Over the weekend, the Australian government proposed new laws that could give users the power to opt-in or out of social media algorithms, in a bid to keep Aussies safer online and protect them from violent and misogynistic content.
Four leaders from across Australia’s social and digital landscape have weighed in to take a look at what the pros and cons of this change could mean both for social media users and the content on the platform.
Leaders including MYCM Creative’s Marta Yortt, Fabulate’s Nathan Powell, We Are Social’s Suzie Shaw and Hello’s Sam Kelly believe while the change will see benefits to online safety, it’s not quite enough.
‘Switching the algorithm off doesn’t unfollow the accounts’
Marta Yortt, the founder of marketing agency MYCM Creative, believes while the laws would be “a step towards a more regulated online environment”, she wants to see “a lot more” to fix misogynistic content.
“Turning off personalisation changes how content is delivered, not what’s out there. It still reaches you through the accounts you already follow, DMs, shares, search, comments and other discovery surfaces,” she said.
“Switching the algorithm off doesn’t unfollow the accounts you picked up while it was on, so for existing users the content that got them there is still sitting in their feed.”
Yortt told B&T Instagram’s Explore page “is a good example of how unfinished this is”.
“In the EU, Meta’s non-personalised option covers Feed, Reels, Stories and Search. Explore was never spelled out, and there’s no follow list sitting behind it. So this is more a change in how you consume content than a change in what you’re exposed to.”
“It’s a reasonable thing to give people. It shouldn’t be presented as a complete solution to violent or misogynistic content, because that still needs moderation, enforcement and other safety measures,” she added.
Yortt said while the proposed regulations are “a step towards a more regulated online environment”, as a fix for misogynistic content she hopes to see “a lot more”.
‘Algorithms can create rabbit holes, but they can also create doorways’
Meanwhile, Fabulate’s co-founder & chief product & strategy officer believes while the laws “can be part of the solution” he worries “we’re treating a symptom rather than the disease”.
“Misogyny, violence and hatred don’t magically begin when somebody opens a social media app. These attitudes and behaviours exist in our homes, schools, workplaces and communities,” he told B&T.
“Social media can expose them, connect people around them and amplify them at enormous scale, and platforms absolutely have a responsibility for the role they play in that amplification. But we should be clear about what these changes can and cannot achieve. They may make violent and misogynistic content less visible and harder to spread, which is important, but that is not the same as addressing the attitudes behind it.”
He said if there are genuine concerns regarding misogyny and violence, particularly among young people, then the conversation “has to extend well beyond recommendation algorithms”.
“Social media has also evolved beyond simply being a list of people we already know. It’s become a discovery engine for culture. It’s where people find creators, music, sport, humour, hobbies, ideas and communities, and recommendation is fundamental to how that works. Algorithms can create rabbit holes, but they can also create doorways.”
Powell believes “we need to be particularly careful with the idea that there is some inherently neutral version of a social feed waiting for us if we simply turn the algorithm off”.
“There isn’t,” he told B&T.
“A chronological feed reflects who you’ve chosen to follow. A recommended feed reflects decisions about relevance. A moderated feed reflects decisions about what is acceptable. Every version involves choices.”
He said this raises the question of ‘Who gets to define what a healthy feed looks like?’
“There will be things most Australians would readily agree shouldn’t be actively amplified to young people. But beyond those clearer cases, we should be cautious about allowing “safety” to quietly become a much broader judgement about which ideas, interests or perspectives young Australians should encounter.”
‘Government needs to have teeth’
Meanwhile, We Are Social’s Suzie Shaw stressed the “incredibly powerful global technology platforms whose business models are built around keeping people engaged” that Australians are having to deal with.
“If there is credible evidence that the way content is recommended is contributing to misogyny, harmful behaviours or other social harms, then governments have a responsibility to intervene,” she said. “The challenge is making that intervention meaningful.”
“Australia has been willing to move early and ambitiously on digital safety, but the test of any intervention has to be whether it materially changes what happens in the real world.”
Shaw used the example of the under-16 social media restrictions as “already showing how difficult that is”.
“Legislation can exist while young people continue to find ways around it,” she told B&T.
“I would support measures that genuinely reduce harm, but I think government needs to have teeth. That means effective enforcement, accountability for platforms and regulation that addresses the design and business models driving harmful behaviour, rather than simply creating rules that are relatively easy to circumvent.”
‘The most engaging content isn’t always the most positive’
Speaking with B&T, the CEO of Hello agency, Sam Kelly said the proposed changes could be effective only if “they form part of a broader approach”.
“Recommendation algorithms are incredibly powerful discovery engines. At their best, they help people find communities, creators, entertainment and information they love,” he said.
“But we also know that systems optimised heavily around engagement can amplify content because it provokes a reaction, and unfortunately the most engaging content isn’t always the most positive.”
“So I think there is a legitimate conversation to be had about the responsibility platforms have for what their recommendation systems amplify, particularly when it comes to young people.
“Giving users greater control is a positive step, but I don’t think an algorithm opt-out alone solves the problem,” Kelly told B&T.
“It needs to sit alongside strong content moderation, age-appropriate protections, transparency and continued investment from platforms in making their recommendation systems safer.”
The proposed algorithm laws are currently under active consideration and are expected to be put forward as part of the broader Digital Duty of Care legislation in October 2026.
