Bringing internet feeds to heel is not suppressing free speech

EditorialEditorialSeptember 7, 2026 — 4:20pmSeptember 7, 2026 — 4:20pmThe Albanese government’s proposed digital duty of care reforms aim to give Australians the right to use social media feeds free of algorithms, and to force platforms to stop harm before it occurs rather than respond to individual complaints about content. But the reforms are now running a gauntlet of spurious claims that the legislation will suppress freedom of speech.For under 18s, areas of “psychosocial harm” will be identified, including content about body image and bullying.iStockSocial media companies will have to give users a choice to turn off their algorithm through pop-up messages. The government is also considering a Greens demand requiring internet users to opt in to algorithms to secure the legislation’s passage.The onus will be put on social media companies to identify and mitigate risks on their platforms and prevent the sharing of harmful content, including illegal pornography, being made available to adults. For under 18s, about half a dozen additional areas of “psychosocial harm” would be identified, including content about body image and bullying, and the companies face fines of $100 million-plus for breaching the law.Whether the legislation contains the ability to opt in or opt out, the reforms raise many questions and carry potential problems.But free speech is not one of them. The reforms will not stymie free speech, but rather give people agency over their choices.The new legislation complements the Albanese government’s world-leading law to delay access to social media until the age of 16.It also follows the recent death of a 16-year-old girl in a suspected case of sexual choking that highlighted the ubiquity of violent pornography and misogynistic content on social media. It prompted Teach Us Consent chief executive and founder Chanel Contos’ #fixourfeeds campaign to renew her call for the introduction of an opt-in feature for social media algorithms, designed to prevent young men’s feeds from being flooded by default with misogynistic content.At such a febrile time, and with help seemingly on the way, politicians, technology companies, privacy advocates and free speech groups have joined the pile-on, attacking the reforms as censorship, ineffectual and bad for business.Liberal leader Angus Taylor dismissed the legislation as an attempt to censor social media, while Nationals leader Matt Canavan said he wanted “to protect my kids against radical transgender ideologies” but doubted whether that was the government’s main intent.One Nation leader Pauline Hanson even evoked a Big Brother future, saying Australia should be moving away from government censorship, instead of building Orwellian machinery.The rise of One Nation, of course, has been inflated by the fact-free free-for-all that circulates in right-wing media circles, so Hanson predictably criticised the government’s existing social media legislation as a complete failure.Social media remains alive with 16-year-olds. It will be difficult to convince 17-year-olds to opt out. But we should persist, not least because we’re fed up with unwelcome guests.People once could close their doors on trespassers. But social media intruders, both wanted and unwanted, are already inside our home computers and mobiles. The tech companies have rarely been asked to wait outside. Until now.Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.The Herald's View – Since the Herald was first published in 1831, the editorial team has believed it important to express a considered view on the issues of the day for readers, always putting the public interest first.From our partners