U.S. Challenges Australia's Social Media Algorithm and Safety Plan
The United States has asked Australia to drop plans that would require platforms to automatically limit content under government-set safety rules, and to leave U.S. social media companies out of its proposed digital duty of care law.
The request was made public on September 22. It was published by the U.S. Embassy in Australia as the U.S. Government Response to the Australian consultation on the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026. U.S. Embassy
The Trump administration criticized the Australian bill, which would let Australians opt out of algorithmic social media feeds. An algorithmic feed is the automatic system that orders what you see. Washington also asked for U.S. social media companies to be excluded from Australia's digital duty of care laws. A duty of care is a legal duty to take reasonable steps to keep users safe. ABC News
Australia's Labor government announced the proposal on September 8. The plan would give social media users a choice to opt out of algorithms. The Guardian
Canberra is not backing down. Australia said it saw no threat to U.S. ties after White House criticism of its social media algorithm proposal. Reuters
The broader context here is a dispute over who sets the rules and who defines the terms. Australia asserts a right to set domestic standards for platform design through consultation and legislation. Washington asserts an interest in how those standards would apply to American firms and to content on their systems. Both positions came through the same consultation channel. That makes the process itself diplomatically important, not only the text of the bill.
In my view, the language both sides use shows where friction will center. For Canberra, the key tool is user choice, an opt-out from algorithmic feeds. For Washington, the concern is a different tool, required limiting of content under safety criteria it calls unclear. The gap between those two descriptions matters. Whether the duty of care works mainly as a choice for users or as a duty for platforms to push down categories of content will shape what compliance looks like, how enforcement works, and how far the two sides disagree.
Looking ahead, what this could mean for policymakers and platforms is a question of scope and detail. A response that asks for withdrawal and exclusion leaves Australia with several procedural paths. It can tighten definitions, clarify limits for when content must be limited, separate the opt-out switch from content-based duties, or keep the proposal and manage the diplomatic cost. Washington put its objection on the record early. Canberra has signaled confidence the alliance can absorb it. For close watchers, the practical step is to treat the September 22 filing as the formal U.S. position for this lawmaking round and to watch how the final draft handles coverage, safety criteria, and algorithmic choice.
