Australian lawmakers have tabled a bill that would compel platforms such as Meta, TikTok and X to give users the ability to turn off recommendation algorithms, showing only posts from accounts they actively follow. The measure sits inside the broader Digital Duty of Care legislation, which imposes a legal responsibility on online services to provide a reasonably safe environment and threatens fines of up to A$100 million for non‑compliance. Proponents argue the shift will curb harmful content linked to eating disorders, extremist rhetoric and misinformation, while critics warn it risks over‑reach and could clash with free‑speech protections. The proposal follows years of advocacy from survivors, campaigners and mental‑health experts who say the current algorithmic feed often funnels vulnerable users into damaging rabbit holes.
A Personal Toll: Varsha and Flynn’s Experiences
Varsha Yajman first joined social media at 13, already self‑conscious about her appearance. Endless workout videos promising rapid transformation filled her feed, and strangers online boasted about extreme calorie counts and hospital visits. “I was like, ‘I don’t need to eat. I can just watch other people eat,’” Varsha told the BBC. She described falling into deep rabbit holes that felt impossible to escape, a pattern that contributed to her later diagnosis of anorexia. Now 24 and in recovery, she says she continues to be served weight‑loss material even with every safety setting enabled and an extensive list of banned words.
Flynn Martin’s story took a different turn. At 20, he found his feeds dominated by Andrew Tate and other manosphere figures while grappling with bipolar disorder and low self‑esteem. He recalled, “You find yourself in like a bit of an echo chamber… It’s easy to get swept up in that.” The rhetoric led him to produce two viral videos in Australia, one questioning whether it was acceptable to be a straight white male and another mocking a date’s frozen yoghurt order. After a period of psychosis and hospitalisation, Flynn stepped back from the manosphere, reflecting, “While there’s a bit of shame and embarrassment… I think there is a bit of empathy for that younger man.” Both individuals stress that while social media alone did not cause their crises, it acted as a powerful aggravating factor.
The Legislative Push: Algorithm Switch and Duty of Care
The centrepiece of the new legislation is an “algorithm switch” that would force platforms to offer a setting where users see only content from accounts they follow, effectively turning off the recommendation engine. The government stresses that the switch must be obvious, must not degrade functionality, and must remain unchanged unless the user makes an explicit choice—even after leaving the app. Communications Minister Anika Wells framed the move as part of a Digital Duty of Care bill that obliges online services to “ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, a safe online environment.” She added, “The digital duty of care answers a lot of the ‘what abouts’ of the social media minimum age law because it’s much broader; it captures all online services and it shifts the onus of responsibility from the shoulders of victims onto the shoulders of the big tech operators who seek to make money off Australian users.” Breaches could attract fines of up to A$100 million (approximately £52 million or $70 million).
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese defended the approach, saying, “This is not about giving government control, it is about giving people control. If people want to doom scroll… that’s fine, that’s up to him.” The bill also extends to gaming sites, chatbots and other digital services, requiring them to protect children from harmful material such as pornography or content that encourages eating disorders, and adults from seriously harmful illegal content.
Industry Resistance and Global Precedents
Major platforms have remained largely silent on the proposal. Meta, Snap, TikTok, X and Google (which owns YouTube) declined BBC requests for comment and have not issued public statements. Instagram chief Adam Mosseri argued that removing algorithmic curation would reduce the visibility of friends’ posts and insisted his app is not addictive, although a US jury recently ruled otherwise. He cautioned, “I think we conflate the way we colloquially use the word ‘addicted’ – like, ‘I’m addicted to this show, and I’m binge‑watching it’ – and clinical addiction.”
Critics from the right wing of Australian politics and the Trump administration warn the legislation risks over‑moderation and censorship. Wells countered that users would still be free to follow whom they wish and share what they like, noting, “If adults listen to manosphere podcasts, or people post their views about the government, or make memes, or want to say the moon landing was fake – they can continue to do so without restriction.”
The EU’s 2023 experiment with algorithm controls offers a cautionary tale. After being compelled to introduce following‑only feeds, platforms implemented the option in a clunky manner that discouraged use; most users stuck with the default algorithmic experience. Researcher Chris Zomer from the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child observed, “Platforms do what the law orders, but in such a clunky way that users don’t actually enjoy the option and stick with the default, algorithmic experience.” The Netherlands stands out as an exception: a Dutch court found Meta in breach of the EU’s Digital Services Act, compelling the company to retain genuine user choice over home feeds.
Public Opinion and the Road Ahead
Polling conducted earlier this month revealed a split: roughly two‑thirds of Generation Z respondents said they would keep their recommendation algorithms active, while nearly half of the broader Australian population indicated they would turn theirs off. Chanel Contos, whose “Fix Our Feeds” campaign gathered more than 15,000 signatures and secured backing from two former prime ministers, said she now aims to take the initiative global, pointing to alignment between Canada, the UK and Australia on online safety.
Both Varsha and Flynn remain cautiously sceptical. Varsha admitted she doubts Australia can “outmuscle” big tech, questioning whether the Digital Duty of Care bill will deliver meaningful change. Flynn urged lawmakers to be realistic, noting, “At the end of the day we use social media as a form of entertainment.” Yet Varsha acknowledged the value of having an option: “On a bad day I’m still susceptible to all of the things that I was at 17. To know that, if I’m having a bad day, I can opt out makes me feel really good.”
Why it Matters
Australia’s move to legislate an algorithm off‑switch marks a significant attempt to rebalance power between platforms and their users, directly addressing growing evidence that recommendation engines can amplify harmful content and exacerbate mental‑health struggles. If successful, the model could inspire similar reforms across the Asia‑Pacific region and beyond, offering a tangible tool for individuals seeking to curate healthier online experiences. Conversely, failure to implement the switch effectively—or to withstand legal and industry pushback—could reinforce the status quo, leaving vulnerable users exposed to the very harms the legislation aims to prevent. The outcome will therefore shape not only the future of social media governance in Australia but also the broader debate over how societies can safeguard well‑being in an increasingly algorithm‑driven world.