Australia proposes choice between algorithmic and followed-account feeds

The Australian government presented a proposal on Tuesday, September 8, 2026, that would require social media platforms to offer an explicit choice about the default feed. Under the “My Feed, My Way” plan, users could accept personalized recommendations or opt to see posts from friends and creators they chose to follow.

The measure is part of a broader digital duty-of-care bill. The draft has been released for targeted consultation with platforms, industry groups, civil society organizations and online-safety advocates. It is therefore not a law currently in force: the government intends to introduce legislation to the Australian Parliament later in 2026.

What platforms would have to change

According to the official release, social networks would have to notify new and existing users and present a choice about the feed shown by default. People over 16 could allow content personalized by recommendation systems or decline it in order to receive posts from accounts they selected to follow.

The wording matters because “turning off the algorithm” oversimplifies the proposal. Even a feed limited to followed accounts may rely on systems to order posts, remove spam, apply moderation or load content. The central change would be the removal of personalized recommendations for topics and profiles the user did not choose, not the conversion of a platform into a service without any automated processing.

The government says the preference would have to be respected on an ongoing basis. Its practical effect, however, will depend on interface design: how many steps are required, whether both choices receive equal prominence and which parts of an app are covered. A network may use separate mechanisms for its home page, short videos, search, notifications and temporary stories.

The proposal extends beyond social feeds

The proposed duty of care would also cover online games, apps, messaging services and chatbots. For people under 18, companies would have to reduce risks linked to features the government describes as addictive or harmful to self-esteem, while offering protection from material involving eating disorders, pornography, hostility toward women, glorification of crime, dangerous stunts, abuse and bullying.

Platforms would also need to document the measures taken to address identified risks and verify that those measures remain effective. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner would oversee compliance and enforcement. Breaches of the duty-of-care regime could lead to penalties of up to 109.2 million Australian dollars.

The draft would also expand eSafety’s ability to demand the rapid removal of certain illegal material and services that create non-consensual nude images. Those obligations belong to the wider regulatory package and should not be conflated with the specific choice about feed recommendations.

What is confirmed and what remains open

It is confirmed that the government released the proposal, made feed choice one of its elements and opened consultation. The intended coverage of digital services and the maximum penalty have also been stated. Full technical criteria, the wording that will reach Parliament and the implementation required for each product type have not all been publicly settled.

Australia is not starting from scratch. Through the Digital Services Act, the European Union already requires very large platforms to offer recommendation options not based on profiling. Reuters reported that European regulators encountered difficulties when some companies did not make opting out sufficiently simple. That precedent suggests the formal existence of a button is not enough: placement, wording, preference persistence and coverage across the app will determine whether the choice is meaningful.

The Australian government describes the initiative as shifting control from companies to users. Critics have raised concerns about regulatory overreach and free expression, while others argue that personalized recommendations should be disabled by default. For now, both are positions within the debate. The verified fact is narrower: Australia has proposed a mandatory choice, but its final design will depend on consultation and parliamentary consideration.