My Feed, My Way
Australia’s proposed “My Feed, My Way” rules would force social media platforms to let users, especially minors, opt out of algorithmic recommendation feeds in favor of chronological updates from accounts they explicitly follow. Commenters broadly see this as a pro‑consumer step to curb addictive, manipulative engagement algorithms and their wider social harms, particularly for children, though many doubt uptake will be high or that platforms won’t undermine the feature by making it inconvenient. The debate widens into questions of whether such algorithms should be banned outright, how far governments should go in regulating online behavior, and whether heavy regulation could fragment the global internet or simply push platforms to withdraw from stricter jurisdictions.
Overall reaction to the policy
- Many see “turn off the algorithmic feed” as a positive, overdue, pro‑consumer move, roughly analogous to safety standards for other products.
- Others think it’s cosmetic: opt‑out instead of opt‑in is viewed as a concession to industry; expectation that platforms will bury or hobble the feature so most people revert to the “dopamine feed.”
- Some argue it doesn’t go far enough and want addictive algorithms, infinite scroll, and doomscrolling patterns outright banned, at least for minors.
Algorithmic feeds: harm vs. utility
- Critics call algorithmic feeds “poison,” optimized for engagement rather than user benefit, driving addiction, polarization, and rage‑bait.
- Several cite gender‑related content as especially toxic (misogyny, misandry, “battle of the sexes”) and say algorithmic amplification normalizes fringe, hateful views for teens of all genders.
- Others caution against heavy-handed bans, drawing analogies to failed drug prohibition and advocating “tax and regulate” rather than outright illegality.
- A minority argues most users actually like algorithmic feeds; revealed preferences and the success of TikTok suggest opt‑out options will see minimal uptake.
Control, defaults, and implementation concerns
- Strong desire for a strictly chronological “friends only” feed; current implementations on major platforms are described as hidden, spammy, or deliberately broken.
- Worry that letting platforms choose the default (algorithmic vs chronological) will neuter the law; some prefer periodic re‑consent instead.
- Question whether the law includes explicit control over sort order, not just content source.
Children, identity verification, and paternalism
- Many support extra protections for under‑18s (no algorithmic feeds, filtered harmful content).
- Others warn that age/ID verification (“papers please”) is anti‑consumer, erodes anonymity, and may just push Australians onto VPNs.
- Debate over how far the state should go: protect children and allow adult choice vs. broader bans because harms spill over into society and public health.
Alternatives and broader ecosystem
- Suggestions include: legalizing scraping/republishing to enable third‑party frontends and custom algorithms; RSS/email‑based, chronological, or friend‑only platforms; Bluesky‑style user‑selectable feeds and blocklists.
- Recognition that many people are “algorithmically complacent” and won’t tinker, so defaults and regulation matter.