Australia introduces bill to make algorithmic feeds optional
Proposed online safety duties face competing demands for stronger remedies and firmer protections for free expression.
Australia has introduced legislation intended to let social media users choose whether algorithms recommend content in their feeds. The Digital Duty of Care bill, presented on 15 October, would also require online services to take reasonable steps to protect users from harm.
The proposal brings a practical question about social media into parliament: how much control should people have over the systems selecting what they see? SBS reports that the legislation would provide a choice over algorithm-driven feeds. Its introduction is a legislative step; it does not yet give users an off switch under the proposed law.
The Australian communications department says the reforms would combine user controls with minimum safety obligations. Services would have to protect Australians from seriously harmful and illegal material and conduct, with additional protections for under-18s. The department describes choosing whether recommended content appears in a feed as one example of the tools providers would need to offer.
The department also says the legislation would strengthen the eSafety Commissioner's powers and shorten the required response to cyberbullying and abuse complaints to 24 hours. Providers failing to comply with the proposed duty could face penalties of up to A$109.2 million if the legislation passes. These are proposed Australian requirements; they do not establish new rights for British users.
Communications Minister Anika Wells is also considering a Greens proposal allowing individuals to sue technology companies, according to ABC News. That possibility remains part of negotiations, rather than an agreed entitlement. The distinction matters: a regulator enforcing general obligations and an individual seeking a remedy are separate routes to holding a service accountable.
The political disagreement extends beyond enforcement. ABC reports that the government has removed proposed ministerial powers to add further categories of harm and strengthened protections for journalism. The opposition Coalition nevertheless remains against the bill, raising concerns about free expression and the definition of harm. A Senate inquiry will scrutinise the legislation before reporting ahead of parliament's late-November adjournment.
A separate intervention from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman focuses on what happens after a platform fails its users. In a statement dated 15 October, the organisation welcomed the bill but sought stronger independent dispute resolution. Ombudsman Cynthia Gebert argued that people need a practical route beyond automated replies and unclear escalation procedures when companies fail to resolve complaints.
That submission identifies account lockouts, financial loss, privacy concerns and poor complaint handling among the problems people can encounter. Its argument is that prevention needs to be accompanied by accessible remedies. For British readers following the debate over platform responsibility, Australia's proposal offers a concrete legislative example to watch: the choice of feed, the boundaries of safety duties and the means of challenging a company's decisions are being considered together.
Also show the region and a close-up
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The legislation was introduced on 15 October and remains a proposal.
- It combines algorithmic feed choice with safety duties.
- Independent dispute resolution is among the changes being advocated.
Left
Arguments A British left perspective would emphasise the imbalance between individual users and powerful platforms. Meaningful choice should be backed by enforceable duties and affordable remedies.
Values Collective protection, corporate accountability and equal access to justice.
Consequences Stronger obligations could reduce the burden on individuals, but inaccessible complaints processes could leave vulnerable users without effective protection.
Centre
Arguments An institutional approach would support user choice while requiring precise definitions, proportionate enforcement and independent scrutiny. The practical operation of complaints and appeals deserves as much attention as headline penalties.
Values Effective regulation, procedural fairness and evidence-based policy.
Consequences Clear rules could improve accountability and business certainty; poorly specified duties could produce disputes without reliable remedies.
Right
Arguments A British right perspective could welcome voluntary control over feeds while questioning broad state powers over lawful expression. Duties should be narrowly drawn and compliance costs proportionate.
Values Personal responsibility, freedom of expression and limits on government discretion.
Consequences User choice could strengthen individual autonomy, while vague liability could encourage platforms to remove lawful material defensively or discourage smaller competitors.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Priya Shah — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
Dated government information, independent reporting and the ombudsman's statement support the article's central claims and place the development within the required 48-hour window. The text distinguishes proposals from existing rights and does not claim that the bill has passed.
- confirmed Australia introduced Digital Duty of Care legislation on 15 October 2026. — The department explicitly gives this introduction date; SBS independently reports the introduction that day. source
- confirmed The bill would enable users to choose whether to receive algorithm-driven social media feeds. — SBS describes the proposed feed choice; this is not presented as an operational right. source
- confirmed The proposed duty includes general safety obligations and additional protection for under-18s. — These distinctions appear in the department's published summary. source
- confirmed Proposals include a 24-hour complaint response requirement and penalties up to A$109.2 million. — The department specifies cyberbullying and abuse complaints and makes penalties conditional on passage. source
- confirmed Wells is considering individual lawsuits; concessions have not secured Coalition support, and a Senate inquiry is pending. — ABC reports each development on 15 October, including the inquiry timetable and safeguards for journalism. source
- confirmed The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman called for independent remedies on 15 October. — Its dated statement names Cynthia Gebert and identifies account access, financial, privacy and complaint-handling problems. source
Editor's note
The introduction date and broad proposals are corroborated by government information and independent reporting. The government summary was available through search indexing, but its full page could not be retrieved; the detailed bill text was not examined. Passage, implementation arrangements and any private right to sue remain unsettled. The perspectives below are British political interpretations, not attributed party positions.Sources
- Digital Duty of Care — Australian Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts
- Social Media Bill sparks censorship debate — SBS News
- Anika Wells opens door to Australians suing big tech under new online safety laws — ABC News
- Digital Duty of Care must give Australians somewhere independent to turn when online services fail — Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman
More on this in other media
- The Guardian — „social media”
- BBC News — „social media”
- Sky News — „social media”