We did it.

The Federal Government has committed to introducing opt-in algorithms for social media platforms as part of its Digital Duty of Care legislation. Under the proposed "My Feed, My Way" model, users will be prompted to actively choose the type of feed they want - either a following-only feed or an recommendation algorithm-driven feed - when they sign up, with existing users given the same opportunity. We consider this consistent with an opt-in approach, because it requires platforms to ask rather than assume. We are working closely to ensure the details of the legislation are air-tight and don't leave room for malicious compliance by tech companies.

The draft legislation is currently open for consultation with digital platforms, industry bodies and advocacy groups - including us at Teach Us Consent. Once that stakeholder consultation period concludes, the legislation is expected to be introduced to Parliament, where it will likely face further public inquiry and negotiation before it passes. We're using this consultation period to push for the detail to match the ambition - a genuine, enforceable choice that's tight enough that platforms can't find ways around it.

No. Definitionally, censorship is an authority body deciding what may be said or not said. What the proposed reforms will do is the opposite, allowing an individual to decide what they want to see. Our feeds are currently shaped by opaque algorithmically driven ranking systems that we didn’t design, can’t inspect and have almost no control over. Social media recommendation algorithms already promote and bury content with no transparency. Handing that choice to the person using the platform is giving people agency over their own feed, not censorship.

If passes as intended, social media platforms will be required to send users a clear prompt asking them to choose their feed type. Choosing a following-only feed means seeing only content from people and topics you've intentionally chosen to follow - not one an algorithm has built for you. It does not mean that your feed will be chronological, as this may result in the majority of what you see being posts from brands and accounts that post more frequently than your family and friends. Choosing an algorithm-driven feed keeps things as they currently are. You'll be able to change your choice at any time.

Currently, some apps allow you to customise your feeds in different ways. Some give you the option to turn off personalised feeds. However, they don’t go all the way: personalised feeds still remain the default on social media, feeds often easily revert back to personalisation if you leave the app, and ultimately, there’s no legislation that requires platforms to have an opt-in option, so most don’t offer this option as the default.

Yes. This policy is about choice, informed and ongoing consent and ultimately, making social media safer by design.

This policy will stop the “accidental” radicalisation of young men and boys. It acknowledges that often, young men and boys aren’t seeking out misogynistic content - they’re being targeted by the platforms with this radical content. If more people are given the option to use social media without recommender algorithms, we expect less people will be exposed to harmful, misogynistic content. It’s not a silver bullet but it should make online platforms safer by design to reduce rates of misogyny.

‍

In the European Union, where similar policies are in place, the Explore pages show content as usual. But instead of the content being personalised to you, it would show generally popular videos at the time.

You can still support this policy but opt-in for an algorithmically-driven social media feed. Our intent is to give Australians options.

No. This policy is all about choice, informed consent and safety. Some of us may experience more harm on some platforms than others. So, if you find one of your feeds to be less harmful, you can scroll on and opt-in. But if you're seeing content that you think is harmful, you can choose to turn it off.

This is optional, not a ban. It doesn't stop platforms offering recommendation algorithms, it just means people get to choose. Ads can still reach people either way; under opt-in they'd look more like generalist ads linked to broad demographics, rather than hyper-targeted at someone's specific insecurities or desires. And for small businesses already followed by people who've intentionally chosen to follow them, a following-only feed can actually help those posts show up reliably, rather than getting buried by an algorithm.

Not quite. The EU intruduced a mandatory opt-out for social media algorithms, but the wording of the legislation wasn't air-tight, leaving room for platforms to comply on paper while defeating it in practice. For example - resetting the feed back to recommendation-based every time someone closed and reopened the app, and disallowing features like direct messages when viewing a following-only feed. This disincentivised usage of the following-only feed, leaving users without a true choice. We're pushing for Australia's approach to be genuinely opt-in, and for the legislation to be tight enough that platforms can't repeat that same workaround.

Like many charities working in prevention and education, our funding comes from a mix of sources - including government grants, philanthropic support, and partnerships - all publicly disclosed as required through our charity filings. Fix Our Feeds itself is a grassroots campaign: over 15,000 Australians signed our open letter of their own accord, and that public support exists independently of how our organisation is funded more broadly.

Social media platforms are designed to keep us online for as long as possible. The longer we scroll, the more advertisements we see and the more money the platforms make. To achieve this, platforms use algorithms that prioritise content most likely to capture and hold our attention. The result? Content that sparks strong emotions, like outrage, fear, excitement, anger, spreads the fastest. The more extreme the reaction, the more “successful” the post becomes. Extreme misogynistic content often provokes exactly those reactions. That’s why it’s amplified.

Many of us enjoy our feeds. They can take us to niche communities with people who like the same music, TV shows, sport, art and more. But alongside those positive connections, something far more dangerous is happening. Today, the same algorithms that curate our favourite content are also being weaponised. Research is showing that boys and men are exposed to extreme misogynistic material within minutes of signing up to social media platforms. These algorithms are engineered to exploit their fears and insecurities. This isn’t a small problem - misogynistic attitudes are linked to support for violence against women.

Unfortunately, there are many forms of harmful content circulated by social media algorithms. For instance, your feed may not be misogynistic, but you still may want to turn off your algorithm on socials to prevent exposure to eating disorder or self harm content, mis/disinformation, other forms of hateful content, or just to give yourself a break from the doom-scroll. If you're someone who loves your feed, then it can simply be a helpful option to spend less time on your phone, if you want to use it.

Recommender systems prioritise content or make personalised content suggestions to users. They’re driven by underlying algorithms.
Social media algorithms are collections of rules, signals, and data that govern how content is filtered, ranked, selected, and recommended to users on social media platforms. They determine the priority and display order of content for each user based on various factors, including user behaviour and engagement. The issue with algorithms comes about when they create concentrated neighbourhoods of harmful content.