US says Australia’s proposed law to opt out of social media algorithm is ‘censorship’

The US embassy in Canberra has raised “serious concerns” over Australia’s proposed laws that would give its social media users the choice to opt out of Big Tech algorithms, calling it “censorship of protected speech”.

A draft bill for the “My Feed, My Way” initiative was released by the Anthony Albanese government earlier this month, and it is expected to be introduced in Australia's parliament after the consultation period.

Under the proposed law, Big Tech firms risk hefty fines of around $72m (A$100m) if they do not provide Australia’s over 21 million social media users the choice to opt out of online platform algorithms via pop-up messages.

The Australian government reasoned that the proposed rules would give users the option to make their social media feeds feature only content from accounts they follow, curbing people’s exposure to harmful content online.

But in a rare submission to the proposed laws, the US government said it has “serious concerns about the Australian government’s stated goal”.

“We are particularly concerned by potential mandates that would allow regulators to impose rigid, one-size-fits-all platform design requirements – such as forced chronological feeds or opt-in recommendation systems,” the US government said in its submission.

It said the framework’s “vague definitions of ‘harm’” risks becoming a mechanism for “viewpoint-based censorship” that could also affect users outside of Australia.

The White House had previously flagged that such measures could impose unfair restrictions on US-based tech companies.

"Mandated platform design features, especially when applied to algorithms, may affect what users see, say, and hear not just in or from Australia, but globally,” the US government said.

“We ask that Australia clarify how exactly ‘harm’ and ‘risks’ shall be determined, if there are any standard definitions that will be utilised, and by whom in the context of the proposed plans, ensuring these definitions do not encroach on protected speech,” it said.

The proposed laws, according to the US, may also risk “reducing the reach of independent journalists or other voices whose content touches on sensitive or controversial topics”.

Under the proposed laws, if platforms are forced to filter content “to satisfy a government mandate and such filtering draws in protected speech, the effect on a disfavoured speaker or media source’s reach would not be meaningfully different than outright removal,” the US said.

“The US government would likely consider such a measure as facilitating censorship,” it said, adding that it could also “affect Australia’s reputation as a jurisdiction that enables innovation”.

The submission comes amid the Australian prime minister’s US visit to speak at the UN General Assembly.

Mr Albanese defended his government’s proposed laws, stating he would "always stand up for Australian interests".

Speaking to journalists in New York, he said the proposed move is “not about giving government control”.

“It's about giving people back control over what they receive on their devices,” he said, adding that his administration would "engage constructively" before finalising the legislation.