Give Australians a real choice on social feeds — and make the law enforce it

Australia is on the brink of a meaningful shift in online regulation. The government’s proposals to let social media users opt out of algorithm-recommended content — part of the so-called “My Feed, My Way” push — are a welcome step in confronting how invisible systems shape what we see, how we think and how our children grow up. But good intent alone will not protect the public; the law must be clear, enforceable and resourced to bite. Why this matters to ordinary Australians is obvious. Algorithms power feeds on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and other services, deciding what appears in front of us in seconds and nudging attention, habits and risk. The government’s brief lists real harms to be tackled: content that promotes eating disorders, hostile ideas about women, pornography, crime, dangerous stunts and material that risks serious mental harm for young people. These are not abstract policy problems — they are the kinds of content parents, schools and communities are trying to defend children and vulnerable people from today. The proposal to give users the option to switch off algorithmic ranking is sensible in principle. Choice recognises that not everyone wants a perfectly personalised, engagement-maximising feed. Some users prefer chronological timelines or neutral streams; others want stronger controls to prevent addictive loops. Curbing algorithmic amplification can also blunt the commercial incentives that make extreme, sensational and harmful content more profitable for platforms to promote. But a law that merely requires platforms to add an “opt out” toggle and then leaves the rest to corporate design will not protect young people or public discourse. Implementation details matter. What exactly counts as an “algorithmic” feed? How will platforms present the choice so that it is meaningful rather than buried in settings? Will the option be available on all devices, in all apps and to all account types? And crucially, how will regulators verify compliance? The government has reportedly signalled tough penalties for non‑compliance — figures that have been reported up to $100 million. That is the right instinct: penalties must be large enough to matter to multibillion‑dollar companies. But fines alone are not a silver bullet. Regulators need the power to audit systems, demand technical documentation and test user experiences. They must be able to require changes to user interfaces that currently nudge people towards the algorithmic default. There are other risks to manage. Heavy‑handed rules that treat all platforms the same risk squeezing out smaller services and entrenching incumbents. The law should be proportionate and technologically neutral, focused on outcomes — transparency, meaningful user choice and demonstrable protections for children and vulnerable people — rather than prescribing a single technical fix. This is also a moment for broader civic conversation. Schools, parents and community groups must be supported to teach digital literacy and resilience at the same time governments legislate. Opt‑out controls are part of a toolkit, not the whole solution. Australia should be applauded for trying to take the lead. If this legislation is to be more than theatre, lawmakers must harden vague commitments into specific, testable rules; give regulators teeth to audit and enforce; and ensure the protections are practical and visible to everyday users. Otherwise the next generation will simply be handed different looking feeds that behave in the same harmful ways. That outcome would be unacceptable — and avoidable.