The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Short answer: “My Feed, My Way” was a proposed feature in Australia’s draft Digital Duty of Care legislation, not a setting that users could invoke as of 13 October 2026. The government said social-media services would let people choose between a feed personalised by recommendation algorithms and a feed made up of accounts they follow. The exposure draft was still awaiting introduction to Parliament, so there was no new statutory right, rollout date or demonstrated effect on harmful content or wellbeing.
The slogan identifies a plausible mechanism, but a mechanism in an exposure draft is not the same as a working safeguard. The unresolved issues are practical: how visible the choice will be, whether it can be changed easily, whether platforms can make the non-personalised option worse, how compliance will be judged and what evidence will show that the intervention improves user agency or safety.
What “My Feed, My Way” is supposed to do
The proposal sits inside the Australian Government’s broader Digital Duty of Care, rather than being a standalone consumer product. In the Prime Minister’s 8 September 2026 announcement, the government said services would have to notify both new and existing users about their default-feed choice. A user would then be offered two broad modes:
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
- Personalised recommendations: the service uses its recommendation systems to select posts, videos or accounts it thinks the user may want to see.
- Followed-account content: the service shows material from friends, creators and other accounts the user has chosen to follow, without the proposed default of algorithmically selected recommendations.
Communications Minister Anika Wells described the intended audience as Australians over 16 and said they would be able to choose the feed shown when they open an app. The government’s wording describes a proposed design and obligation; it does not establish that every service would present an identical screen or that the setting already exists.
#1 Best Overall
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese framed the policy this way: “This is not about giving government control, it is about giving people control.” Wells said: “When it comes to social media, Australians over the age of 16 will be able to opt in or opt out of the algorithm easily.” Those are statements of the government’s purpose and intended user experience, not evidence that the experience has been delivered.
Is the Digital Duty of Care law in force?
No. The official material available by 13 October 2026 described an exposure draft and a plan to introduce legislation later in 2026. It did not establish enactment, commencement or a date when a platform would have to offer the feed choice. Parliamentary progress can change quickly, so anyone relying on the status should check the latest bill and commencement information before acting on it.
| Date | What happened | What it means for users |
|---|---|---|
| 26 May 2026 | The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts published an issues paper on developing a Digital Duty of Care framework. | The policy was still being designed. The paper described a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harms and said consultation would inform the framework. |
| 8 September 2026 | The government announced “My Feed, My Way” and released the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 exposure draft for targeted consultation. | This was a proposal for comment, not an operating legal entitlement. |
| 22 September 2026, 12pm | The exposure-draft page listed the deadline for feedback. | The consultation deadline had passed by the date covered here; that did not itself enact the bill. |
| By 13 October 2026 | The reviewed announcements still described introduction to Parliament as planned for later in 2026. | No confirmed commencement date, platform rollout or user uptake figure was available. |
The distinction matters when searching for practical instructions. A query such as “How do I turn off the algorithm on social media in Australia?” currently has no single government-mandated answer. The announcement describes a future choice that would follow legislation and rules; it does not show a new statutory switch that users can activate today.
How the two proposed feed modes would differ
The government has identified the choices, but the documents reviewed do not provide an independent test comparing their results. The table below separates what is stated from what remains to be specified.
| Question | Personalised-recommendation feed | Followed-account feed |
|---|---|---|
| Primary source of items | Recommendations selected by the service’s algorithm, alongside any material the service otherwise includes. | Accounts the user follows, such as friends and chosen creators. |
| Discovery | Designed to introduce accounts and topics the user has not explicitly followed. | Discovery outside followed accounts is not established by the announcement. |
| User control | The user would accept the service’s default recommendation model under the proposed choice. | The user would opt out of personalised recommendations under the proposed choice. |
| Changing the decision | Wells said users should be able to choose again if they change their mind. | Wells said the exposure draft included government rules about user-empowerment tools, but the detailed interface requirements were not set out in the announcement. |
| Safety and wellbeing results | Not measured in the materials reviewed. | Not measured in the materials reviewed. |
| Required service design | The exact ranking, advertising, search and notification behaviour is not stated. | The exact treatment of reshared posts, public accounts, ads, search and notifications is not stated. |
“Followed accounts” should therefore not be read as a promise of a perfectly chronological or purely friends-only timeline. The proposed description establishes the source of the account relationships, not every other component a service might display. Final legislation, delegated rules and platform notices would need to answer those details.
What can Australians do right now?
There is no evidence in the official material that the proposed Australian setting was available by 13 October 2026. Do not treat the announcement as a universal instruction to open an app and look for a new legal opt-out. Individual services may have their own controls, but those controls are separate from “My Feed, My Way” and may differ by service, account type, country and software version.
If you want to check whether a new government-backed option has actually arrived, use this sequence:
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
- Check the service’s in-app account or feed settings. Look for a notice that explicitly identifies the Australian feed-choice requirement, rather than assuming an existing chronological or favourites view is the new statutory option.
- Read the service’s notice about the default. The proposal would require notification to new and existing users. A genuine rollout should explain which mode is active and how to switch.
- Confirm your account age and region. The government’s public description referred to users over 16. Eligibility rules for younger users and protections aimed at under-18s belong to the wider safety framework and were not presented as the same feed-choice entitlement.
