Australia's proposed social media algorithm opt-out rules could give users more control over their feeds while reshaping creator reach, platform design, and digital marketing.
Australia's federal government released draft legislation on September 8, 2026, proposing a “My Feed, My Way” initiative.
Under the proposal, social media platforms would have to offer Australians aged 16 and over a choice between:
A feed containing personalised algorithmic recommendations.
A feed showing posts from friends and creators they choose to follow.
The draft forms part of a broader Digital Duty of Care framework. It was released for targeted consultation, with legislation planned for introduction to Parliament later in 2026. It is not yet enacted law.
By Haven Trends Editorial Team | Digital Culture & Technology
Canberra's proposed “My Feed, My Way” rules could let Australians choose between personalised recommendations and content from accounts they follow, opening a new debate about online freedom, platform power, and the future of social media.
Introduction: What If You Could Choose What Your Feed Shows You?
Imagine opening Instagram or TikTok and seeing only posts from accounts you deliberately follow.
No unexpected recommendations. No endless stream of unfamiliar creators. No content selected because an algorithm believes you might watch it for another 20 seconds.
Now imagine having the option to switch back whenever you want.
That is the idea behind Australia's proposed “My Feed, My Way” initiative, a fresh government-backed effort to give users greater control over algorithmically recommended social media content.
Announced by the Albanese government on September 8, 2026, the proposal would require covered social media platforms to offer users aged 16 and over a choice between personalised recommendations and a feed containing content from accounts they choose to follow.
The initiative forms part of draft Digital Duty of Care legislation, which would also introduce broader responsibilities for digital services to address foreseeable online harms.
The announcement has attracted attention from technology companies, digital rights observers, and people interested in how social media shapes everyday behaviour.
It also raises a fascinating question:
Should social media platforms decide what keeps us scrolling, or should users have a more direct say in what appears on their screens?
What Is Australia's “My Feed, My Way” Proposal?
“My Feed, My Way” is a proposed Australian policy initiative designed to give users more control over their default social media experience.
Under the draft approach, platforms would need to notify new and existing users and offer them a choice.
Users could either:
Continue with a feed containing personalised algorithmic recommendations.
Opt out of personalised recommendations in their default feed and see posts from friends and creators they follow.
The government says the initiative is intended to give Australians greater choice over their online experience rather than eliminate algorithms altogether.
Is Australia Banning Social Media Algorithms?
No.
The proposal does not prohibit recommendation systems.
Instead, it would require platforms to provide a meaningful alternative to personalised feeds.
That distinction is central to understanding the policy.
Recommendation algorithms are deeply embedded in modern social media. They help platforms sort enormous volumes of content and decide what individual users see.
The Australian proposal would allow users to decline that personalised selection for their default feed.
The initiative is still under consultation, and its final legal requirements could change before Parliament considers the legislation.
How Did the Proposal Start?
The algorithm-control debate developed within Australia's broader push to regulate online safety and protect users from harmful digital experiences.
The country's government has increasingly focused on the responsibilities of technology platforms, particularly concerning children, harmful content, and potentially damaging design features.
The Digital Duty of Care proposal extends that conversation beyond age restrictions and content moderation to the systems that determine what people encounter.
From Social Media Access to Social Media Design
Australia introduced a world-first minimum-age restriction for designated social media accounts in December 2025, preventing children under 16 from maintaining accounts on covered platforms.
The new algorithm proposal moves the discussion in a different direction.
Rather than asking only “Who should be allowed to use social media?”, policymakers are also asking:
“What should platforms be required to let users control once they are there?”
The government's September 8 announcement presents “My Feed, My Way” as part of this broader regulatory approach.
The policy therefore reflects a developing philosophy: digital platforms should not only manage harmful content but also consider how their products influence users' experiences.
Why Is Australia's Algorithm Proposal Receiving Attention Now?
1. Recommendation Algorithms Shape What People Discover
Social media feeds are no longer simply lists of posts from friends.
Platforms use recommendation systems to select content based on signals such as interests, viewing behaviour, interactions, and other factors.
