Digital Duty of Care Bill: Safety, Algorithms and Freedom

“My Feed, My Way”: Australia’s Digital Duty of Care Bill, Ministerial Power and the Search for Safe Online Space

Two things are true about the internet at the same time. It can be a source of knowledge, friendship and faith. It can also be a place where children encounter content that no parent would choose, where algorithms keep people scrolling long after they intended to stop, and where harm can spread faster than anyone can respond.

How should a government respond? That’s the question behind a draft law now being debated in Canberra. Following Australia’s under-16s social media age ban, the government has released an exposure draft of the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026, headlined by an initiative called “My Feed, My Way.” A recent analysis by Nicole Yap on The Daily Declaration, republished from News Weekly, argues that the proposal “sounds good on paper” but gives ministers sweeping, vaguely defined powers.

This post explains what the draft does, sets out the arguments on both sides, looks at the practical question of whether the “switch off the algorithm” idea would work, and offers a Christian framework for weighing child protection and freedom of speech. It’s a topic on which sincere people disagree, and we’ve tried to treat each view fairly.

What the Draft Bill Proposes

According to the government’s announcements and legal summaries:

• Release and timing. Communications Minister Anika Wells and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese released the exposure draft on 8 September 2026. The initial consultation closed on 22 September, and the government has said it intends to introduce legislation to Parliament this year. Reports also say that a further consultation on the specific rules for feed choice runs until 5 November.
• A statutory duty of care. The bill would require online services to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harms, shifting the model from reacting to content after it’s reported toward preventing harm through how services are designed. It would replace the existing Basic Online Safety Expectations and industry codes, following a 12-month transition after the legislation is passed.
• Who’s covered. The duty would apply broadly, including to social media, online gaming, search engines, AI chatbots and operating systems.
• Protecting young people. Services would need to protect under-18s from content such as material promoting eating disorders, pornography, the glorification of crime, abuse and bullying, and what the draft describes as hostile attitudes toward women or gender equality.
• “My Feed, My Way.” Social media platforms would be required to give users aged 16 and over a choice between a personalised, algorithm-driven feed and a simpler feed that shows only the accounts they follow, in reverse chronological order, much as feeds looked before about 2016. Users would receive a notification and the option to opt in or out.
• Annual risk assessments and design features. Platforms would need to assess risks annually and provide tools that give users and parents more control, including measures aimed at addictive features such as endless scrolling.
• Penalties. Platforms that fail to comply face fines of up to about $109 million. The draft also states that individuals who exercise day-to-day control over a service may face personal liability.
• Ministerial and regulatory roles. The eSafety Commissioner would enforce the duty and set compliance requirements, and the Minister would have a role in specifying categories of harm.

The Prime Minister has described the aim as giving “people control, not government control.” Ms Wells compared the duty of care to basic safety standards for cars, toys and food, and said it will also give parents better tools.

The Case for the Bill

Supporters make several points:

• Children are being harmed. The evidence that some online content contributes to eating disorders, self-harm, exposure to pornography and other serious harms is substantial, and parents and teachers see the effects.
• Design matters, not just content. Many harms arise not from one post but from systems built to maximise engagement. A duty to consider foreseeable harm treats platforms like any other product maker, who are expected to take reasonable care.
• The current system is reactive. Complaints and takedowns happen after the damage is done, and a system focused on prevention is better.
• Recent incidents show the need. The example of an AI image tool being used to produce non-consensual sexualised images of real people last year is cited as evidence that platforms won’t always self-regulate.
• Users want choice. Surveys suggest many people feel they’ve lost control over what they see. A simple right to switch to a chronological feed, supporters argue, is modest and popular.
• International precedent. The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act 2023 and similar frameworks elsewhere also place duties of care on online platforms.

