Giving Australians a choice on social feeds is welcome — but the law must be bite, not just bark

The government’s announcement that Australians could be given the option to ‘opt out’ of algorithmic feeds is a significant step in a long-overdue debate about the power of social platforms. Draft laws introduced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese would require social media companies to offer users a meaningful choice over the content that appears in their feeds, part of what ministers have framed as a new digital duty of care. The communications minister has complained that technology companies have been "running real-time, unregulated product testing on Australians" — a blunt description of an industry that tailors content to maximise attention, engagement and profit. That intervention is justified. For too long, algorithmic feeds have been treated as inevitable features of the internet rather than designed commercial products with social consequences. The promise of giving people a simple switch to a chronological or friend-only feed recognises a basic truth: not everyone wants their attention engineered. Parents worrying about what their teenagers see, workers trying to keep focus during the day, and citizens alarmed by the way outrage and misinformation spread all have an interest in curbing the unseen nudges baked into these platforms. But the hard work begins now. The pilot idea — labelled in some quarters as “My Feed, My Way” — will only change outcomes if the law is tightly drafted and properly enforced. Ministers say platforms could face penalties of more than $100 million for breaches and be obliged to protect adults from illegal content and children from six specified harms. Those are important teeth. What is not yet clear is whether the powers will be matched by the regulatory muscle needed to monitor compliance and the technical detail required to stop firms from finding easy, cosmetic ways around the spirit of the law. There are reasons to be wary. Commentators and reporting have already warned that platforms might frustrate the intent and keep users hooked despite the new rules. If an opt-out setting is buried behind confusing menus, limited in functionality, or engineered so the alternative feed is vastly inferior, the law will have failed. Equally, the government must avoid creating perverse incentives: an opt-out that shifts harmful content to a "safe harbour" feed for minimal users would simply repackage the problem rather than solve it. Practical enforcement will matter. Regulators will need technical expertise to audit recommendation systems, test whether default settings push the majority of users toward algorithmic feeds, and investigate instances where firms claim to offer choice but effectively do not. That means funding, clear standards and transparent reporting obligations. It also means consulting with researchers, clinicians and user groups to define what harm looks like in practice — particularly for children — rather than leaving it to platforms to self-assess. For ordinary Australians, this legislation could make a real difference to daily life. It could reduce time lost to scrolling, lower exposure to polarising content, and give parents and workplaces a better chance of controlling information flows. But only if lawmakers anticipate resistance and design rules that are precise, enforceable and backed by resources. The government has opened a potentially transformative conversation. Turning the promise of choice into real user power will require a regulator willing and able to hold big tech to account.