The Australian eSafety Commissioner describes recommender systems as central to how people use the internet, noting that they can create both helpful and harmful experiences.
These systems can introduce users to new creators, communities, educational material, and entertainment.
They can also repeatedly expose people to content that reinforces harmful patterns, depending on the platform's design and the user's circumstances.
That dual role is one reason algorithmic control has become a policy issue.
2. Governments Are Examining Platform Responsibility
Australia's proposal comes amid wider international scrutiny of technology companies.
The European Union's Digital Services Act already requires platforms to provide users with certain options concerning personalised recommendations and profiling.
Reuters reported that Australia's proposed approach would build on this broader international discussion while introducing its own model of user choice.
The Australian initiative is therefore part of a wider question about whether digital platforms should offer greater transparency and control over automated content selection.
3. Users Are Becoming More Aware of How Feeds Work
Many people understand that their feeds are personalised, but fewer may know how many different recommendation systems operate within a single platform.
Instagram, for example, uses algorithms for feed ranking, Stories, suggested content, and other features.
During a September 10 briefing in Australia, Instagram chief Adam Mosseri discussed the complexity of these systems and argued that an algorithm-free experience could be worse for many users.
That public debate has helped bring an invisible part of social media into the spotlight.
Platform Influence: Why TikTok and Instagram Are Central to the Debate
The proposal could affect major social networks that rely heavily on recommendation systems.
TikTok: Discovery Is Part of the Product
TikTok's For You feed is built around content discovery.
Users frequently encounter videos from creators they have never followed, making recommendations a major part of the platform experience.
For creators, this can create opportunities to reach audiences beyond their existing followers.
For users, it can make the platform feel dynamic and personalised.
A feed limited to followed accounts could change that experience by reducing the amount of content selected through recommendation systems.
The proposal does not specifically eliminate TikTok's ability to recommend content. Rather, it could require the platform to respect a user's choice if they opt out of personalised recommendations in their default feed.
Instagram: A Debate Over Convenience and Control
Instagram has also become a focal point in the discussion.
Adam Mosseri, Instagram's head, argued in September that many users could experience a worse product without algorithmic ranking.
He also acknowledged that Instagram's recommendation systems can feel opaque and said the company was working on giving users more control over recommended topics.
His comments highlight the central disagreement.
Platforms view algorithms as tools that help users discover relevant content.
Policymakers and critics argue that users should have a meaningful choice about whether those systems shape their default experience.
Both positions can coexist: recommendation systems may offer value while users still deserve control over whether to use them.
Creator Influence: What Could Change for Influencers and Small Accounts?
The proposed rules could have important implications for creators.
Today, a creator can reach people who do not follow them through recommendations, shares, search, and other discovery features.
For smaller accounts, algorithmic distribution can be an important route to visibility.
Could an Algorithm-Free Feed Reduce Discovery?
Potentially, yes—but the effect would depend on how platforms implement the proposal and how many users choose alternative feeds.
If a user sees primarily posts from accounts they follow, creators may have fewer opportunities to reach that person through personalised recommendations.
However, this would not necessarily eliminate discovery.
Users could still find creators through:
Search.
Shared posts.
Direct recommendations from friends.
Hashtags or platform features.
Deliberately following new accounts.
The precise impact remains uncertain because the proposal has not yet been implemented.
The Creator Economy May Need to Adapt
If user-controlled feeds become more common, creators may place greater emphasis on building direct relationships with audiences.
That could mean encouraging followers to subscribe, turn on notifications, join communities, or engage with content intentionally.
It may also increase the importance of content that audiences actively seek rather than passively encounter.
Still, it would be premature to claim that Australian creators will experience a universal decline in reach.
The outcome would depend on the final rules, platform design, user adoption, and how recommendation systems continue operating elsewhere within each service.
Public Reaction: More Freedom or Less Convenience?
The Australian proposal has prompted different responses from political figures, technology executives, and digital commentators.
Supporters Emphasise User Choice
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the initiative as a way to give people control rather than give the government control over the internet.
