In a statement released on September 22, the U.S. embassy in Canberra expressed “serious concerns” about the exposure draft of Australia’s Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026, arguing that mandatory “forced chronological feeds” and “opt‑in recommendation systems” could force platforms to filter content in a way that suppresses protected speech, which the embassy said would be tantamount to censorship.
The draft legislation would place new duties on social‑media companies to protect children from online harms and to give users the option to turn off highly personalised algorithmic feeds. Companies that fail to meet these obligations could face fines of up to Aus$109 million (about US$78 million). The U.S. note highlighted that most of the affected platforms are U.S.-headquartered, prompting a request for clarification on how the bill defines “harm” and how enforcement would impact users worldwide.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, speaking to journalists in New York, rejected the notion that the bill hands control to the government. “It’s not about giving government control, it’s about giving people back control over what they receive on their devices,” he told AFP, emphasizing that the policy is intended to protect children and restore user choice rather than to censor content.
Australia became the first nation to impose a blanket ban on social‑media access for children under 16 in December 2023, relying on experimental age‑verification technology to lock younger users out of platforms. The new draft builds on that ban by extending platform responsibilities and offering a legal framework for algorithmic transparency.
Experts remain divided on the effectiveness of the child‑ban and the proposed duty‑of‑care measures. Some argue that age‑verification systems are untested and could be easily circumvented, while others see the draft as a step toward greater accountability for tech firms. The United States has asked Canberra to withdraw any plans that would compel platforms to suppress content based on ambiguous, government‑defined safety criteria, and to provide further detail on the bill’s enforcement mechanisms.