Australia gives users control over social media algorithms

Published: 08 September 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

Australia is preparing legislation that would give social media users aged 16 and over greater control over the algorithms that determine what appears in their online feeds, in a major proposed expansion of the country’s digital safety rules.

The draft laws would allow eligible users to switch off algorithmically recommended content and instead view posts primarily from people, organisations and groups they have deliberately chosen to follow. The government says the measure is intended to reduce exposure to harmful or divisive material while giving individuals more influence over their online experiences.

Under the proposed system, described by the government as “my feed, my way”, social media platforms would be required to provide users with a clear choice about how their feeds operate. A pop-up message would ask users to select their preferred default feed, with those who opt out of recommendation algorithms receiving content based on their own selections rather than material promoted through automated systems.

The proposal represents a significant challenge to the way major technology companies operate their platforms. Recommendation systems are central to many social media services, using information about users’ interests and behaviour to determine which posts, videos and other material are placed prominently in their feeds.

Australian officials argue that these systems can contribute to the rapid spread of material that is harmful, extreme or emotionally distressing. They say users should have a meaningful alternative if they do not want automated systems deciding what they see.

Platforms that fail to comply could face fines of more than A$100 million, giving the proposed rules considerable financial weight. The legislation would also establish a broader digital duty of care for services used by children and teenagers.

The government plans to extend obligations beyond traditional social media platforms. Online games, applications and artificial intelligence chatbots would also be expected to take steps to protect users under 18 from specified forms of harm.

Among the categories of content identified in the proposed framework are pornography, material that promotes or encourages eating disorders, misogynistic content, and material glorifying crime or dangerous stunts. Content associated with serious mental health distress, including abuse and bullying, would also fall within the scope of the proposed protections.

Australia’s eSafety commissioner would receive additional enforcement powers under the legislation. The regulator would be able to issue removal notices to social media companies and require platforms to keep records documenting the steps they have taken to address identified online harms.

The proposed framework comes as governments around the world face growing pressure to respond to concerns about the influence of digital platforms on children, teenagers and wider society. Australia has already taken a particularly strong approach to regulating young people’s access to social media, and the new proposal would broaden the focus from age restrictions to the design and operation of online services themselves.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is expected to promote the initiative internationally, including during the United Nations general assembly in New York later this month. The government is presenting the legislation as an effort to shift responsibility and decision-making power away from technology companies and towards users.

“This is not about giving government control, it is about giving people control,” Albanese said.

The prime minister has also rejected concerns that technology companies or their powerful owners could retaliate against Australia over the proposed rules. Some major technology executives maintain close relationships with US President Donald Trump, adding a wider geopolitical dimension to Australia’s confrontation with some of the world’s largest digital companies.

Albanese argued that resistance from the technology industry was inevitable because the proposed reforms would change the balance of power between platforms and their users.

The communications minister, Anika Wells, has similarly argued that technology companies have operated recommendation systems without sufficient oversight for too long. She described the proposed reforms as part of a wider international reassessment of the responsibilities of major technology companies.

“There is a global reckoning coming for big tech,” Wells said, arguing that Australia had already taken a leading role through its social media minimum-age legislation.

However, the proposal is facing political opposition and questions about whether the government has gone too far. Australia’s opposition Liberal and National parties have raised concerns about government intervention and warned against measures they believe could amount to internet censorship.

The government will need support from the Greens to secure the legislation’s passage through parliament, while the proposed framework is expected to undergo substantial scrutiny before becoming law.

Greens communications spokesperson Sarah Hanson-Young has argued that the government’s proposal does not go far enough. She criticised the idea of allowing users simply to opt out of algorithms, saying large technology companies could potentially find ways around the rules.

She has called for stronger protections and tougher penalties, including penalties linked to a platform’s global revenue. Her position reflects a broader concern among digital-safety campaigners that voluntary choices or individual settings may not be sufficient to counter systems designed to maximise engagement.

The technology industry has offered a more cautious response. DIGI, an industry group representing companies including Meta, Snapchat and Google, said recommendation systems could help users discover a wider range of material.

At the same time, the group acknowledged public concerns about how algorithmic systems operate and said it supported meaningful choice and control for users, provided that safety risks were also properly managed.

The debate illustrates the difficult balance facing governments. Algorithms can help users discover information, communities and entertainment that they might otherwise never encounter. But the same systems can also repeatedly promote material that attracts strong emotional reactions, potentially creating highly personalised online environments.

For parents and young people, the issue is particularly sensitive. Social media platforms have become an important part of everyday communication, entertainment and information sharing, while concerns about bullying, sexual content, eating disorders, misogyny and other harmful material have intensified.

Campaigner Chanel Contos, founder of Teach Us Consent, described the proposed reforms as an important first step. She argued that technology companies should not be able to introduce potentially harmful features into people’s digital lives without greater consideration of consent and safety.

The proposals have also attracted support from groups concerned about the impact of social media on democratic debate. Tom Mooney, campaign director for Democracy Counts, said giving people greater control over their feeds could help preserve exposure to common facts and a diversity of viewpoints.

His argument reflects a wider concern that personalised recommendation systems can fragment public discussion. When users are repeatedly shown material selected according to their previous behaviour, they may encounter fewer viewpoints that challenge their existing assumptions.

That issue has become increasingly important as social media has become a major source of news for many Australians. The way platforms rank and recommend information can influence what people read, discuss and ultimately believe.

Australia’s approach is also being watched internationally. France, Britain and New Zealand are among countries considering or implementing measures aimed at limiting children’s access to social media. Australia’s earlier restrictions have nevertheless faced questions about their effectiveness, with research suggesting that the measures introduced in December have produced only limited changes.

The proposed algorithm legislation therefore goes beyond simply restricting access. It focuses on the mechanisms that determine what users encounter once they are already inside digital platforms.

The legislation is expected to be introduced to parliament before Christmas, but it is unlikely to become law without extensive public consultation, parliamentary scrutiny and negotiations. Technology companies, civil liberties advocates, child-safety campaigners and political parties are likely to push for changes during that process.

At the heart of the debate is a question that extends well beyond Australia: how much control should individuals have over the digital systems that shape their daily lives?

The Australian government believes users should have the ability to reject automated recommendations and make their own choices. Critics fear that stronger regulation could give governments too much influence over online speech, while campaigners argue that voluntary controls leave technology companies with too much power.

Whatever the final form of the legislation, Australia’s proposal is likely to add momentum to a growing international debate over algorithmic accountability. As governments increasingly examine how digital platforms affect children, public discourse and mental wellbeing, the pressure on technology companies to explain and modify their systems is likely to continue.

For Australian users, the proposed “my feed, my way” system could ultimately mean a simple but significant change: greater choice over whether an algorithm decides what comes next on their screens.