A new proposal to limit our scrolling has a precedent. But would it work?

For years, social media companies have relied on powerful algorithms to decide what Australians see in their feeds, using their personal data and behaviour to keep them scrolling.

That could be about to change.

The federal government is drafting "digital duty of care" legislation that would require social media companies to identify risks and take steps to reduce online harm.

Among the proposals is a push to "Fix Our Feeds", which would give Australians greater control over whether algorithms personalise the content they see.

But Australia would not be the first jurisdiction to try to rein in the algorithms that determine what users see.

The European Union has already introduced rules requiring the largest social media platforms to give users an alternative to personalised recommendations.

The experience offers a warning for Australia: giving people more control over their feeds does not necessarily mean they will use it.

The EU's world-first social media algorithm legislation

The EU's Digital Services Act, which began applying to the largest online platforms in 2023, was designed to strengthen users' rights and give them greater control over their online experiences.

"Europe is now effectively the first jurisdiction in the world where online platforms no longer benefit from a 'free pass' and set their own rules," then EU commissioner Thierry Breton said in 2023.

Under the rules, the largest platforms — those with more than 45 million monthly users in the EU — must offer at least one recommendation option that is not based on users' personal profiling.

Instagram and Facebook users now have feeds that show content in the order it was posted and more closely resemble how social media worked before personalised feeds became central to the platforms.

Proponents argue chronological feeds may be less addictive because users can feel they have "caught up", rather than being drawn into endless scrolling.

But Patrik Wikström, a professor of computational communication at Queensland University of Technology, said the European regulations had shortcomings.

"Even if we say 'We don't want the platforms to know an awful lot about us, we don't want this to be personalised, and we don't want these rabbit holes and echo chambers', at the end of the day, when we're sitting there and scrolling, we like it," he told SBS News.

"People still stick to the personalised platform because it is there for a reason. It's tuned perfectly to our brains and to make us stay as long as possible on the platform, and it's hard to escape."

Research cited by Australia's eSafety Commissioner found users often found chronological feeds less engaging and switched back to personalised algorithms, raising questions about whether simply providing an option is enough.

When choice isn't enough

Digital rights groups have argued that the European approach places too much responsibility on users.

Last year, Dutch digital rights group Bits of Freedom successfully sued Meta, arguing Facebook and Instagram made it unnecessarily difficult for users to access non-personalised feeds.

The group argued that Meta had made the alternative feeds option difficult to find and automatically returned users to personalised feeds when they reopened the apps.

The case highlights a problem with an "opt-out" model, in which users may technically have control over their feeds, but platforms can still make the less personalised option harder to find or less convenient to use.

Teach Us Consent, the Australian advocacy group campaigning for stronger rules over social media algorithms, wants Australia to go further.

It has called for non-personalised feeds to be the default, rather than an option users have to actively seek out.

"We urge the Government to require social media platforms to offer an option to 'opt-in' to algorithms, giving us the autonomy to turn our algorithms on and off," the group wrote in an open letter to the government.

"This is about informed and affirmative consent: control over our data and our feeds.

"The European Union has paved the way with an 'opt-out' policy but this would be a world first, bringing genuine consent to our online experiences."

Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek has indicated the government is open to the proposal, acknowledging the issues highlighted by the EU regulation.

"What we've seen from the big tech companies in the past is they technically comply with what they're required to do legally, but they make the app so unpleasant or unwieldy to use that people default back to the old version," she told ABC's Insiders on Sunday.

The US lawsuit

Plibersek said the government was also monitoring a lawsuit against Meta brought by 47 US states, which alleged that the company's platforms harmed children and misled the public about their safety.

Meta settled the case last week for up to US$18 billion ($25 billion) over the next decade, without admitting wrongdoing.

The agreement included measures affecting young users, such as limits on daily use, restrictions on notifications during school hours, and measures intended to restrict access to age-inappropriate content.

The case does not directly affect Meta's operations in Australia, where the federal government has separately introduced restrictions on social media access for children under 16.

But similar legal action could be pursued here as another approach to regulation.

Australian class-action law firm Shine Lawyers said it was in discussions with Mark Lanier, a lawyer who worked on the US case against Meta, about a potential lawsuit.

"For years, families have been asking whether enough has been done to protect children from platform features designed to maximise engagement," Shine Lawyers head of class actions Craig Allsopp said.

"We are now examining whether similar legal issues arise in Australia, including whether Australian children and families may have claims connected to the design, operation and promotion of social media platforms. If Australian families have been affected, they deserve answers."

— With additional reporting by Reuters.

For the latest from SBS News, download our app and subscribe to our newsletter.