- Look for a way to change the choice again. Wells said users should be able to revisit the decision. If a control is hidden, one-way or available only through a support request, that would raise the implementation concern the launch questions anticipated.
- Check the date and legal status. A platform announcement should be read alongside the enacted bill and commencement rules. An exposure draft or media release alone does not create an enforceable setting.
Until those conditions are met, the practical answer is: Australia’s proposed feed choice is not established as a currently available statutory feature.
What else the proposed Digital Duty of Care would cover
Feed selection is one part of a larger preventive-safety proposal. The government described duties for online services to take reasonable steps against foreseeable harms, building on work under the Online Safety Act 2021. The May framework paper presented consultation as part of developing the duty; it was not a substitute for the later exposure draft.
The September announcement also described:
- protections for people under 18 from specified harmful content and design features;
- documentation of measures a service has taken to address identified risks; and
- enforcement by the eSafety Commissioner.
The government said failure to comply could attract penalties of up to A$109.2 million. That is the government’s proposed maximum, not a fine already imposed, an enforcement result or a demonstrated deterrent. The materials reviewed contain no completed case applying that amount.
Why the slogan does not yet amount to a solution
Calling the initiative “another slogan, nothing solved” goes further than the evidence if it means the government proposed no mechanism. It did propose a recognisable choice and placed it in a broader safety framework. The stronger, supportable criticism is narrower: the announcement does not demonstrate that the mechanism will work in practice.
Visibility and friction
A choice is meaningful only if people can find it and understand the consequence. The proposal says users would be notified and could choose again, but the reviewed documents do not specify the number of screens, the wording, the default after an update or the maximum number of steps required to switch.
Equal treatment of the two modes
Journalists asked Minister Wells what would prevent a platform from making the non-personalised option inferior or restricting other functions. The question matters because a nominal opt-out could be undermined if that mode loads more slowly, removes useful tools, hides settings or otherwise makes the service less usable. The press-conference exchange records the concern; it does not prove that platforms would evade the rules or that the exposure draft already resolves it.
What appears in a followed-account feed
The announcement identifies accounts a user follows, but does not settle how reposts, recommendations embedded in notifications, advertisements, search results, trending modules or automatically played material would be handled. A service could comply with a narrow account-source rule while still presenting other algorithmic surfaces unless the final legal text addresses them.
Definitions and compliance tests
The launch discussion also raised who would decide whether obligations had been met and how key terms would be defined. A rule is easier to enforce when it specifies the evidence a service must keep, the tests the regulator can apply and the remedy available to a user who says the choice was ignored. The cited announcement and press conference do not provide those operational tests.
Recommended Free Tools
Evidence of impact
No published result in the reviewed material measures uptake, time spent, exposure to harmful content, wellbeing, recommendation changes or user satisfaction under this proposal. There is no named independent evaluation or completed implementation trial for “My Feed, My Way” in those materials. That absence limits what can responsibly be claimed; it is not proof that the idea cannot work.
Best Value
The competing arguments should stay separate from proven effects
The government presents the initiative as user empowerment within a preventive-safety system. Albanese’s statement emphasises control for people rather than control by government, while Wells presents an easy opt-in or opt-out for Australians over 16.
Contemporaneous reporting by ABC News records debate about free speech and the breadth of the harms covered by the proposed duty. Those are political and policy arguments, not measured outcomes. It is equally premature to claim that the proposal will censor lawful speech, eliminate harmful material or transform recommendation systems. The available record supports attributing those concerns to participants in the debate, not presenting them as established consequences.
What a workable policy would need to prove
Readers, regulators and Parliament can evaluate the final scheme against concrete questions rather than the slogan:
- Clear consent: Does every eligible user receive a plain explanation of both modes before a default is locked in?
- Easy reversal: Can a person switch at any time, with the same path and effort in either direction?
- Non-retaliation: Does choosing followed-account content preserve ordinary functions instead of creating a deliberately degraded service?
- Defined scope: Does the rule cover recommendations in the home feed only, or also notifications, search, autoplay, trends and advertising?
- Child protections: How do the feed choice and the separate under-18 safety duties interact?
- Auditable records: Must a service document defaults, switches, complaints and risk controls so the eSafety Commissioner can verify compliance?
- Effective enforcement: Are the proposed penalties, directions and remedies clear enough to change platform behaviour?
- Public measurement: Will authorities publish results on user control and safety, with methods and dates, rather than relying on launch statements?
These tests turn “user empowerment” into something observable. Until the final rules and evidence answer them, the proposal remains an announced policy direction rather than a solved problem.
What to watch as the proposal moves forward
The next decisive documents are the bill introduced to Parliament, any amendments, commencement provisions and rules made under the legislation. They should establish whether the exposure-draft design survives, which services are covered, how “personalised recommendations” and “followed accounts” are defined, and when notices must be sent.
After enactment, look for platform-specific notices, an Australian rollout date, an accessible switch, and public guidance from the eSafety Commissioner. The most informative evidence will be more than a count of services claiming compliance: it will show whether people can change the default, whether both modes remain functional, what content each mode actually contains and whether independent measurements find a change in safety or user agency.
As of the date covered here, none of those implementation or outcome milestones is established. “My Feed, My Way” is best understood as a draft legal mechanism with a clear political message and an unresolved delivery test.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallOutdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchQuick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