The Case Against, or at Least for Caution

Critics, including the Coalition, think tanks and some civil society groups, raise different concerns:

• Vague definitions of “harm.” The central objection is that “harm” isn’t clearly defined, and that the Minister would be able to expand the list of harmful categories over time, with the test being whether the Minister is “satisfied” that content may cause serious harm. Critics argue that decisions about what Australians can see should be set by Parliament, not by a minister. Shadow Communications Minister Sarah Henderson said any known harm should be specific and “a matter for the Parliament, not a matter for the Minister,” and Opposition Leader Angus Taylor described the draft as a “blank cheque for political censorship.”
• An echo of the misinformation bill. The Institute of Public Affairs argues that the draft brings back, through the back door, the 2024 misinformation bill, which was withdrawn after it became clear it wouldn’t pass the Senate. That bill also relied on broad definitions of harm. Defenders of the new draft respond that it targets platform systems and harms to children, not the truth or falsity of speech, and that the categories are different.
• Over-moderation. Because of the heavy penalties, platforms may remove lawful content just to be safe, restricting legitimate speech.
• Surveillance and privacy. Risk assessments and age-related measures could require more data collection about users.
• International objections. The United States government’s submission warned that the bill could impose rigid platform design requirements, facilitate viewpoint-based censorship and lacked clear definitions of “harm” and “risk.”
• Religious and conscience concerns. Ms Yap asks whether “hostile attitudes towards women or gender equality” could be read to include traditional views on sex, gender and family that rest on religious belief. Supporters of the bill would respond that the intended target is misogynistic content aimed at young people, not religious teaching, and that the final text could include clear protections. It’s a legitimate question to put to the government, and one that precise drafting could resolve.
• Does “switching off the algorithm” work? The commentary notes that the eSafety Commissioner’s own May 2026 position paper observed that users often find reverse-chronological feeds less engaging and tend to revert to algorithmic ones. Features like Instagram’s “Explore” page may continue to push content that users don’t follow. An analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has proposed an alternative that lets users customise their feed rather than choose between a company’s algorithm and a following-only feed.

A Practical Reality Check

It’s worth recognising that the question of whether the feed choice would actually change behaviour is separate from the question of ministerial power, and both matter.

• If the chronological option is available but people don’t use it, the benefit may be limited.
• If platforms design the choice in ways that nudge users back to the algorithm, as some “dark pattern” research suggests, then the measure may be less effective than hoped.
• If the choice is genuine and easy to use, it could help some people, especially those who find they scroll for hours without meaning to.

These are empirical questions, and the best answer is to test and measure the effect, with transparency, rather than to assume either success or failure.

A Christian Lens

Scripture doesn’t speak of algorithms, but it speaks directly to the concerns at the heart of this debate.

Protecting the young. Jesus’ warning about those who cause little ones to stumble (Matthew 18:6) is severe, and Psalm 101:3 expresses the resolve not to set anything vile before one’s eyes. Parents are called to teach and guide their children (Deuteronomy 6:6–9; Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4). A concern for children’s online safety is entirely consistent with Christian faith.

The responsibility of governments. Romans 13:1–4 teaches that governing authorities are God’s servants for our good, and that they are to restrain wrongdoing. At the same time, Scripture warns repeatedly about the danger of unchecked power. In 1 Samuel 8:10–18, Samuel warns Israel about what a king will take. Ecclesiastes 5:8 observes that over one official is another higher up. Acts 5:29 insists that we must obey God rather than human authorities when they conflict. A healthy view of government includes both respect and a call for accountability and limits.

Truth and freedom of conscience. Christians have long defended the freedom to speak, preach and persuade, and have often been on the receiving end of censorship. We should be wary of any system that makes it easy to suppress lawful speech, particularly religious speech, and equally wary of treating freedom as a licence to harm the vulnerable.

Stewardship of attention. Ephesians 5:15–16 calls us to be careful how we live, making the most of our time. Psalm 119:37 prays, “Turn my eyes away from worthless things.” Galatians 5:23 lists self-control as a fruit of the Spirit. Many Christians sense that infinite scrolling erodes the capacity for prayer, reading Scripture and presence with others. Self-discipline in technology use is a spiritual matter, not only a regulatory one.

Wisdom and humility. Proverbs 15:22 says plans fail for lack of counsel. A law that affects every Australian’s online life deserves careful drafting, broad consultation and clear definitions.

Our Take

Here’s where we’d like to add some commentary.

1. Both the problem and the risk are real.

It would be a mistake to dismiss concerns about harm to children as moral panic, and it would equally be a mistake to dismiss concerns about government power as paranoia. A good law will take both seriously.

