Australia Algorithm Choice: Feed Design Duty Analysis

The quiet part of social media regulation is no longer quiet. Australia is not only asking platforms to remove bad content faster. It is asking them to give users a real switch for how the feed is assembled, which means the compliance problem moves from the policy binder into the product backlog. That is a more awkward obligation than it sounds. A delete button has one main job. A feed choice has defaults, notices, explanations, ranking logic, logs, and angry meetings about engagement metrics.

What Australia is proposing,

according to Reuters via AOL Reuters, in a report republished by AOL, says Australia's centre-left Labor government proposed draft laws that would require social media platforms to notify users and offer them a choice over their default feed. Users could opt in to a default feed that includes personalised content recommended by an algorithm. Or they could opt out and see posts only from friends and creators they choose to follow. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the proposal as practical rather than theatrical. Reuters quoted him saying, "This is sensible, pragmatic, practical reform," and adding that it would hold big tech companies responsible if they did not follow Australia's laws. Strip out the podium language and the obligation is simple: if your platform ranks content beyond followed accounts, users must be offered a meaningful alternative. This is not an algorithm ban. It is a choice rule, and that distinction matters for builders. The prohibited failure is not having a recommender system. The compliance risk is making the recommender the only practical path through the product.

The product duty is the point, TechRepublic and NPR report

TechRepublic describes the plan as digital safety rules targeting platform design and control, not merely takedown policy. NPR, citing a government statement, reports that platforms would have to send notifications to new and existing users offering a choice over the default feed. That is not a footer link. That is an interface event that has to be designed, tested, localized, recorded, and respected across devices. In practice, Article 52 style theatre will not save anyone here, because there is no magic disclosure incantation in the reporting. Product teams would need to answer plain questions: where does the notice appear, what words explain personalised recommendations, how does a user switch later, and what feed appears after the user opts out. If the system quietly nudges people back to algorithmic ranking, expect the regulator to notice. Enforcement staff also own phones. For recommendation engineers, the follow-only feed is not a cosmetic mode. It requires a separate ranking path, or at least a constrained one, that excludes algorithmically recommended content from accounts the user did not choose. That means measurement cannot stop at engagement lift. It has to include whether the choice was offered, whether it persisted, and whether the resulting feed matched what the user selected.

Scope and timing, as described by Emirates 24|7 and Reuters via

AOL Emirates 24|7, carrying Reuters reporting, says the proposal is branded "My Feed, My Way" and follows Australia's earlier world-first social media ban for children. NPR reports that the user empowerment tools would apply to people over the age of 16. The immediate audience is therefore social media platforms serving Australian users, but the operational audience is broader: trust and safety, recommender systems, legal, UX, analytics, and vendor teams that touch feed delivery. The compliance clock is still in proposal mode. Emirates 24|7 published the Reuters report on 2026-09-08, and the available reporting describes draft laws, not enacted obligations with an enforceable start date. So the correct timeline entry is proposed, with enacted and enforceable dates not yet disclosed in the cited reporting. If your dashboard already says "Australia algorithm compliance complete," your dashboard is doing public relations. There is also a penalties point, though the available Reuters excerpt in Emirates 24|7 states it only at a high level. The report says the proposal would hold big tech accountable with major penalties for non-compliance. Until the final text is available, the safer reading is not to model the fine. Model the controls.

What builders should do before

the bill hardens The useful preparation is not a press release about user control. It is a feed governance map. Platforms should identify each feed surface, each source of personalised recommendation, each default setting, and each place where followed accounts are mixed with suggested content. If those boundaries are not documented, the legal team will eventually discover them in a screenshot from a regulator, which is an inefficient form of product discovery. Meta Platforms, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, and Alphabet's Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment, according to Reuters via AOL. That is normal at this stage. It is also not a compliance strategy. The hard work is deciding whether Australia gets a separate feed architecture, or whether global products absorb algorithm choice as a general control. The next things to watch are the final bill text, definitions of social media platform and algorithmically recommended content, the required form of notice, and any measurement or audit language. For learners and builders, the lesson is broader than Australia. Recommender governance is becoming a product design obligation, and the settings screen is now evidence.