Communications Minister Anika Wells similarly framed the proposal around allowing Australians to choose whether personalised recommendations shape their feeds.
Ministers for the Department of Infrastructure
From this perspective, the policy is about expanding user options.
People who enjoy personalised recommendations can retain them.
Those who prefer a more predictable feed can choose an alternative.
Critics Question the Government's Role
Not everyone views the proposal positively.
According to Al Jazeera's reporting on September 7, opposition leader Angus Taylor expressed concern that the proposed legislation could become a form of government censorship, while acknowledging that he had not yet seen the bill.
This is an important qualification.
The criticism was directed at the potential direction of the proposal before the detailed legislation had been fully assessed.
It should not be treated as evidence that the final law would censor social media.
Instagram's Leadership Raises a Different Concern
Adam Mosseri argued that removing algorithmic ranking could worsen the experience for many users.
His position reflects a platform-side concern: a feed based primarily on followed accounts may be less relevant, less engaging, or less useful for people who rely on recommendations to discover content.
The debate therefore involves two distinct questions:
Should users have more control?
What experience will users receive when they exercise that control?
Business and Marketing Impact
Australia's proposed algorithm rules could influence how businesses approach social media marketing.
1. Organic Reach Could Become More Dependent on Direct Relationships
Brands often rely on recommendation systems to introduce products to audiences who do not already follow them.
If more users choose feeds based primarily on followed accounts, businesses may need to strengthen direct audience relationships.
That could increase the value of:
Brand followers.
Email newsletters.
Creator partnerships.
Community-building.
Search-friendly content.
Customer loyalty programmes.
However, the scale of this effect cannot yet be measured because the proposal remains under consultation.
2. Paid Advertising May Need to Adapt
The proposal concerns algorithmically recommended content in users' feeds, but it does not automatically mean all forms of advertising would disappear from alternative feeds.
The final legislation and platform implementation would determine how commercial content is handled.
Advertisers may nevertheless pay closer attention to how audiences choose to consume content.
3. Creators Could Focus More on Audience Retention
For creators, the potential shift may encourage investment in content that motivates people to follow and return.
That could benefit creators with strong communities and recognizable niches.
But it could also make audience acquisition more challenging for new accounts if fewer users encounter unfamiliar creators through recommendations.
Advantages and Criticisms of the Proposal
Potential Advantages
Greater user autonomy
People could choose whether personalised recommendations shape their default feeds.
More transparency around platform design
The initiative encourages public discussion about how recommendation systems influence online experiences.
Potential reduction in unwanted content exposure
Users who prefer content from selected accounts may find a more predictable feed.
Stronger accountability for platforms
The Digital Duty of Care framework would place additional responsibilities on digital service providers to address identified risks.
Ministers for the Department of Infrastructure
A possible model for other countries
If implemented effectively, Australia's approach could provide another example for policymakers examining recommender-system regulation.
Potential Criticisms
Reduced content discovery
Users may encounter fewer new creators, communities, and perspectives.
Possible impact on smaller creators
Accounts that depend on recommendation systems could face challenges reaching new audiences.
A less personalised experience
Some users may find a followed-accounts feed repetitive or less relevant.
Implementation complexity
Platforms would need to make the choice understandable, accessible, and meaningful.
Uncertain effects on online harms
Turning off personalised recommendations may change exposure patterns, but it would not automatically eliminate harmful content.
These are potential outcomes, not established results of a law that has yet to be implemented.
Real Examples: What Other Regulatory Approaches Tell Us
The European Union's Digital Services Act
The EU provides a useful comparison.
Reuters reported that the Digital Services Act has required platforms since 2024 to offer users the option of switching off profiling for recommendations.
Australia's proposal differs in its specific approach, but both reflect an interest in giving users more say over how content is selected.
The European example also demonstrates that creating a legal right does not automatically resolve questions about discoverability, interface design, or user awareness.
Instagram's Existing Feed Options
Instagram already provides chronological feed options in Australia.
ABC News reported on September 10 that these options existed but that user awareness remained low, with Mosseri identifying room to improve discoverability.
