Let's Grow
menu
close
back
News Views
30/09/2026

My Feed, My Way: the state of play for advertisers

My Feed, My Way: the state of play for advertisers image

The Albanese Government wants to give Australians more control over the algorithm. Advertisers should probably pay attention. 

Digital regulation in Australia is moving quickly. This is our state of play on My Feed, My Way: what has been proposed, what has happened since, what commentators are saying and what advertisers might want to keep an eye on. 

It’s not exhaustive, and plenty of detail is still unresolved. But if you want to get up to speed, these are the key developments and questions as at the end of September, with links to further reading at the end. 

What is the My Feed, My Way Proposal? 

On 8 September, the Federal Government released draft Digital Duty of Care legislation as part of a broader package of online safety reforms, and announced My Feed, My Way. 

The idea is deceptively simple: social media platforms would have to give Australians over 16 a clear and persistent choice between a feed based on algorithmic recommendations and one based on people and creators they have chosen to follow. [My Feed, My Way media release] 

Exactly how that would work is considerably less simple, and as yet unknown. Legal analysis suggests they would most likely be introduced later through a separate legislative instrument once the broader law is in place. [Mallesons] 

There is political disagreement about how the choice should work. The Government wants users to make an explicit choice. The Greens have suggested a following-based feed to be the default, with users actively opting into algorithmic recommendations. [The Guardian] 

So, there is no switch being flicked tomorrow. Consultation closes on 22 September, with legislation intended for 2026. The broader duty-of-care provisions are proposed to begin 12 months after Royal Assent. [Australian Government; Digital Duty of Care exposure draft] 

Of course, none of this is guaranteed to happen in its current form. The proposal still has to make its way through the political and legislative process, and detailed implementation rules have yet to be written. 

Why is it important?  

There are signs this sits within a broader regulatory direction worth watching. 

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reinforced one of the themes behind My Feed, My Way during his US visit this month: the idea of putting greater control over technology back in people’s hands. ABC reported Albanese calling on the US and China to reach agreement on AI development so that “humans remain in control”, while Reuters connected the visit with Australia’s broader push on social media regulation and international AI governance.  

The Government has explicitly described My Feed, My Way as being about “putting choice back into the hands of Australians online” and giving Australians control over whether recommendation algorithms shape their feeds. [My Feed, My Way media release; Today interview with Anthony Albanese; ABC News] 

In Cupertino, Albanese said Australia would legislate national AI standards before the end of the year and called for international cooperation on AI governance. [ABC News; Reuters] 

Albanese travelled on to New York, where the Trump administration publicly criticised Australia’s proposed Digital Duty of Care. It argued that the proposed legislation, including the algorithm opt-out proposal, could amount to censorship and called for US social media companies to be excluded. Albanese pushed back, saying the reforms were not about giving government control but about “giving people back control over what they receive on their devices”. President Trump then rejected calls for further international AI regulation in his address to the UN General Assembly. [ABC News; Prime Minister of Australia – Doorstop, New York; Reuters] 

Nonetheless, back in Sydney, Albanese reiterated Australia’s position that AI should be shaped in the national interest and that both domestic and international action were needed to ensure humans remain in control. [Prime Minister of Australia – Doorstop, Sydney, 26 September 2026]  

So, what could this mean for advertisers? 

Much of the early marketing commentary has focused on discovery. If a meaningful number of people choose feeds dominated by accounts they already follow, commentators have suggested it could become harder for brands, publishers and creators to reach people who don’t already know them. That could make existing followers and engaged communities more valuable, change how brands assess creators, and make discovery harder for smaller creators and emerging brands. [Mi3] 

Then there is paid media. Mi3’s Nadia Cameron notes that the current draft does not specify restrictions on targeted advertising or the algorithmic optimisation of paid advertising, and suggests paid campaigns may therefore still be able to reach new audiences even when users turn off organic recommendations. 

Our reading of that distinction is that turning off algorithmically recommended content is not necessarily the same thing as turning off algorithmically targeted advertising. How that works in practice is one of the things we don’t yet know. The same Mi3 article also raises the possibility that weaker organic discovery could increase reliance on paid media. 

Which raises an obvious commercial question: if organic discovery gets harder, might brands end up paying platforms for more of the reach they previously received organically? Unknown, at this stage. 

Competing views are already emerging.  

EMARKETER analyst Marisa Jones has raised the possibility of weaker ad relevance and targeting precision. Industry commentators canvassed by Mi3 have discussed stronger reliance on established communities, greater dependence on paid media and a tougher discovery environment for smaller brands and creators. 

Instagram head Adam Mosseri has argued that chronological feeds can become dominated by high-volume brands and publishers, drowning out creators and friends. He has also claimed engagement can fall substantially when users move away from recommendation feeds, although he did not provide data to support the figure he cited. [ABC News] 

Dr David Micallef from RMIT has pointed to the opposite possibility, arguing that recommendation systems can themselves suppress or deprioritise content from organisations and communities people have actively chosen to follow. [Mi3] 

That range of views shows how little can safely be assumed at this stage. Changing the mechanics of a feed could produce consequences that aren’t necessarily obvious beforehand, and there are still privacy, measurement and reporting questions left to be asked and answered. 

What are we doing about it? 

Right now? Watching. Sharing this summary. 

There will undoubtedly be developments and arguments we’ve missed, not to mention consequences nobody has thought of yet. So, this isn’t our definitive position on My Feed, My Way. It’s the “hey, you should probably know this is happening” version. 

We’re keeping an eye on it. 

Further Reading

If you’d like to go deeper, these are some of the sources we’ve been following: 

Contact us to tie media strategy to profitability and prove it.

Related Articles

View All