Governments around the world have spent much of 2026 trying to work out how much control social media companies should have over what people see the moment they open an app. Australia’s latest move goes further than most. The Australian federal government released draft legislation that would require major platforms to let users decide whether an algorithm chooses their content for them, or whether they see only posts from the people they actually follow.
The proposal is called “My Feed, My Way,” and it forms part of a broader package known as the Digital Duty of Care. Under the plan, platforms would have to notify both new and existing users age 16 and older, and offer them a choice between an algorithm curated feed and one limited to followed accounts. Companies that fail to comply could face fines of up to $79 million (AU$109.2 million), based on current exchange rates. Enforcement would fall to eSafety, Australia’s internet safety regulator, which would also gain authority to order the swift removal of harmful or illegal content, including material from so-called nudify apps.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the reform as a matter of choice rather than control. He told reporters the legislation was meant to give people, not government, the final say over what they see online, and to hold platforms accountable when they fail to offer that choice.
It helps to understand what is actually changing. Most major platforms already sort content using algorithms trained to keep people scrolling, often by surfacing posts similar to whatever a user has previously engaged with. Some platforms already offer partial alternatives. TikTok has a Friends tab. Facebook, owned by Meta (NASDAQ: META), offers a friends-only feed. Instagram, also owned by Meta, provides Following and Favorites options. YouTube, owned by Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOGL), has a Subscriptions feed, and Snapchat, owned by Snap Inc. (NYSE: SNAP), separates friends’ Stories from public discovery content. What Australia is proposing would make an equivalent choice mandatory and clearly presented, rather than optional and often buried in settings menus.
This legislation builds on a policy Australia introduced last year, when it became the first country to ban social media use for children under 16. That earlier law drew mixed results. Data from the eSafety Commissioner found that three months after the ban took effect, 81% of Australian children were still using at least one restricted platform, down only slightly from 86% before the ban. Daily social media use among teens fell more modestly, from roughly 60% to 58%. Some public health researchers have welcomed the new feed rules as a logical next step, while free-speech advocates have raised concerns about how the changes might be enforced in practice.
The timing is notable given what has already happened to Meta this year. In August, the company agreed to pay $18 billion to settle a lawsuit brought by a coalition of U.S. states, led by California, over claims it misled users about the harm its platforms caused younger people. As part of that settlement, Meta agreed to let users under 18 choose a non-algorithmic feed, cap daily use at two hours, and remove filters tied to cosmetic surgery trends. Meta and YouTube also lost a separate addiction related trial in Los Angeles earlier this year, and Meta was ordered to pay more than $900 million in a related case brought by New Mexico’s attorney general. California’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, has said TikTok, YouTube, and Snapchat could be next.
None of this guarantees Australia’s bill will pass in its current form. It remains in a targeted consultation phase, and platforms, advocacy groups, and lawmakers will likely push for changes before it reaches Parliament later this year. What seems harder to dispute is the direction of travel. Regulators in multiple countries are converging on the same basic idea, that people should be able to see how their feed is built, and step away from it if they choose to.
