Digital Duty of Care: What Australia’s Feed Choice Means

Australia’s proposed “feed choice” approach would give users more control over how social media content is ranked, while making platforms more accountable for the risks their systems create. It is part of a wider debate about digital duty of care: whether online services should take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm, rather than relying only on users to manage it.

What digital duty of care means

Digital duty of care is a policy idea, not a single settled rule with one universal definition. Broadly, it asks digital services to identify risks associated with their products and take proportionate steps to reduce them. In practice, that can include safer defaults, ways to report harmful material, better explanations of recommendation systems, and processes for responding when risks become apparent.

The phrase is often used in discussions about social media, but it can apply more widely to online platforms and services. It does not necessarily mean that a company must prevent every harmful post or guarantee that nobody encounters distressing material. A workable duty would need to define which services are covered, what counts as a foreseeable risk, and what action is reasonable in the circumstances.

Australia’s feed-choice discussion concerns one specific way to address some risks: giving people a meaningful option about how content is selected and ordered. It is not, by itself, a complete safety regime.

Why feeds are part of the debate

Many social platforms use recommendation systems to decide which posts appear in a person’s feed and in what order. These systems may use signals such as accounts followed, prior interactions, content popularity, and predicted interest. The exact signals and their importance vary by service and are not always public.

A ranked feed can make it easier to find relevant material, but it also means that a platform’s design influences what users see. Critics argue that engagement-focused recommendations can amplify sensational, misleading, or harmful material. Platforms may respond that ranking can also help people discover useful content and avoid having to sort through a large volume of posts themselves. The relationship between a particular ranking system and real-world harm is complex; offering a choice is one proposed way to give users more agency without assuming that every recommendation is harmful.

What “feed choice” would mean

In this context, feed choice means a user could select between different ways of viewing content, rather than having only the platform’s recommended or ranked feed. A basic alternative is a chronological feed, which displays posts from followed accounts in the order they were published. Another possibility is a feed based on a different ranking method.

The practical value of the choice depends on how it is presented and maintained. A setting that is hard to find, frequently resets, or is described in confusing language may offer little meaningful control. A more usable approach would make options understandable, accessible, and easy to change, while clearly explaining what each option does.

For example, a user might choose chronological ordering to see recent posts from accounts they follow, or choose a recommendation-based feed to discover material beyond those accounts. These options would not necessarily remove harmful content or change what other people post. They alter how a service selects or orders content for that user.

How it could support a duty of care

Feed choice could form one part of a platform’s response to foreseeable risks. It may reduce reliance on a single recommendation system and let users select a format that better suits their needs. It could also make platform design more transparent by requiring services to explain, at least in practical terms, how the available feeds differ.

However, choice is not a substitute for other safeguards. A chronological feed can still contain abusive, deceptive, or disturbing posts from followed accounts. A user may not know which option is safer for a particular situation, and a choice cannot address risks affecting people who do not have the time, knowledge, or ability to adjust settings.

A broader duty-of-care approach could therefore involve a mix of measures, such as:

Assessing risks associated with platform features and recommendation systems.
Providing clear controls and understandable information about them.
Offering accessible reporting and complaint processes.
Taking appropriate action when serious risks or harmful material are identified.
Reviewing whether safeguards work, rather than treating a control as proof that a risk has been solved.

What remains uncertain

The phrase “proposed feed choice” should not be read as proof that a particular feature is already required across Australian social media. Policy proposals can change as governments consult, draft legislation, or consider how rules would be enforced. The precise platforms covered, the choices they would have to provide, and the consequences for non-compliance depend on the final legal and regulatory design.

It is also important to distinguish a policy proposal from an enacted obligation. A proposal or public discussion does not automatically create a legal duty. To establish what a company must currently do, readers need to check the relevant legislation and official guidance in force at the time, rather than relying on a headline or a broad use of the term “duty of care.”

Another open question is what counts as a genuine choice. Should users be able to select a chronological feed permanently? Should a service offer several ranking approaches? How should platforms explain the trade-offs without overwhelming people? These details matter because a nominal setting may not provide useful control if it is difficult to locate or understand.

Benefits, limits and common misconceptions

The strongest case for feed choice is that it gives people a practical way to influence what they see. It can also encourage platforms to explain their design decisions and make alternatives available. For researchers and regulators, clear options may make it easier to examine how different feed designs affect user experiences.

There are limits. A choice may not address the underlying distribution of harmful content, moderation failures, or risks created by features other than recommendations. Nor does a chronological feed guarantee a neutral or complete view: it reflects whom a person follows and what those accounts publish. Conversely, a ranked feed is not automatically harmful; it can help users find relevant information among many posts.

A common misconception is that “feed choice” means users can switch off all recommendations or that platforms must show every post. The proposal’s precise meaning depends on its wording. Another is that giving users control transfers all responsibility to them. A duty-of-care framework generally concerns what the service itself should do; user controls may contribute to that effort but do not settle the whole question.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does digital duty of care mean in Australia?
It refers to the idea that digital services should take reasonable steps to identify and reduce foreseeable risks linked to their products. The exact legal meaning depends on the rules enacted and the services they cover.

What is feed choice on social media?
It means allowing users to choose how posts are selected or ordered, such as a chronological view or a recommendation-ranked feed. The options depend on the platform and any final policy requirements.

Does feed choice mean social media recommendations will be banned?
No. The concept is about providing alternatives or user control, not necessarily prohibiting recommendation systems. The details of any Australian requirement would depend on the final proposal or law.

Would a chronological feed make social media safe?
No. It changes the order of posts, but does not by itself remove abusive, misleading, or disturbing content. Other safety and moderation measures may still be needed.

Is feed choice already a legal requirement in Australia?
A proposal or policy discussion is not automatically a legal requirement. Check current Australian legislation and official regulator information for the rules in force.

Who would benefit from feed choice?
It may help users who want more control over what they see or prefer a simpler ordering method. Its usefulness depends on the options being clear, accessible, and easy to change.

Method: the standard formula for this calculation, rounded as each result states. See how the calculators work or report an error.

More cards in this drawer

The whole Numbers and Powers drawer →