Australians could soon have more power over what appears in their social media feeds, with proposed reforms allowing users to opt out of algorithm-driven content.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese introduced draft legislation on Tuesday that would establish a new digital duty of care for major online platforms.
A central feature of the plan, branded by the government as My Feed, My Way, would require social media companies to give users clearer tools to control the content they are served online.
If passed, the changes would let Australians decide whether they want a feed curated by algorithms or a more personal stream made up of posts from friends and people they follow.
‘This is not about giving government control,’ Albanese said on Tuesday.
‘It’s about giving people control. It’s about putting choice back into the hands of Australians online.
‘This isn’t about government decision-making. This is about empowering people. And so, we hope that that produces good outcomes.
‘If people want to doomscroll, as you call it, that’s fine. That’s up to them, but if people want to have a change, then this will provide them with the opportunity.’
Australian internet users will be given the choice to opt out of algorithms under reforms to social media
Social media companies will also be required to protect people from harmful content online.
Harmful content will include the promotion of eating disorders, misogynistic content, pornography and content that glorifies crime.
Companies could face fines of $100million if they don’t enact the duty of care.
Communications Minister Anika Wells said the duty of care would build on the world-leading ban on social media for under-16s.
‘The digital duty of care is not about controlling adults online – it is about giving adults a choice,’ she said.
‘Tech companies can still move fast, but they will no longer be allowed to break things because online harms have real-world consequences.
‘There is a global reckoning coming for big tech.’
It follows government moves to pursue stronger penalties for social media companies as part of measures to bolster the under-16s ban.
Anika Wells (pictured) rejected claims the legislation was about internet censorship
Wells rejected fears the proposals could be used to police political opinions or censor online debate, and insisted the laws are focused on harmful content and user choice.
‘It is about giving people control over what they see online,’ she said.
Wells said the proposed digital duty of care would require technology companies to meet ‘basic safety standards’ and address risks created by their platforms.
‘The focus is on harms caused by systems, tools and features,’ she said.
She said the reforms would target illegal material including child sexual exploitation material, child abuse material, extreme violence, sexual violence, menacing, threatening or harassing conduct, and terrorism and violent extremism material.
‘Aside from illegal content, the reforms are about choice,’ she said.
Under the proposal, users would be able to disable algorithmically recommended feeds and instead see content from accounts they choose to follow.
It would also allow the Communications Minister or eSafety Commissioner to add new categories of online harm, which has been criticised by the Coalition, One Nation and some free-speech advocates.
The laws would allow the government to tackle new tech like Grok as it comes online
Wells said similar powers already exist under Australia’s online safety laws.
‘It was there to include YouTube in the social media laws when I became the Communications Minister. That would have been disallowable in the Senate; nobody disallowed it,’ she said.
She defended the move by raising the concerns earlier this year about AI platform Grok generating sexualised images of minors and unwitting participants.
‘In the first week of January, we were having press conferences about Grok [asking], “Can you ban it?” We didn’t have the power to do that,’ she said.
‘The rule-making power would have allowed me to … consult with the eSafety Commissioner and declare nudifying photos of teenagers in bikinis a new serious harm.’
‘It is on the Coalition if they’re going to disagree with that once they’ve read the exposure draft,’ she said.
‘Is their preference that we recall Parliament every time there’s a new Grok?’
