to the app. The rules being drafted for Australia would require that following-only feeds are not harder to use or less functional, and that changes are made only through an explicit choice by the user.
Chanel Contos, the consent education campaigner whose “Fix Our Feeds” petition helped push the proposal, says she now wants the idea to spread internationally. More than 15,000 people signed her petition. Polling earlier this month suggested two-thirds of Gen-Z respondents would keep their algorithms, though nearly half of Australians more generally said they would turn theirs off.
