Australia Might Let You Turn Off Social Media Algorithms — Here's Why

The Australian government is thinking about letting people switch off the systems that decide what shows up on their social media feeds. It is also considering banning pornography that shows strangulation and suffocation, following a similar ban in the UK. Both ideas are part of a plan to reduce violence against women and children (The Guardian).

Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek, speaking on the ABC's Insiders program on 30 August 2026, said social media algorithms are "deliberately feeding boys and men violent content and normalising strangulation during sex." She shared a striking number: when someone sets up a new account as a young boy in Australia, it takes an average of just 23 minutes before the platform starts showing violent, misogynistic content. Plibersek also said that 60% of young people now report having experienced strangulation during a sexual encounter, and she called that no coincidence given what young people see online (The Guardian).

The government's thinking was shaped by the death of a 16-year-old girl in Sydney. Guardian Australia reported that the teenager was believed to have lost consciousness from asphyxiation during sex, commonly called "choking" (The Guardian). Plibersek said social media was playing a big role in the rise of sexual violence among teenagers, and choking in particular.

Here is what an algorithm does: when you open a social media app, you do not see every post from every person in the order it was shared. Instead, a computer program picks and ranks posts based on what it thinks will keep you scrolling. That program is the algorithm. The government is exploring whether users should have to actively choose that system (called "opting in") or be able to switch it off ("opting out"). Plibersek said the government is working with Chanel Contos's Teach Us Consent campaign, which has pushed for algorithms to be opt-in only. No law has been written yet. Separately, the federal government faces pressure to ban pornography that depicts strangulation and suffocation, matching the UK ban. New South Wales MP Kellie Sloane has publicly called for such a ban, saying there is "no safe way to strangle someone" (Michael West Media; ABC News).

These measures are part of a wider set of rules the Labor government has been building around online safety. Australia already banned social media for children under 16, a rule that took effect in December 2025, and has introduced age checks for pornography sites. But Plibersek has admitted that children can get around both sets of rules fairly easily (The Guardian).

Labor is also preparing to start consultations on a "digital duty of care" bill. That means tech companies, including AI firms, would have a legal responsibility to make their online spaces safer for users (The Guardian). This idea is similar to the UK's Online Safety Act, which puts a duty of care on platforms and led to the UK's ban on strangulation content in pornography. The Australian version would go further by extending the responsibility to AI companies.

Plibersek has spoken about the link between online content and violence against women before. In a September 2025 speech to the 5th World Conference of Women's Shelters, she described the problem as systemic (Department of Social Services). In May 2024, the Department of Social Services ran a campaign against the "corrosive influence" of online content that condones violence against women (Department of Social Services). In a December 2024 editorial, Plibersek said the under-16 social media ban was meant to let children "grow up free from addictive algorithms," not to punish or isolate them (Department of Social Services). In July 2026, she wrote an editorial titled "Dismantling the manosphere," where she criticised Senator Pauline Hanson for using her platform to restrict abortion access and question whether domestic violence claims are truthful (Department of Social Services).

The broader question is whether Australia's combined approach can succeed where single measures have fallen short. The under-16 ban, age checks for pornography, the proposed algorithm opt-out, and the strangulation content ban each target a different part of the problem: who can get online, what content gets distributed, and what content gets made. But Plibersek's own admission that children bypass existing rules suggests that without strong enforcement, each layer may end up being more of a statement than an actual barrier. The digital duty of care bill could be the most important piece, because it puts the responsibility directly on the platforms. But consultations have not started yet.

The algorithm proposal also raises practical questions. If users can switch off algorithms, platforms would need to offer a simple chronological feed — posts in the order they were shared. That could affect how long people stay on the app, which in turn affects how much advertising money the platform makes. The government has not yet decided how to define "algorithmic" content, whether the rules would cover all recommendation systems or just certain types, or which body would enforce compliance — the existing eSafety Commissioner or a new one.

For people watching from other countries, Australia's approach is becoming a real-world test of whether governments can go beyond just checking ages and actually change how platforms distribute content. The UK has already gone partway down this road. What happens in Canberra will shape debates in Ottawa, Brussels, and beyond.