Why the U.S. Calls Australia’s Algorithm Opt-Out Plan “Censorship”

Australia’s proposed Digital Duty of Care has opened an unusually direct dispute with the United States over who should control online feeds, how platforms should manage harmful material, and whether national tech rules can reshape speech beyond a country’s borders.

The Trump administration’s objection is not simply to an algorithm setting. It argues that a legal duty to address government-defined harms, combined with mandated feed choices and large penalties, could encourage platforms to restrict lawful expression. The Albanese government counters that the plan is designed to give people control of their feeds and require digital services to take responsibility for foreseeable online harms. The legislation was still an exposure draft at the time of the U.S. intervention. 3

The U.S. case: safety rules could become speech controls

The U.S. Embassy in Canberra said it had “serious concerns” that the proposal could facilitate censorship of protected speech, including speech by Americans. Its argument rests on two connected concerns.

First, Washington objected to what it characterized as rigid, one-size-fits-all platform-design mandates. Under the proposal, social-media users would be offered a choice between algorithmically recommended content and a feed limited to accounts they follow. The U.S. position is that compelling a particular feed design can affect which speakers and views receive reach, even where posts are not removed. 311

Second, the U.S. warned that allowing regulators to apply broad or vague definitions of harm could create a strong incentive for platforms to over-moderate. In its view, companies seeking to avoid liability might demote or limit lawful but controversial material, turning a safety obligation into viewpoint-based censorship. 47

Washington also framed the issue as global rather than purely Australian. Many major platforms affected by the rules are U.S.-headquartered and operate products across borders. The U.S. argued that requirements imposed in Australia could influence product design, content distribution, and speech by Americans online beyond Australia itself—what it calls “extraterritorial censorship.” 712

What Australia’s draft Digital Duty of Care would do

The proposal would introduce a general obligation for covered online services to provide, so far as reasonably practicable, a safe online environment. Its reach is broader than conventional social networks: reporting on the exposure draft describes coverage extending to services such as social media, online games and AI chatbots. 8

For social-media platforms, the most visible feature is the proposed feed choice. Users would receive an algorithmically recommended feed by default, but could opt out and see material from accounts they choose to follow. 311

The wider duty is intended to make companies identify and reduce foreseeable harms, rather than react only after harm occurs. Reported examples of child-focused harms include bullying, pornography, misogyny and eating disorders; the framework also addresses serious harmful material and conduct affecting adults. 36

The proposal would carry substantial enforcement risk. Companies that breach the duty could face maximum penalties of roughly A$109 million. 56

Why Canberra says this is about choice, not censorship

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese rejected the U.S. characterization. The government has presented its “My Feed, My Way” policy as a way for Australians to decide whether algorithmic recommendations shape what they see, rather than as government direction of individual content decisions. 3

Labor’s broader premise is that services whose products can expose users to foreseeable harms should bear proactive responsibilities for reducing those risks. On this account, an algorithmic feed is not banned: users may still choose it. 3

The Greens had said they would examine the draft’s details before settling a final position. Available reporting did not establish a later definitive Greens response specifically to the U.S. intervention. 3

A wider fight over regulating U.S. technology companies

The clash fits the Trump administration’s broader resistance to foreign digital taxes, fines, and regulation that it considers unfairly burdensome to U.S. technology firms or restrictive of Americans’ speech. 37

Australia’s recent under-16 social-media ban adds to the stakes. That policy has drawn international attention and helped position Australia as a potential model for tougher platform regulation, making the Digital Duty of Care more consequential than a domestic policy dispute alone. 3

What happens next

The consultation period for the exposure draft closed on 22 September 2026. The Australian government has said it expects to introduce a bill to Parliament later in 2026, meaning the final legislative text could still change. 3

For now, the disagreement highlights a fundamental policy divide: Australia is testing whether user controls and a proactive safety duty can reduce online harms, while the U.S. warns that rules designed for safety may alter visibility and moderation in ways that chill lawful speech well beyond Australia’s borders.