Could social media finally let users control their feeds

Social media users may soon have more control over their feeds after the Australian government proposed new laws forcing platforms to offer a choice between algorithm-driven content and a feed showing only posts from accounts they follow.

The rules, part of the government’s Digital Duty of Care plan, would require platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook to let users toggle between the two options. Unlike current systems where algorithms dictate what appears, this would let users opt out of personalized recommendations entirely—or switch back if they change their mind. The proposal ensures that users aren’t locked into a single feed type, addressing a long-standing frustration that social media platforms operate as walled gardens with limited transparency over how content is curated.

Read Also: By The Cap bets on curated wardrobes

Algorithms under fire for youth exposure risks

The proposal follows Australia’s under-16 social media ban, which took effect in December 2025, as part of broader efforts to hold online platforms accountable for the harms their services can cause. Algorithmic feeds, which constantly surface content users didn’t seek, have drawn particular criticism. Activist Chanel Contos, founder of Teach Us Consent and the #FixOurFeeds campaign, has argued that these systems expose young men and boys to increasingly extreme misogynistic content. Her campaign, launched in December 2025, pushed for algorithms to be opt-in by default rather than the automatic setting they are now. Contos has highlighted how algorithmic amplification of harmful content often occurs without user awareness, as platforms prioritize engagement metrics over ethical considerations.

The government’s plan stops short of making algorithms opt-in by default, but it does require platforms to give users a meaningful alternative. Communications Minister Anika Wells acknowledged that many people will still prefer algorithmic feeds, which can introduce them to new music, brands, or ideas. “The reality is that lots of people will want to choose the algorithm,” she said. “That’s their choice. We respect that choice.” The minister’s statement reflects a pragmatic approach, recognizing that while algorithmic feeds can be problematic, they also serve a role in content discovery for users who actively seek diverse recommendations.

Contos, however, has raised concerns that platforms could manipulate the non-algorithmic feed experience to make it less appealing, subtly nudging users back toward personalized recommendations. She has committed to working with the government to refine the proposal before it becomes law. These concerns stem from industry practices where non-algorithmic feeds might be deprioritized in design or functionality, such as limiting navigation features or reducing visibility of followed content.

Read Also: FitFlop teams up with Ester Manas for AW26 collection

Balancing user choice with platform flexibility

Critics of algorithmic feeds argue that they prioritize engagement over user intent, often amplifying divisive or extreme content. Australia’s approach, by offering users a direct toggle rather than mandating a default, may strike a balance between user autonomy and industry pushback. The legislation also avoids prescriptive technical requirements, allowing platforms flexibility in implementation while ensuring basic user control.

If passed, the law would mark a rare instance where governments successfully give users more control over their online experiences. Whether platforms comply fully—or find ways to make the non-algorithmic option feel inferior, will determine how much real change the rules bring. The success of the measure will depend on enforceable standards for ensuring that algorithm-free options remain functional and accessible without artificial barriers.