This is relevant because it illustrates a practical challenge: an option can exist without becoming widely used if people do not know where to find it or how it works.
Verified Expert Insights: What Does the Evidence Say?
Australia's eSafety Commissioner
The eSafety Commissioner published an updated position statement on recommender systems in May 2026.
It explains that algorithms can amplify and compound online harms, particularly when systems prioritise engagement without adequately distinguishing between positive and negative engagement.
The regulator recommends safer design practices, including greater user control and improved transparency about how recommender systems operate.
This supports the broader rationale behind examining algorithmic choice.
However, eSafety's position statement does not establish that a particular feed format will eliminate online harm.
Instagram Chief Adam Mosseri
Mosseri's September 2026 comments provide a contrasting industry perspective.
He argued that many users could experience a worse product without algorithmic ranking, while acknowledging that recommendation systems can feel opaque.
His comments represent the position of a platform executive, not an independent evaluation of Australia's proposed legislation.
What Can Be Concluded?
The available evidence supports three measured observations:
Recommendation systems have significant influence over online experiences.
Regulators are examining ways to give users more control.
There is disagreement about how much control should be offered and what trade-offs it may create.
The long-term effects of Australia's specific proposal remain unknown.
Future Outlook: Could Australia Change How the World Uses Social Media?
The government intends to introduce the Digital Duty of Care legislation to Parliament later in 2026, following consultation.
Ministers for the Department of Infrastructure
That means several questions remain open.
Will the Proposal Become Law?
The draft legislation must proceed through Australia's parliamentary process.
Its final provisions, timing, and implementation details are not yet guaranteed.
Will Other Countries Follow?
Australia's approach may attract interest from governments considering platform accountability and user control.
But whether other countries adopt similar rules will depend on their own legal systems, political priorities, and assessments of the benefits and risks.
Will Platforms Redesign Their Feeds?
If the proposal becomes law, platforms may need to adjust onboarding, settings, notifications, and feed-selection interfaces for Australian users.
The practical experience will depend on whether users can easily understand their choices and whether the alternatives provide meaningful control.
Could Users Become More Intentional About Social Media?
One possible long-term effect is greater awareness of how feeds are shaped.
Rather than treating recommendations as an invisible part of the app, users may become more deliberate about choosing what they see.
That could influence how people follow creators, discover information, and manage their time online.
Conclusion: The Right to Choose What You See
Australia's “My Feed, My Way” proposal arrives at a moment when social media platforms play an enormous role in shaping digital attention.
Recommendation algorithms can help users discover useful content, emerging creators, and communities they might otherwise miss.
But they can also influence what people repeatedly encounter, sometimes in ways that are difficult to understand.
The proposed Australian approach does not seek to ban algorithms. It seeks to give users aged 16 and over a choice between personalised recommendations and content from accounts they follow.
Whether that choice improves the online experience will depend on implementation, user adoption, platform response, and the final legislation.
For creators, it may encourage stronger direct relationships with audiences.
For businesses, it could prompt new thinking about community-building and digital reach.
For users, it raises a simple but important question:
Should the feed you open every day be determined primarily by what an algorithm predicts you will enjoy—or by the people and creators you deliberately choose to follow?
Australia's answer could become an important case study in the future of social media regulation.
What Do You Think?
Would you prefer a social media feed controlled by your own choices, or do you enjoy discovering content recommended by algorithms?
At Haven Trends, we want to hear from creators, marketers, technology enthusiasts, and everyday social media users.
Join the conversation:
Comment: Tell us whether you would switch off personalised recommendations.
Share: Send this article to someone interested in digital privacy or social media culture.
Subscribe: Follow Haven Trends for fresh reporting on technology, internet culture, and creator trends.
Read further: Explore our digital culture coverage for more stories about how platforms are changing everyday life.
Discover Trending Categories Everyone Is Talking About
💬 Enjoyed the read? Share it forward.
📢 Spread the word, spark a conversation, and Let others stay informed and inspired by what’s shaping the world right now.
Inspire someone else. Share it, start a conservation 👇👇👇👇