The Australian government will target addictive social media algorithms in new legislation that will give Australians a choice over the content they see on their feed.
Under draft legislation, users can choose to opt in to having their default feed include personalised content recommended by the algorithm, or alternatively, they can opt out of this content to instead only see their friends and the creators they choose to follow.
Social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram and TikTok will be required to send a notification to new and existing users offering them a choice over their default feed.
The new laws will also require online games, apps and AI chatbots to protect children under 18 from design features that cause harm, including content that promotes eating disorders and hostile ideas about women, pornography, content that glorifies crime or dangerous stunts, and content that causes serious mental health distress, including abuse and bullying.
Communications Minister Anika Wells positioned the reform as a “global reckoning” coming for big tech. Under the draft laws, big tech companies could face fines of more than $100 million.
The push for changes to social media algorithms came first from Teach Us Consent, the organisation founded and headed up by consent campaigner Chanel Contos. Its campaign “Fix Our Feeds” pushed for an algorithm opt-in system.
The organisation celebrated the policy move, writing: “This commitment sends a clear message to Big Tech: you cannot introduce harmful features into our lives without asking for our consent first.”
“It’s a major step towards addressing the growing power imbalance between tech companies and everyday Australians.”
Monash University’s Professor Rashina Hoda said bringing intentionality back into how we engage with social media will help Australians to regain some control over how they consume content.
Earlier this year, a landmark court case in the US ruled Instagram and YouTube were designed to be addictive to young users without concern for their wellbeing.
“Different platforms have different recommender systems and they can cause harm, especially for vulnerable populations, by reinforcing negative beliefs, ‘hooking’ people into doom scrolling and creating echo chambers,” Professor Hoda said.
Professor Hoda noted that some education will be needed, especially when it comes to the opt-in and opt-out options.
“Inertia means people tend to continue with default settings, so some education will be in order.”
“More control on how and what we view is particularly important in the age of AI where artificially generated content and hyper personalised and often manipulative advertisements are starting to flood users’ feeds.”
While many are celebrating the draft reform, Opposition Leader Angus Taylor, who said he has not yet seen the bill, feared it would be an attempt by Labor to “censor the internet”.
Nationals leader Matt Canavan also expressed reservations, saying the government shouldn’t be trusted with “censorship powers”.
One Nation Leader Pauline Hanson is also driving opposition to the reform.
“Australia should be moving away from government censorship, not building the Orwellian machinery for it,” she said.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese responded to the accusations by saying: “This is not about censorship; it’s about giving people control.”
The impact on women and girls
In theory, the Digital Duty of Care plan would help protect girls and women from the harmful and addictive content that they are exposed to everyday on social media. Whether it’s abuse or bullying, harmful weight-related or disordered eating content, or even child sexual exploitation material.
It may also prevent some boys and young men from being automatically fed manosphere content, if they choose to opt-out of the algorithm. Currenty, it takes just 23 minutes for a social media account mimicking a 16-18 year old boy to be fed misogynistic content.
Meanwhile, 73 per cent of Gen Z social-media users have seen misogynistic content online. This is thanks to algorithms that promote this material.
“Giving Australians a genuine opt-out matters because recommendation algorithms are not neutral. They are designed to hold our attention, and too often that means privileging provocative and extreme content because outrage drives engagement and engagement drives profit,” Masculinity researcher Professor Steven Roberts said.
“When these systems lead young people from seemingly harmless material towards misogynistic content, their choices are being shaped by a commercial business model. An opt-out would return some control to users and disrupt that pathway without censoring content.”
Professor Roberts agreed that placing responsibility on the tech companies was a good move, but noted regulation was only one part of the answer.
“The manosphere takes misogyny already baked into our culture and amplifies it at extraordinary speed and scale, so broader education, prevention and cultural change remain essential,” he said.
The Butterfly Foundation also welcomed the draft changes to algorithms and harmful content but said the government should expand protections against eating disorder content for people of all ages.
The number of people impacted by eating disorders has risen by 21 per cent since 2012, with girls and women among those most affected.
“Every day our Helpline hears from people whose feeds are filled with idealised and weight-focused content,” said Butterfly CEO, Jim Hungerford.
“The evidence is clear that this increases body dissatisfaction, one of the strongest known predictors of eating disorder onset. With eating disorders estimated to result in more than 100 deaths every month, it is critical that we address this key area of harm.”
Anyone needing support with eating disorders or body image issues is encouraged to contact the Butterfly National Helpline on 1800 33 4673 (1800 ED HOPE) or visit www.butterfly.org.au to chat online.