2. Definitions should be set by Parliament.

The strongest objection to the draft is not that platforms should have no duty, but that the scope of “harm” should be decided in open debate by elected representatives, with proper scrutiny, not by ministerial declaration. That principle is wise whichever party is in government, since the minister of today won’t be the minister of tomorrow.

3. Clarity protects everyone, including people of faith.

If the intent is to protect young people from misogynistic content, the text should say so clearly, and should state that mainstream religious teaching and civil debate are not caught. Vague wording creates uncertainty, and uncertainty leads to over-removal.

4. Be sceptical of single solutions.

The age ban, the algorithm opt-out and the duty of care are each presented as major steps, but none will solve the problem alone. Parents, schools, churches and the technology industry all have roles.

5. Don’t wait for the law.

Whatever Parliament decides, families can act now. Switch to following-only feeds where platforms allow it, review privacy and parental control settings, set screen-free times at home, and talk with children about what they see.

6. Take part in the process.

The exposure draft is a draft, and public input matters. Christians can contribute to consultation, write to their MPs, and ask specific questions about definitions, oversight, appeal rights and protections for religious expression.

7. Keep the focus on people.

Behind the policy are young people who are struggling with self-image, loneliness or exposure to harmful content, and parents who feel outmatched. The church can offer something no law can: real community, honest conversation and an identity grounded in being loved by God.

The Other Side of the Conversation

In fairness, here are some other views:

• Child safety advocates would say that the real risk is doing too little, that platforms have had years to act voluntarily and have not, and that ministerial flexibility is needed because technology changes faster than legislation. They might also point out that a duty of care is a standard legal concept, and that penalties apply only if a platform fails to take reasonable care.
• The government says that the aim is to give users control and to make platforms safer, that the bill is still in draft and open to improvement, and that it responds to concerns from parents and young people.
• Technology companies have mixed views: they want clarity about what’s expected, they’re concerned about compliance costs and personal liability, and some argue that the rules could hinder innovation.
• Digital rights groups share some of the Coalition’s worries about vague powers and over-moderation, though they may differ on other aspects of the policy.
• Some commentators point out that the Coalition has also supported online safety measures in the past, and that opposition to the draft isn’t necessarily opposition to the underlying goal.
• Some users would simply welcome the ability to switch off the algorithm, and don’t see it as an issue of censorship.

A thoughtful reader can recognise the force of each of these perspectives.

Practical Steps for Families and Churches

• Review feed settings. Where a platform offers a “Following” or chronological option, try it, and see whether it changes your habits.
• Set household agreements about devices: no phones at meals, screen-free bedrooms, and time limits that apply to adults as well as children.
• Use parental controls and privacy settings, and keep talking with children about what they’re seeing.
• Encourage digital fasts, whether a weekly sabbath from social media or a month-long break.
• Equip youth leaders to talk about pornography, self-harm, body image and online relationships honestly and compassionately.
• Promote real-world community: sport, music, service, small groups and church events.
• Contribute to the process. Read the exposure draft, and contact your MP with specific questions.

If You or Someone You Know Needs Support

If you or a young person you care about is struggling with online content, self-harm or an eating disorder, help is available. In Australia, Kids Helpline (1800 55 1800) supports young people aged 5 to 25, Lifeline is available any time on 13 11 14, and eSafety provides resources and a way to report harmful content at esafety.gov.au. In an emergency, call 000.

Questions to Reflect On

• What do I want the internet to be for my children, and how do I pursue that at home?
• Where do I draw the line between protecting people from harm and protecting freedom of speech?
• Who should decide what counts as harmful content: Parliament, a minister, a regulator, or families?
• How much of my own time online reflects my values?
• What would it look like for my church to help people reclaim attention for God and one another?

A Short Prayer

Lord, you are the Shepherd who knows each of us by name. We pray for children and young people who are growing up in a connected world, and for the parents and teachers who guide them. Give wisdom to those who make laws about the online world, that they would protect the vulnerable and honour freedom, and that no power would be used unjustly. Help us to use our time and attention well, to love our neighbours, and to be a church where people can find real friendship and real truth. Amen.