Australia Weighs Algorithm Opt-Out Laws — "23 Minutes to Misogynistic Content"

The Australian government is considering forcing social media platforms to enable an algorithm opt-out, to address polarization fueled by content matching in social apps. Behind it is a judgment that algorithm regulation could have more impact than banning teenage users.

The move follows months of work on the country's teenage social media ban, which has so far had little impact on the negative behaviors connected with social media use.

"23 Minutes"

As reported by The Guardian, Australian social services minister Tanya Plibersek said the government is exploring a potential algorithm opt-out following a recent teenage strangling death and a rise in reports of sexual violence among teenagers.

"If you set up a social media account as a young boy in Australia today, it takes an average of 23 minutes for you to be fed misogynistic, violent misogynistic content online," Plibersek said. "That is a deliberate decision of the social media companies that is wrecking our young boys, giving them all of the wrong ideas about what healthy relationships look like."

Plibersek said on the ABC's Insiders program that the government is exploring various options to address algorithmic amplification, including both opt-in and opt-out approaches that would give people more control over what they're shown.

What the Research Says

The negative impacts of algorithms have been covered extensively in academic research:

• A 2016 study published in Harvard Business Review found that "high arousal emotions" such as anger and fear generally drove the biggest social media response, particularly in viral sharing.
• A 2023 study published by the National Library of Medicine found negative words in news headlines increased consumption rates among social media users.
• A 2021 report in Science Direct studying Instagram engagement found posts eliciting negative emotions received up to 70% more likes than positive ones.
• A 2023 analysis by the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, published in Taylor and Francis Online, found posts expressing anger reached more people than those expressing anxiety, and that angry users indicated higher intention to share emotional posts.
• A 2012 Wharton Business School study found content evoking anger is shared more, with the amount of anger inspired proportionately driving virality.

Angst and fear drive algorithmic amplification because these systems are based on binary calculations of post engagement. More likes and comments inform algorithmic decisions regardless of the content itself, which leads to broader exposure.

Given that most people also rely on social media for news and information, per Pew Research, that creates a dangerous mix.

Enforcement Is the Hard Part

The challenge is enacting restrictions and forcing platforms to offer algorithm options.

Meta, for example, has repeatedly touted the value of algorithmic matching for driving engagement, which ties directly to its business model of showing people ads. Any restriction on algorithms would affect that business process, which could lead to bigger clashes around restriction of trade.

But Australia being a relatively small market could make it an ideal testing ground, where Meta and regulators could measure the impacts of switching people to a purely chronological feed of posts from pages they chose to follow.

Meta has already experimented with this in the EU, where users can pay a monthly fee to opt out of algorithmic matching. Few people have chosen to pay, making it a minor test case.

The real test would be whether Australia can make algorithmic amplification opt-in, ensuring all users start cut off from the never-ending feed of recommended posts.

What Marketers Should Watch

If algorithmic reach stops being the default, the relative value of paid media and owned follower bases gets recalculated. Content that spread through recommendation feeds narrows to follow graphs, which raises the value of channels where you actually own the audience.

That's also why Australia works as a testing ground: small enough to make the experiment cheap, with results that transfer straight into regulatory debates elsewhere. Read alongside Meta accepting two-hour teen limits in its settlement and Pinterest positioning itself as the app you should use less, a pattern appears: platforms getting ahead of regulation by writing their own narrative first.