Australia's Social Media Algorithm Opt-Out Plan: What Parents Should Know
Australia plans to make social platforms offer an algorithm opt-out. What it could mean for feeds, YouTube, children, and parents.
The Australian government plans to make social media platforms ask users whether they want to turn off algorithmic recommendations. Choose yes, and the feed would show posts from accounts you follow instead of content selected to keep you scrolling.
Important: this is a proposal, not a law in force. ABC News reported on 6 September 2026 that an exposure draft would be released later in the week. Until that draft appears, details such as which services are covered and exactly what an algorithm-free feed must remove remain unsettled.
What we know so far
A real choice
Platforms would regularly ask whether you want recommendations or posts only from accounts you follow.
Extra duties
The draft is also expected to make services identify, reduce, and prevent risks on their platforms.
Still only a draft
Parliament has not passed these measures, and the final wording may change.
In this guide
What the government is proposing
ABC News says the federal government's long-awaited Digital Duty of Care exposure draft would require regular pop-up messages on social media services. Users would choose between the platform's recommended feed and posts from people they follow. The proposal would also put responsibility on companies to identify and mitigate risks, rather than waiting for users to report each harmful post.
For users under 18, ABC reports that the draft would name about half a dozen additional areas of psychosocial harm, including body-image content and bullying. It would also allow the eSafety Commissioner and registered independent researchers to use test accounts posing as children to inspect what platforms recommend to young people.
Those are the reported features of an exposure draft. They may not all survive consultation and parliamentary debate. The actual bill, definitions, commencement date, penalties, and enforcement process should be checked once the government publishes the text.
Opt-out versus opt-in: one word makes a big difference
An opt-out starts with recommendations switched on. You have to notice the prompt and choose a following-only feed. An opt-in starts without personalised recommendations and asks you to turn them on deliberately.
The difference matters because defaults are powerful. A teenager can tap past a pop-up without reading it. A younger child may not understand what the choice changes. The government proposal described by ABC uses opt-out. The Greens and consent educator Chanel Contos have argued for the stronger opt-in model, where an algorithmic feed is off unless a user asks for it.
In a separate ABC interview on 2 September, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese supported giving users more control but did not commit to opt-in by default. That policy argument is not settled.
Why there are two algorithm proposals in the news
The government's Digital Duty of Care draft is not the same document as the Greens' Online Safety Amendment (Fix Our Feeds) Bill 2026.
| Proposal | Where it stands | What is public |
|---|---|---|
| Government Digital Duty of Care | ABC reports an exposure draft is due in the week beginning 7 September 2026. | Reported opt-out prompts, platform risk duties, and added under-18 harm categories. |
| Greens Fix Our Feeds bill | A private senator's bill introduced on 1 April 2026. It remains before the Senate. | Its published summary requires an option to opt out of recommended content at any time, plus reporting and risk duties. |
The status and summary of the private bill come from the Parliament of Australia bill page. Similar language does not make the proposals interchangeable. The government may introduce its own bill, amend another bill, or change its draft after consultation.
Does Australia's algorithm opt-out proposal include YouTube?
Not from the information published so far. ABC's report refers to social media companies but does not publish the proposed legal definition or a list of covered services. YouTube is covered by Australia's separate social media minimum-age rules, but one law's service list does not automatically carry into another.
If YouTube is included, the practical questions will be just as important as the headline. Would the switch affect the Home feed, Shorts, suggested videos, autoplay, search ranking, or all of them? Would it apply when signed out? Could a parent set the choice for a child? The exposure draft needs to answer those questions.
For the rules that already apply, see our guide to Australia's under-16 YouTube and social media restrictions. That law has been in effect since 10 December 2025 and concerns under-16 accounts. The new proposal concerns how feeds work for users more broadly.
What Australian parents can do now
You do not need to wait for Parliament to reduce the pull of recommendation feeds. Start with the account and device your child actually uses.
1. Check whether an account is allowed
According to the eSafety Commissioner, Australia's minimum-age rules cover accounts on age-restricted social platforms. Public content that does not require an account is a separate issue, so blocking an account does not necessarily block viewing.
2. Use the least personalised feed available
Look for Following, Subscriptions, chronological feeds, recommendation resets, and "not interested" controls. eSafety's feed-control guidance recommends actively curating suggestions and seeking a wider mix of sources.
3. Do not mistake a cleaner feed for a safe feed
A following-only feed can still contain unsuitable posts. Privacy settings, time limits, account checks, and regular conversations still matter.
4. Separate chosen videos from open-ended discovery
If a child wants a drawing lesson, science explainer, or music video, open that specific material instead of starting on a personalised Home or Shorts feed.
eSafety's May 2026 position statement says recommender systems can be useful, but engagement-focused systems often fail to distinguish positive from negative attention. It calls for safer design, more transparency, and more user control. An opt-out can be one layer of that work, not the whole solution.
Where Kivvie fits
Kivvie does not depend on a child finding and accepting an opt-out prompt. It takes a different approach to YouTube: the child's library starts empty, and only channels approved by a parent appear. The child app has no Shorts, comments, standard YouTube Home feed, or algorithmic recommendations.
That makes Kivvie narrower than the proposed law. It does not control Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, or the rest of a device. For families with younger children who mainly want YouTube videos, it replaces open-ended discovery with a parent-chosen list.
You can see how a YouTube channel whitelist works or compare the main alternatives to YouTube Kids.
Frequently asked questions
Has Australia passed a law to turn off social media algorithms?
No. On 6 September 2026, ABC News reported that the federal government planned to release draft Digital Duty of Care laws later that week. A separate Greens private senator's bill is already before the Senate, but it has not passed Parliament.
What would the proposed algorithm opt-out do?
According to ABC News, social media services would have to show regular prompts asking whether a user wants a recommended feed or a feed containing only posts from accounts they follow. The exact technical rules will not be clear until the exposure draft is published.
Would the Australian proposal apply to YouTube?
That is not yet confirmed. YouTube is covered by Australia's separate under-16 social media account restrictions, but that does not automatically mean it will be covered by the new algorithm proposal. The exposure draft and its service definitions will decide that.
What is the difference between opt-out and opt-in?
With opt-out, the recommended feed stays on unless a user switches it off. With opt-in, a following-only or non-personalised feed would be the starting point and the user would actively choose recommendations. The reported government proposal uses opt-out; the Greens are arguing for opt-in.
Would turning off the algorithm make social media safe for children?
It could reduce unsolicited recommendations, but it would not make every post from followed accounts suitable or remove every risky feature. Parents would still need age-appropriate account rules, privacy settings, time boundaries, and conversations about what a child sees online.
How is Kivvie different from an algorithm opt-out?
An opt-out would change how a social platform orders or recommends content. Kivvie is narrower: it is a YouTube player for children that starts empty and shows videos only from channels a parent approves, without Shorts, comments, autoplay rabbit holes, or the standard YouTube recommendation feed.
Sources checked
- ABC News: Opt-out laws for social media algorithms to be introduced to parliament
- ABC News: Algorithm opt-in proposed to curb harmful social media feeds
- Parliament of Australia: Online Safety Amendment (Fix Our Feeds) Bill 2026
- eSafety Commissioner: Social media age restrictions and your family
- eSafety Commissioner: Recommender systems and algorithms position statement
- eSafety Commissioner: Echo chambers and your feed
Want to try the whitelist approach?
Kivvie takes about 2 minutes to set up. You pick the channels, your kids see nothing else.
Get Started Free