Australia To Let Social Media Users 'Opt Out' of Algorithm-Based Feeds (cnbc.com)
- Reference: 0185536420
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/09/08/1959259/australia-to-let-social-media-users-opt-out-of-algorithm-based-feeds
- Source link: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/08/australia-social-media-algorithm-opt-out.html
> The legislation, which is being drafted and released Tuesday for targeted consultation, would require platforms to send notifications to new and existing users so they can choose their default feed. [...] The measures, set to be introduced to the Parliament of Australia this year, will also require AI chatbots, online games and other digital services to take action to protect under-18s from addictive design features.
"This is not about giving government control. It's about giving people control. It's about putting choice back into the hands of Australians online," said Prime Minister Anthony at a [3]press conference on Tuesday.
"This is sensible, pragmatic, practical reform. It gives users choice, and it will hold the big tech companies responsible for inaction."
[1] https://www.pm.gov.au/media/my-feed-my-way
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/08/australia-social-media-algorithm-opt-out.html
[3] https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-parliament-house-canberra-8-september-2026
It's a for profit business (Score:1)
It's a for profit business, how much control can even the Aussie Nannie state want. Unless they can prove that curating the feed is "harmful" shouldn't the customers decide what they want by voting with their $$$/Presence ? Arguably the entire business hinges on algorithms and whether they can engage the client without adverse effects, or whether they can make more than the fines.
Re: (Score:2)
> shouldn't the customers decide what they want by voting with their $$$/Presence ?
Competition would work so much better if people actually did this. But through some bizarre quirk of human behavior, people are willing to tolerate quite a bit of enshittification before they'll jump ship.
It's like that scene where Data gets an emotion drink and asks for more of a drink, despite finding it to be revolting.
Re: (Score:3)
> how much control can even the Aussie Nannie state want
None. The law literally doesn't give the government any control nor mandate the government control anything.
> shouldn't the customers decide
That's the poin.... did you even read what this story is about?
> by voting with their $$$/Presence
Ahh yes the "if they don't like it they should just leave" approach to problem solving. Don't bother solving any problems, just burn the entire thing to the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
> Ahh yes the "if they don't like it they should just leave" approach to problem solving. Don't bother solving any problems, just burn the entire thing to the ground.
You say that like it's a bad thing. I miss the days when social media companies weren't too big to fail, and someone else came along to build something better.
Re: (Score:2)
If a business you are using DOESN'T provide the service you think you should get, you go elsewhere, seems simple. At what point is social media necessary anyways ? It sad that a superficial useless service is considered so important by the most F'd up generation yet. You are entitled in a manner I can barely comprehend. Solve the problem...You want to tell the company what they can and can't do you control freak. If you don't like it don't use it. It is NOT REQUIRED .
Re: (Score:3)
You have fallen victim to several errors associated with Laissez-faire capitalism. I am a strong proponent of Capitalism but the issues you describe are inherently incorrect.
1) They do not need to prove it is harmful, capitalism routinely engages in preventative regulations. There are legal rules on things like the width of roads, medication use by dates, ingredients in food, etc. It is up to the business to show that their practices do no harm, not the other way around.
2) The client cannot easily vote
Re: (Score:2)
you imply some importance to social media that I just don't understand. It is a service, if you don't like it go else where or do without. I don't see anywhere a right to Facebook and endless selfies. I don't see FB entitled to anything, they are earning their profit hand over foot because morons just seem to want to give them money and tell them everything about themselves. We're at a point where we need to decide some personal responsibility. Sadly most of our race needs a guardian entity looking out for
Re: (Score:1)
The argument is ... a culture does not want "digital heroin" to drive behavior. Self-directed & self-disciplined yeoman is the gold-standard cultural goal ... as self-financed "subsistence" is the economic gold standard. Who/what/how the < rent seekers / drug-pushers > are driven "underground" varies with the culture , environs and leadership. For example -- a well-maintained monarchy has a straight-forward solution for a toxic klad, while a constitutional mercantile
Re: (Score:2)
> It's a for profit business, how much control can even the Aussie Nannie state want. Unless they can prove that curating the feed is "harmful" shouldn't the customers decide what they want by voting with their $$$/Presence?
Here's the flaw in your logic. The vast majority of their customers WANT to turn this s**t off. But they put up with it up to a point or they don't. Either way, it doesn't matter as long as there are enough people who are engagement junkies who eat it up and therefore drive up ad impressions. They could lose 90% of their users, and if the other 10% increase their usage 10x, they're still ahead...
... but while the company may be ahead in that situation, society is still harmed by the other 90% not having
Mixed feelings (Score:3)
On one hand, this feels like government overreach.
On the other hand, don't threaten me with a good time.
Re: (Score:2)
I get to vote every 3 years to see who will govern NZ.
I have zero voting rights in US social media. Even if I do not use them, they still track me.
Personally I am more in favour of the government being in control than Zuckerberg etc.
Could get them users back (Score:2)
If I could use Facebook with only post from friends I might consider using it again. Endless scrolling is the main reason I don't use most social media and the lack of it is one of the main reasons I still use Slashdot.
Isn't that backwards? (Score:4, Insightful)
It says "let users over 16" opt out, but wouldn't it be more to the point if it were "only users over 16 can opt-in?"
What about new creators (Score:1)
Iâ(TM)ve discovered a lot of new channels on YouTube thanks to the dreaded âoealgorithmâ. I wouldnâ(TM)t turn it off just because of that but if many people did then itâ(TM)s just another regulatory lock in for already established channels. As in so many industries. Perhaps that is the intention.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the part where users can chose if to have algorithm feeds. I would argue that Facebook and YouTube are very different types of social media.
In the case of Facebook I would turn off algorithm feeds, but since this is not an options I simply don't use Facebook. I wanted Facebook to see what friends and family where up to, which the introduction algorithm feeds made impossible.
In the case of YouTube I would leave the algorithm feeds on as I do use it to discover new stuff. I do wond
How will this be enforced? (Score:2)
Everything that runs on a computer is an algorithm. This law makes it sound like the Australian goverment doesn't understand what they've proposed, voted on, and signed into law.
Re: (Score:1)
It won't be. Facebook will just cut a check for $79 million and go on with life.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, the first few times. After that the Aussie government may amend the law to try to have sites blocked. That in my mind is a step too far, but it has not stop governments before.
Re: (Score:2)
Your being obtuse, but it is a fair point if the way the law is written is not careful in its wording.
The common argument that a linear feed from people you explicitly chose to follow is not algorithm based. This was how Facebook worked in the early days. This is the intent of the law.
If you think of "algorithm-based feeds" as common description of a way to chose content for social media users, vs a linear subscription feed, then the intent of the law is clear. If you work with software then you ar
So (Score:1)
They still get to track my behavior but I stop getting the benefits of said tracking?
clueless (Score:4, Insightful)
When will politicians realize that fines like $79 million are rounding errors to these companies? It's not a fine, it's a cost of doing business to them. Because of that, even if this passes it will be useless.
Re: (Score:1)
> When will politicians realize that fines like $79 million are rounding errors to these companies? It's not a fine, it's a cost of doing business to them. Because of that, even if this passes it will be useless.
Yeah I got caught speeding and paid a fine in Australia back in the 90s. That's why now I can speed as much as I like, because I've already paid the fine, and we all know a fine can only ever be applied once.
Re: (Score:2)
The 79 million isn't the sting in the tail. Its the heavily armed men turning up to arrest the CEO when the company keeps ignoring the court order.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the CEO won't be in Australia, so they're going to have to operate through extradition proceedings. Good Luck.