0
0
Think about the last thing you saw on your phone. Now try to remember choosing it.
You probably can’t. Almost nobody can. And Australia has just proposed a law built on that exact fact — a law that would force social media companies to let you turn off the algorithm and see only the people you actually decided to follow.
It sounds small. A settings toggle. One more checkbox in a menu nobody opens.
But buried inside the announcement is a detail that is far more interesting than the law itself. The people writing it have not yet decided the one thing that will determine whether any of it works. And they know it.
You Have Never Once Chosen Your Feed
Here is the strange part about modern life that we have all quietly agreed not to mention.
You chose your friends. You chose the accounts you follow. You chose the app.
You did not choose the order. You did not choose what got shown twice and what got buried. You did not choose the video that appeared at 11pm when you were already tired. Something else made those calls, thousands of times a day, and it made them based on what would hold you there — not on what you would be glad you saw.
That is not a conspiracy. It is just what the system was built to do. But it means the thing filling most of your waking attention is, in a real sense, not yours.
What “Turn Off the Algorithm” Would Actually Mean
On Tuesday 8 September 2026, the Australian government announced a proposal it is calling “My Feed, My Way.” It is worth being precise about what it is and is not.
It is a proposal. It is not law yet. No date has been announced for legislation.
Under it, social media platforms would have to send a notification to every user — new and existing — offering a genuine choice about their default feed. People over 16 could either have a feed of personalised recommendations picked by an algorithm, or a feed containing only posts from the friends and creators they chose to follow.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described it as requiring platforms to give people “genuine and enduring choice about what they see in their feeds,” and framed it plainly: not government control, but user control. Communications Minister Anika Wells put it more bluntly, saying big tech “is not a protected species.” Companies that ignored the rules could face penalties up to 109.2 million Australian dollars — roughly 79 million US dollars. The Associated Press reported the announcement in full.
The proposal sits inside a wider package called a Digital Duty of Care, which would also cover search engines and AI chatbots, and would require platforms to restrict content promoting eating disorders, bullying and self-harm to people under 18. Australia already banned social media accounts for under-16s in December 2025, which is why the feed choice only applies to people above that age.
The Part They Have Not Decided Yet
Now here is the detail almost every write-up skipped past.
The government has not decided whether the algorithm will be opt-in or opt-out.
Meaning: nobody has settled whether you will wake up with the algorithm on and have to switch it off, or wake up with it off and have to switch it on. Officials are still taking expert advice on that single question.
Think about why that would need expert advice. If a switch is a switch, the direction should not matter much — you can always flip it either way.
Except everyone involved knows it matters enormously. Because almost nobody flips it. Whatever position the switch is in on the day it appears is the position most people will still have years later. The choice is real, but the default is what actually decides.
So the loud part of this story is a country giving people control over their feeds. The quiet part is a government paying specialists to work out where to leave a switch, because it understands that a choice nobody makes is not a choice at all. It is a setting. And settings, left alone long enough, stop feeling like decisions and start feeling like your personality.
Why a Switch Is Not the Same as a Choice
This is not really a technology problem. It is an older one wearing new clothes.
There is a line of ancient wisdom, written thousands of years before any of this existed, that tells a person to guard what they let into their heart — because everything they do afterwards flows out from there. People who believe in God have repeated it for a very long time, usually as advice about what you watch and who you listen to.
What is easy to read past is the verb. It does not say decide what you let in. It says guard it. Guarding is not a setting. It is something a person does again, and again, on ordinary days when nothing is obviously wrong.
Whoever wrote that seems to have understood the thing Australian officials are currently seeking expert advice about: a decision made once and never revisited quietly turns into a default. And the default is the one running your life.
Three Things You Can Do Before Any Law Passes
You do not have to wait for a parliament on the other side of the world. Some of the switch is already in your hands, free, today.
- Open your following list and read it like a stranger would. You built it over years, one tap at a time, and you have probably never looked at the whole thing at once. Some of it no longer belongs to the person you are now.
