Australia Mulls Giving Users a Say Over Social Media Algorithms

Australia’s new digital‑duty‑of‑care bill could turn social media into a "choose your own adventure" story. If the legislation survives the parliamentary wrangles, every Instagram, Facebook or TikTok user would see a pop‑up asking whether they want the platform’s algorithm to decide what pops up, or whether they’d rather stick to posts from people they actually follow. It sounds almost nostalgic – a throw‑back to the early‑2010s when feeds were simple chronologies – yet the stakes feel anything but low‑key.

For years we’ve complained about the random rabbit‑holes that open up after a single swipe. A video about a kitten can quickly spiral into extremist commentary, misogynistic memes or outright conspiracy theory. The Guardian ran a series of experiments in 2024 using brand‑new phones programmed to look like young men with almost no data. The results were stark: the default algorithm shoved them down a dark tunnel of far‑right and hate‑filled content after just a few harmless likes.

Those “harms” aren’t limited to teenagers. Grandparents have been duped by fake investment scams, relatives have been radicalised in comment sections, and politicians are now forced to wade through outrage‑bait that the platforms actively promote because it drives ad revenue. In that context, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s announcement feels like a genuine attempt to hand power back to users.

There is a precedent, though, and it’s not a comforting one. When Apple gave iPhone users the option to block app‑tracking in 2021, Meta saw a $10 billion hit in a single quarter as people fled the data‑hungry ad engine. Yet Meta’s own safety tools – like Instagram’s “Take a Break” feature, which was supposed to curb endless scrolling – were used by a mere 1.8 % of those who tried it, according to a US court case that ended in an $18 billion settlement.

Companies love to parade their safety features, but they often hide them deep in menus and make the experience of opting out feel like an afterthought. In the EU, Meta introduced a “no‑algorithm” mode in 2023 to satisfy a new law, only for a Dutch court in 2025 to discover that closing and reopening the app automatically sent users back into the algorithmic swirl. The court ordered a straightforward opt‑out button, but Meta has continued to argue it’s already compliant.

If Australia’s law is worded loosely, we could see similar work‑arounds – UI tricks that nudge users back into the default feed, or additional prompts that make the opt‑out feel like a hassle. That’s why the exact wording of the legislation matters as much as the political will behind it.

Instagram is already gearing up to sell the idea, rolling out an “Algo Confessions” series where celebrities show off their own “For You” feeds and praise the algorithm’s magic. The government, meanwhile, is trying to frame the move as empowerment, not paternalism. Albanese told reporters, “If people want to doom‑scroll … that’s fine, that’s up to them. But if they want a change, this will give them an opportunity.” It’s a carefully crafted line meant to avoid the backlash that greeted the teen‑social‑media ban.

Whether the proposal will sail through the opposition‑ridden Senate remains uncertain. The Coalition and One Nation have already signalled resistance to other parts of the online‑harms package. Still, if the pop‑up notification becomes a reality, every Australian will have a clear choice – a chance to break free from the endless algorithmic tide, or to stay exactly where they are.

Only time will tell if the opt‑out becomes a genuine escape route or just another headline in the long saga of trying to tame the digital beast.