Australia’s Bold Move: Letting Users Choose Their Own Feed

For the first time since the controversial teen‑social‑media ban, Canberra is trying to hand the reins back to everyday users. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced a draft ‘digital duty of care’ law that would pop up a simple question when you open Instagram or Facebook: do you want the platform to decide what you see, or would you rather scroll only the posts from people you actually follow?

It sounds almost nostalgic – a throwback to the early 2010s when feeds were basically a list of friends’ updates. Yet the promise is huge. If the legislation passes, you could ditch the endless vortex of recommended videos, memes, and—sometimes—hate‑filled content that the algorithms love to serve up. In practice, you’d get a plain‑chronological timeline, free from the hidden hand that pushes the next click.

There’s a reason many users have grown wary of the “algorithm”. Experiments run by Guardian Australia in 2024 showed that a brand‑new phone, set up with minimal personal data, was quickly flooded with extremist, misogynistic, and far‑right material after just a single tap on a neutral post. The same logic that fuels teen‑targeted outrage also steers adults into echo chambers, scams, and political manipulation.

But legislation is only half the battle. Meta, the parent of Instagram and Facebook, has a track record of pushing back when rules threaten their revenue model. In the EU, a 2023 compliance move offered a “no‑algorithm” option, only for a Dutch court to discover that users were silently switched back to the default feed whenever they reopened the app. The court forced Meta to create a clear, one‑click opt‑out – yet the company argued it was already compliant. If Australia follows a similar legal wording, platforms might engineer clunky experiences that nudge users back into the algorithm, or hide the opt‑out deep inside menus.

There’s also a commercial angle. Instagram is set to launch an “Algo Confessions” series in Australia, featuring influencers explaining why the “For You” feed supposedly works so well. It’s a clever PR move that could mask the underlying profit motive: more engagement, more ad dollars. Meanwhile, tech‑safety tools like Instagram’s “Take a Break” have been shown to be barely used – a 1.8% uptake in a recent US court case – suggesting that simply offering features isn’t enough.

Ultimately, the success of the opt‑out hinges on how the law is written and enforced. If the government can mandate a simple, persistent toggle that survives app updates, users may finally get a genuine choice between doom‑scrolling and a feed that respects the people they actually want to see. As Albanese put it, “If people want to doom scroll … that’s fine, that’s up to them. But if people want a change, then this will provide them an opportunity.” Whether that opportunity translates into real‑world relief from algorithmic harm remains to be seen.