- Notice what you feel after ten minutes, not during. Almost everything is interesting while you are in it. The honest signal comes afterwards. If a certain kind of post reliably leaves you flat, that is data, not weakness.
- Pick one hour a day the feed does not get. Not all day. One hour. Most apps already let you choose a simple chronological or following-only view if you go looking for it — you can turn off the algorithm yourself in more places than you think.
If your attention feels harder to hold onto than it used to, you are not imagining it, and you are not the only one — focus leaks faster than most people realise, even without anything competing for it. And if the endless supply somehow leaves you more restless rather than less, that particular feeling is much older than the internet: monks named it and treated it 1,600 years ago.
If the noise has been sitting on you heavily lately and you are not sure how much, our free How Anxious Am I? assessment takes about two minutes and asks better questions than a feed will.
Australia may or may not pass this. Parliaments are slow and tech companies are not. But the idea underneath it is worth keeping either way, whichever way that switch ends up pointing.
Somebody is choosing what fills your day. It might as well be you.
Your Turn
If this became law where you live, should the algorithm be on by default with the option to turn it off, or off by default with the option to turn it on? There is a real argument both ways — one respects what most people seem to want, the other protects the people who never open settings. Tell us which one you would pick, and why, in the comments.
Share This
Australia wants to make platforms let you turn off the algorithm. But officials haven’t decided if it’s on or off by default — because they know almost nobody ever flips a switch. The default is the real decision. https://bgodinspired.com/index.php/personal-growth-and-life-skills/australia-turn-off-the-algorithm/
I’ve never once chosen the order of my own feed. Not once. Read this and couldn’t stop thinking about it: https://bgodinspired.com/index.php/personal-growth-and-life-skills/australia-turn-off-the-algorithm/
“A decision made once and never revisited quietly turns into a default. And the default is the one running your life.” Good piece on Australia’s proposed algorithm off-switch, and why the direction of the switch matters more than the switch. https://bgodinspired.com/index.php/personal-growth-and-life-skills/australia-turn-off-the-algorithm/
Common Questions
What is Australia’s “My Feed, My Way” proposal?
“My Feed, My Way” is a measure announced by the Australian government on 8 September 2026 that would require social media platforms to give users aged over 16 a choice about their default feed. Platforms would have to notify both new and existing users, who could then select either a personalised feed recommended by an algorithm, or a feed showing only content from the accounts they have chosen to follow. It is a proposal and has not yet become law.
Will Australians be able to turn off the social media algorithm?
Under the Australian government’s proposed “My Feed, My Way” measure, users over the age of 16 would be able to switch from an algorithmic feed to one containing only posts from friends and creators they follow. The proposal has been announced but not passed, and no date has been set for legislation, so nothing has changed for users yet.
Has Australia decided whether algorithmic feeds will be opt-in or opt-out?
No. As of the September 2026 announcement, the Australian government had not decided whether algorithmic feeds would be on by default with users able to opt out, or off by default with users able to opt in. Communications Minister Anika Wells said officials were taking expert advice on that question, since the default setting strongly influences what most people end up using.
What is Australia’s Digital Duty of Care?
The Digital Duty of Care is a broader package of proposed Australian rules that would shift more responsibility for online harm onto technology companies. It would cover social media services, search engines and AI chatbots, require platforms to restrict content promoting harms such as eating disorders and bullying to people under 18, and carry penalties of up to 109.2 million Australian dollars — about 79 million US dollars — for companies that fail to comply.
Does Australia’s algorithm proposal apply to children?
The feed-choice measure applies to users over the age of 16. Australia separately banned social media accounts for children under 16 from December 2025, so under-16s are not meant to hold accounts on the major platforms at all. The wider Digital Duty of Care proposal includes additional protections for users under 18, including limits on content promoting eating disorders, self-harm and bullying, and on addictive design features.
