A further attempt to restrict information?

‘MY FEED, MY WAY’

The Australian government is proposing legislation that could give social media users ‘greater control’ over what appears in their feeds, requiring platforms to give those aged 16 and over a choice about whether they want to receive algorithmically personalised content.

Under this system, users would be able to opt out of personalised recommendations and instead receive a feed based primarily on accounts and pages they have chosen to follow. Those who prefer personalised recommendations could continue using them.

The initiative, described by the government as “My Feed, My Way”, forms part of a broader proposed ‘Digital Duty of Care’ framework.

The government argues that technology companies should ‘bear greater responsibility for foreseeable harms arising from the design and operation of their services’.

They say that algorithms designed to maximise engagement can repeatedly recommend increasingly ‘sensational’ or ‘harmful’ content, including material linked to ‘misogyny’, eating disorders, bullying, the ‘manosphere’, and other forms of ‘online harm’.

Supporters of greater regulation say users should have ‘meaningful control’ over whether platform recommendation systems determine what they see.

But others have raised concerns about the proposal, arguing that recommendation systems can help users discover relevant material and make platforms easier to navigate.

Instagram chief Adam Mosseri, for example, has questioned whether a purely following-based or chronological feed would necessarily provide a better experience for users.

There are also questions about how an algorithm-free option would work in practice.

A platform could technically provide a non-personalised feed while making it less convenient or attractive than its recommended alternative. Critics have warned that such design choices could undermine the purpose of giving users a genuine choice.

A separate parliamentary proposal, the Online Safety Amendment (Fix Our Feeds) Bill 2026, has also sought to give social media users the ability to opt-out of recommended content.

Both proposals have opened a wider debate about the relationship between individual choice, corporate responsibility, and government regulation of online platforms.

Should social media companies be allowed to decide, through algorithms, what users are most likely to see, or should people have a genuine right to switch that system off?

Furthermore, how much government influence is appropriate to achieve either outcome?

While there are certainly benefits to the idea of being able to shut off complex content algorithms, the sceptic in me can’t help but think where this will expand once it is passed.

There are also issues surrounding topical content that may not be able to spread properly.

As always, the government uses these talking points as a way to get their foot in the door, and once they achieve this, they force their way in the room and broaden initial boundaries.

Whenever the government says they ‘care’ about me – like in a ‘digital duty of care’ sense – red flags are immediately identified. I do not trust a single one of these people.

This may just be yet another step in their attempts to censor and suppress information.

ONLINE CRACKDOWNS

What is really going on behind the scenes with this push?

While it is true that recommendation systems can expose users to material they did not actively seek, it also helps people stay up-to-date with the most relevant topics in society.

For instance, a TOTT News post may go semi-viral because it is being interacted with by many people, subsequently popping up in the feeds of their family and friends.

This law would mean only those following our page could see the post – and nobody else.

Starting to make sense?

The government’s draft legislation is expected to be introduced later in 2026, meaning the precise rules and their eventual scope remain subject to the legislative process.

We will have to wait to see what the language of the final bill says when it is rolled out.

However, it is clear from the government’s language that the proposed duty-of-care legislation will extend their focus to the design of digital services.

Australia has already taken a more interventionist approach to social media, including its minimum-age rules – a trojan horse that is slowly creeping with each amendment.

In December 2025, when covering the launch of age verification laws, I stated that I personally believed we have seen a soft launch of the program because the legal dynamics were not yet finalised, including multiple challenges to the laws.

Age verification has had a soft launch – here’s why you should keep an eye on it
RELATED FEATURE

In June, it was announced that the government was looking to expand powers of the eSafety Commissioner as a means to tighten enforcement of controversial social media restrictions.

This includes giving the regulator stronger investigative tools and higher penalties for non-compliant platforms, showing you just how these things tend to expand over time.

Australia moves to strengthen eSafety powers for social media ban
RELATED ARTICLE

Don’t think ‘algorithm control’ policies won’t also do the same.

Besides, social media apps already have ways for you to exercise more control over what you see in your feeds, but these are often buried in the system settings, or have limitations.

Because of this, there are concerns social media companies could offer a substandard product, or engage in “protest design” by making non-algorithmic feeds less functional or more boring, to drive users back into the arms of the algorithm.

The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) already requires large online platforms to give users an ‘easy way to opt out of recommendation systems based on profiling’.

Guess what the result of that push has been? It doesn’t work.

Chanel Contos, founder of Teach Us Consent, told the Press Club last week the European Union’s act pushed for mandatory “opt out” features – but it left room for social media platforms to “comply maliciously” – which they have started doing.

It will only be a matter of time before we see the same thing happen in Australia.

The eSafety office has already been on a mission to censor social media, announcing in 2024 that tech giants will be forced to scan emails, online photo libraries, cloud storage accounts, and dating sites of Aussies for “illegal content” – or face fines of nearly $700,000 per day.

eSafety Commissioner will force big tech to scan photos, emails
RELATED ARTICLE

In true ‘Big Brother’ fashion, this department has become an all-seeing, all-knowing censorship bureau – recently ordering videos be removed from circulation in Australia.

eSafety Commissioner orders ban of videos showing Charlie Kirk, Iryna Zarutska murders
RELATED ARTICLE

Julie Inman Grant is a regular attendee at Davos conferences, working on behalf of the puppet masters behind the scenes to push more suppression of the internet.

Julie Inman Grant at Davos 2024.
Photo: WEF

The World Economic Forum describe her as an “agenda shifter”, after she was planted from the United States from Bill Gates’ Microsoft with the direct intention of thought policing.