Australia defies Trump criticism with social-media algorithm opt-out law

Australia is pressing ahead with one of the world’s most ambitious attempts to regulate social-media recommendation systems, proposing legislation that would require platforms to give users an explicit choice over whether algorithmically personalised content appears in their default feed. The draft Digital Duty of Care legislation would also impose broader safety obligations on digital-service providers and expose companies to penalties reaching A$109.2 million for non-compliance.

The policy has already created tension with Washington. Reuters reported that the White House criticised regulatory measures and fines directed at American technology companies, while Prime Minister Anthony Albanese responded that Australia is a sovereign country and will make policy according to its national interest. He nevertheless insisted his relationship with Donald Trump remains strong and said the two leaders are expected to meet around the United Nations General Assembly later this month.

Australia’s proposal follows its world-first restrictions on social-media access for children under 16 and reflects a broader shift from regulating who can use platforms to regulating how platforms design engagement. The government calls the new algorithm measure “My Feed, My Way” and argues that users should be able to choose between recommendation-driven feeds and content from friends or creators they deliberately follow.

How would Australia’s ‘My Feed, My Way’ algorithm rule work in practice?

Platforms would need to notify both new and existing users that they have a choice over the type of default feed they receive. Users could continue selecting algorithmically recommended content if they prefer it, but they must also be offered a persistent option to use a feed based on accounts and creators they explicitly follow.

Communications Minister Anika Wells stressed that the model is intended to provide continuing choice rather than forcing Australians to abandon recommendation systems. The government is also examining how to prevent platforms from making non-algorithmic options deliberately inconvenient or degraded, a concern that has emerged from implementation experiences in other jurisdictions.

The policy therefore targets interface design as much as content. A platform technically offering an opt-out while repeatedly steering users back toward personalised recommendations could face scrutiny if regulators conclude that the choice is not genuine.

Why does Washington regard Australian digital regulation as a problem?

Most major social-media and technology platforms operating in Australia are headquartered in the United States, meaning Australian regulations can impose substantial compliance costs on American companies. The Trump administration has repeatedly criticised foreign digital-services taxes, fines and platform regulations it believes disproportionately burden U.S. technology firms.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai was reported as warning trading partners against what the administration calls digital-services taxes and other forms of pressure on the American technology sector. Australian officials rejected the suggestion that their proposed safety rules amount to economic extortion and said the legislation applies because platforms have significant effects on Australians, not because the companies are American.

The dispute reflects a wider policy collision between national digital sovereignty and international trade. Governments increasingly want to regulate online harms domestically, while Washington worries that dozens of different national regimes could function collectively as discriminatory barriers against American companies.

What additional responsibilities would the Digital Duty of Care create for platforms?

The draft law goes beyond algorithm choice by requiring providers to document how they identify and mitigate harmful online activity. For children, the government specifically highlights content promoting eating disorders, misogyny, pornography and criminal behaviour, while adults would also receive stronger protections against illegal material including child exploitation, threats, sexual violence and terrorism promotion.

Australia says the objective is to move responsibility upstream. Instead of relying mainly on users to report individual harmful posts after exposure occurs, digital companies would have a continuing duty to demonstrate that their systems are designed to reduce foreseeable harm.

The legislation would strengthen the role of the eSafety regulator and create additional enforcement tools. Its effectiveness will depend heavily on the final drafting because broad safety obligations can become difficult to enforce consistently when platforms host billions of pieces of content.

Why is Australia moving beyond its under-16 social-media ban so quickly?

The government argues that age restrictions address only part of the problem because recommendation algorithms shape behaviour across the entire population. Albanese has linked algorithmic engagement with concerns over mental health, eating disorders and compulsive scrolling, while stressing that adults should retain the right to choose personalised feeds if they want them.

Australia also says more than 20 countries are now examining or adopting measures inspired by its earlier youth-safety reforms. That international attention encourages Canberra to continue positioning itself as a global policy laboratory for online regulation rather than waiting for larger jurisdictions to establish standards first.

Critics will argue that governments risk interfering excessively with platform design and speech. The Albanese government’s political response is that algorithm choice increases rather than reduces user freedom because consumers can decide whether recommendation systems control their primary feed.

Could Australia’s technology dispute spill into its wider relationship with the United States?

Both governments are trying to prevent that outcome. Albanese says U.S.–Australian relations remain strong and points to continued defence cooperation, while Communications Minister Wells said American officials had not directly contacted her office about the draft legislation when she spoke on September 9.

The risk comes from cumulative disputes rather than this law alone. Australia already has rules that can impose a 2.25% tax on local revenue when major technology platforms fail to reach agreements compensating news organisations, and a U.S. congressional committee has separately criticised Australia’s internet regulator over alleged censorship involving Elon Musk’s X.

If Washington treats those measures collectively as discrimination against American companies, technology regulation could become linked with trade negotiations or tariff threats. Australia’s position is that national-interest regulation should remain separate from the strategic alliance.

What are the key takeaways from Australia’s proposed social-media algorithm reforms?

• Australia’s draft Digital Duty of Care legislation would require social-media platforms to offer users an explicit choice over whether their default feed is algorithmically personalised.
• Users could continue choosing recommendation algorithms, but platforms would also need to provide a feed based on accounts and creators users deliberately follow.
• Companies could face fines of up to A$109.2 million for non-compliance.
• The legislation also expands platform responsibilities for harmful content and strengthens user-control tools.
• The Trump administration has criticised foreign digital regulation that it says unfairly targets American technology companies.
• Anthony Albanese says Australia will make policy according to its own national interest while maintaining a strong U.S. relationship.
• The dispute follows Australia’s earlier social-media restrictions for children under 16 and separate rules affecting how technology companies compensate news publishers.

Could Australia’s algorithm law influence social-media regulation far beyond its own market?

Australia is large enough to impose meaningful compliance costs but small enough that technology companies may find it easier to modify global product design than create completely separate systems for one country. That dynamic has previously allowed European privacy and competition rules to influence platform behaviour well outside Europe.

The central question is whether users actually choose non-algorithmic feeds when they are offered fairly. If large numbers do, Australia could provide real-world evidence that personalised recommendation is partly a product of design defaults rather than an unavoidable feature of social media.

That would make the policy important beyond content moderation. Governments have spent years arguing over which posts should remain online, while Australia is increasingly regulating the architecture determining which posts people see in the first place.