What is actually on the table
Australia's proposed algorithm opt-out is part of a broader package called the Digital Duty of Care, released as an exposure draft in September 2026 rather than as enacted legislation. The draft laws would shift responsibility onto digital service providers to proactively keep Australians safe, setting minimum standards for the features and tools they use. The centrepiece for social media is a choice: account holders over 16 could opt in to an algorithmically recommended default feed, or opt out and see only the friends and creators they choose to follow.
The proposal reaches beyond social media. Online games, apps and AI chatbots would be required to protect under-18s from design features with negative behavioural impacts, such as addictive mechanics or those affecting a young person's self-esteem. Digital platforms would also have to document the measures taken to address identified risks of harm to Australian users and keep those measures effective over time.
The algorithm opt-out in practice
Under the draft, platforms such as TikTok, Instagram or Facebook could be required to send account holders a push notification asking them to decide whether they receive recommended content. For children, the draft goes further: social media platforms would be required to switch off features like personalised algorithms and endless scrolling for any users aged under 16. For children, the duty covers issues like bullying, pornography, misogyny and eating disorders, while for adults the focus is on criminality, violence and threats.
The government has framed the plan as "my feed, my way," positioning it as consumer choice rather than content control. Failure to comply with the duty of care could attract penalties of up to $109.2 million, with the independent eSafety Commissioner responsible for compliance and enforcement. Other reporting puts the potential fine at more than $100 million for platforms that fail to reduce foreseeable harms.
Why the US calls it 'censorship'
The US embassy in Canberra made a rare submission to the proposed laws, saying it had "serious concerns" and warning that allowing the government to "enforce vague definitions of 'harm'" would lead to "viewpoint-based censorship". Washington argues the regime may have significant effects beyond Australian borders, potentially raising concerns about fair competition, market access and trade treatment for American companies, independent media and content creators.
The US asks Australia to clarify how exactly "harm" and "risks" shall be determined, whether standard definitions will be used, and by whom — stressing these definitions must not encroach on protected speech. It also worries the law could reduce the reach of independent journalists or other voices whose content touches on sensitive or controversial topics if platforms had to "pre-emptively demote" them. Mandated platform design features, the US says, may affect what users see, say and hear not just in or from Australia but globally.
The criticism landed during Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's visit to the US to speak at the UN General Assembly about his government's tech policies. US President Donald Trump used his own UN speech to play down fears about AI, rejecting proposals for guardrails and arguing it should be renamed "super intelligence".
The Australian government's defence
Albanese has repeatedly framed the law as returning control to individuals. "It's not about giving government control," he told media in New York. "It's about giving people back control over what they receive on their devices". The Prime Minister has said the legislation is not about giving governments control but giving it back to individuals.
At home, the response is split. The opposition Liberals and Nationals have flagged opposition, with shadow communications minister Sarah Henderson calling the current draft an "absolute threat to free speech". Nationals leader Matt Canavan has voiced concern the laws could be used to censor online content. The Greens hold the balance of power needed to advance the laws through parliament; their communications spokesperson Sarah Hanson-Young urged a lower threshold for harm and penalties set as a percentage of global revenue. Support has come from groups such as Teach Us Consent, founded by Chanel Contos, and the Butterfly Foundation.
Existing Australian law you should not confuse this with
The proposed duty of care is separate from rules already in force. Australia's social media age restrictions for under-16s are now in effect, introduced after the government banned social media for children under 16 in December. These restrictions operate under the Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Rules 2025 and align with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The existing Online Safety Act 2021 already gives the eSafety Commissioner significant takedown powers over unprotected, illegal content, which is one reason the US warns that layering new algorithmic duties risks regulatory overlap and unpredictability. The draft Digital Duty of Care was itself recommended in the statutory review of the Online Safety Act 2021. A period of 12 months is proposed between the legislation passing and the duty's commencement.
Where the bill stands and how to have a say
This remains a proposal. The exposure draft of the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 is out for consultation, with legislation expected to be introduced to parliament before Christmas 2026, though it will likely face a lengthy public inquiry and negotiations. Compliance would sit with the eSafety Commissioner, and the duty's obligations would be proportionate to a service's risk profile.
To provide feedback on the draft Bill, members of the public and organisations can email the department, which will consider submissions but will not publish individual comments; a summary of feedback may be published with personal details redacted. The department may use artificial intelligence tools to help screen abusive material and summarise responses. The US government has urged Australia to allow additional time for industry consultations with affected companies and individual content creators.
Reader questions
Is the algorithm opt-out law already in force in Australia?
No. The rules are a draft exposure bill released in September 2026, not enacted law. Parliament has not yet passed them, and a 12-month gap is proposed between passage and commencement.
Who would the opt-out apply to?
Account holders over 16 would be able to opt in or out of algorithmically recommended feeds. For users under 16, platforms would be required to switch off personalised algorithms and endless scrolling entirely.
Why does the US oppose the proposal?
The US embassy says vague definitions of "harm" could lead to viewpoint-based censorship and argues the design mandates may reach beyond Australia's borders, affecting American companies and independent voices.
What penalty do platforms face?
Non-compliance could attract penalties of up to $109.2 million under the draft, enforced by the eSafety Commissioner. Other reporting cites fines of more than $100 million for failing to reduce foreseeable harms.
How is this different from the under-16 social media ban?
The under-16 ban is already in effect under the Online Safety Act framework, while the algorithm opt-out is a proposed addition that would apply to users over 16 and focus on feed choice.