Australia proposes laws to let social media users opt out of algorithms

The Australian government is preparing to mandate a technical "off switch" for the recommendation systems that drive modern social media, attempting to shift the burden of online safety from individual users to the companies that design the platforms. Under proposed "digital duty of care" laws, platforms such as Meta, TikTok, and X would be required to allow users to opt out of personalized algorithms and return to feeds consisting primarily of posts from accounts they deliberately follow.

The 'Digital Duty of Care' vs. The Social Media Ban

The proposed legislation is distinct from the government's existing effort to restrict access to social media for children. While the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill focuses on a hard age limit, the digital duty of care framework addresses the internal mechanics of the platforms themselves.

The Implementation Gap and Technical Complexity

The central tension of the proposal lies in the government's tendency to pass legislation before defining the technical implementation. Tama Leaver, a Professor of Internet Studies at Curtin University, suggests this is a "mixed blessing" that prevents companies from claiming a change is impossible but complicates enforcement.

Leaver points out the technical absurdity of a generic "opt-out" on platforms with multiple overlapping systems. Using Instagram as an example, he notes the platform employs distinct algorithms for the main feed, disappearing stories, and reels. It remains unclear which, if any, of these would be impacted by a single user choice.

Without this, Leaver suspects the vast majority of users will simply stick with recommended content.

There is also the concern of "parental burden." If the opt-out process requires navigating complex control dashboards for every individual service, the responsibility for managing a child's digital safety effectively shifts back to the parents.

Defining 'Psycho-Social Harm' and Regulatory Teeth

The framework seeks to hold platforms accountable for "psycho-social harm," a category that would include content related to body image and bullying.

To ensure compliance, the government proposes a more aggressive auditing regime. This includes allowing the eSafety Commissioner and independent researchers to be in involved in finding out about and testing what companies are doing to ensure compliance with these laws.

This regulatory approach clashes with the "American tradition," according to Leaver, where users are generally held responsible for the content they encounter rather than the companies providing the platform. This ideological gap could lead to diplomatic friction between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and US President Donald Trump.

The Censorship Debate

Opposition leader Angus Taylor has expressed skepticism, warning that the laws could become a tool for censorship.

In response, Belinda Barnet, a media expert at Swinburne University, argues that removing an addictive element is not the same as censorship. She compares the measure to restricting children's access to adult-only movies, stating that the goal is to remove the "addictive elements" rather than eliminate predators or other platform risks.

The full details of the plan, including the specific mechanisms for the "off switch" and the final fine structures, are expected to be released in an exposure draft in the coming week.

Mechanism of the 'Off Switch'

According to reports from the ABC and The Australia Today, the government intends to implement the opt-out system through periodic prompts. Platforms would be required to use pop-up messages to ask users if they wish to continue with an algorithmically curated feed or switch to content from accounts they have deliberately chosen to follow.

The government aims to move away from a system that relies on users reporting harm after it occurs. Instead, the framework requires companies to assess risks before features are rolled out.

The proposed laws follow the implementation of the social media minimum age regime. Data from last month suggests that under-16s in Australia are increasing their use of apps like TikTok and Instagram despite the ban.

The next step is the release of an exposure draft, which is expected within the coming sitting fortnight, providing the specific technical and financial details required for parliamentary debate.

Enforcement and 'Sock Puppet' Testing

The government intends to shift from a reactive system, which relies on users reporting abuse, to a proactive model where companies must assess risks before features are launched. To monitor this, the eSafety Commissioner and registered independent researchers would reportedly be permitted to use sock puppet accounts—including those posing as children—to examine what algorithms actually recommend to young users. This method allows regulators to experience platforms as a child would, rather than relying on company-provided data.

The scope of the "digital duty of care" may extend beyond traditional social media. According to The Australia Today, the framework could apply to the broader digital economy, including search engines, app stores, online games, dating services, and generative AI services.

Financial penalties are a primary point of contention. While the government proposes fines exceeding A$100 million, SBS reports that Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has dismissed these as half-baked measures that companies would treat as a cost of doing business. Hanson-Young has instead called for penalties based on a firm's global profits.

The government's timeline follows the December 10, 2025, implementation of the social media minimum age regime. While eSafety reported that roughly 4.7 million accounts belonging to under-16s were restricted or deleted by mid-January, data from last month indicates that usage of apps like TikTok and Instagram among this age group is actually increasing. The next step is the release of the exposure draft, expected within the coming sitting fortnight, which will provide the specific technical and financial details required for parliamentary debate.