Australia has proposed requiring social-media platforms to give users a clear choice between an algorithmically personalised default feed and a feed built from accounts they deliberately follow.
The initiative, called “My Feed, My Way,” forms part of draft Digital Duty of Care legislation released for targeted consultation on September 8, 2026. It is a proposal rather than a rule already operating inside every app.
What would platforms have to offer?
Under the government's outline, platforms would need to notify new and existing users and ask which type of default feed they want.
Users could:
- opt in to a feed containing content personally recommended by an algorithm; or
- opt out of personalised recommendations and make posts from followed friends and creators their default feed.
Australians over 16 would be able to change that preference again later. The proposal is about the primary feed shown when an app opens, not a ban on recommendation systems or a requirement that every part of a service become chronological.
The final interface and implementation details would depend on the legislation, subsequent standards and how regulators apply them.
Why Australia is targeting default feeds
Recommendation algorithms decide which posts receive attention by predicting what may keep a person watching, reading or interacting. That can make a service more useful, but it also means the platform—not just the user—selects much of what appears.
Defaults are important because many people never change settings hidden inside menus. Requiring a visible choice changes the starting point: personalisation would become an option a user actively accepts rather than an experience silently selected for them.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the plan as giving people control rather than giving government control over what adults see.
What else is in the Digital Duty of Care proposal?
“My Feed, My Way” is one element of a broader online-safety framework. The draft would place responsibility on digital services to identify and reduce foreseeable harms created by their products, features and systems.
The government's announcement says services including social media, online games, apps and AI chatbots would have additional responsibilities toward users under 18. Areas identified for protection include addictive design features and content connected with eating disorders, pornography, abuse, bullying, misogyny, dangerous stunts and serious mental-health distress.
The proposal would also give Australia's eSafety Commissioner power to issue removal notices involving so-called nudify services and streamline existing responses to child cyberbullying and adult cyber abuse.
Digital companies would have to document how they identify risks and whether their safeguards remain effective. Failure to meet the duty could attract penalties of up to A$109.2 million, according to the government release.
Does this mean an entirely chronological feed?
Not necessarily.
A following-only feed limits the source of posts to accounts selected by the user, but the order of those posts could still depend on product design unless the final rules require strict chronology. The government's announcement focuses on opting out of personally recommended content in the default feed.
That difference will matter during consultation. A feed can exclude unknown recommended accounts while still ranking followed accounts by predicted relevance. Regulators and platforms will need to make the available choices understandable rather than presenting users with vague labels.
Which services could be covered?
The draft duty of care extends beyond traditional social networks. The government specifically refers to online games, apps, messaging platforms and AI chatbots when discussing protections for children.
Coverage, exemptions and technical obligations will depend on the final legislative text. It would therefore be premature to say that a named global platform has already been ordered to deploy a particular button or feed design.
What happens next?
The exposure draft is open for targeted consultation with digital platforms, industry groups, civil-society organisations and advocates. The government says it intends to introduce legislation to Parliament in 2026.
Consultation can produce amendments. Parliament can also change, delay or reject provisions. Until legislation passes and commencement arrangements are confirmed, “My Feed, My Way” should be described as a government proposal.
If enacted, the major practical questions will include:
- how prominently platforms must display the choice;
- whether the non-personalised option must be chronological;
- how often services can ask users to reconsider;
- how compliance will be tested;
- how the rule applies across global products with shared software.
Why the proposal has international significance
Australia has already taken an assertive approach to online-safety regulation. A mandatory feed-choice mechanism could be watched by governments considering how to regulate recommender systems without directly selecting lawful content for adults.
Global platforms may prefer to develop one reusable control rather than maintain a completely different interface for every market. However, an Australian rule would not automatically grant the same legal right to users elsewhere.
The policy also creates a measurable test: whether people choose personalisation when it is presented clearly, and whether a following-only default changes time spent, content diversity or exposure to harmful recommendations.
Follow similar policy developments in Politics and their product implications in Technology.
