US calls Australia's algorithm opt-out plan censorship as Albanese defends draft law

The United States has publicly attacked Australia's draft digital duty of care laws, arguing that a requirement to let social media users switch off recommendation algorithms amounts to "censorship of protected speech". According to the BBC, the US embassy in Canberra lodged a rare submission against the proposed legislation, sharpening an international dispute between two close allies over how platforms should be governed.

What the draft law would do

Australia's draft digital duty of care would expose technology companies to heavy fines if they fail to give users the option to turn off algorithmic feeds. The measure is intended to protect users from harmful content by letting them opt out of recommendation-driven ranking on major platforms.

It is the latest in a series of Australian moves to tighten online safety rules. As the BBC notes, the proposal comes less than a year after the country introduced a ban on social media use for children under 16, which was rolled out last December.

Washington's objections

The embassy's submission, as reported by the BBC, centres on how the law defines harm. The US said it has "serious concerns" that letting the government "enforce vague definitions of 'harm'" would lead to "viewpoint-based censorship", and asked Australia to clarify how harm and risks will be assessed so that the definitions do not intrude on protected speech.

The submission also warned of knock-on effects for independent media. If platforms felt compelled to "pre-emptively demote" potentially risky material, the US argued, the reach of independent journalists and other voices covering sensitive or controversial topics could shrink.

Design mandates drew a separate objection. An opt-out requirement, the submission said, would allow regulators to impose "rigid, one-size-fits-all platform design requirements" on firms — and because platforms operate across borders, "mandated platform design features, especially when applied to algorithms, may affect what users see, say, and hear not just in or from Australia, but globally."

The embassy further urged Australia to address industry concerns that the "biases and preferences" of government officials could "disadvantage independent or minority-viewpoint speech", and cautioned that the laws could damage Australia's reputation "as a jurisdiction that enables innovation".

Albanese pushes back

The criticism landed while Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was in the United States to speak at the UN General Assembly about his government's technology policies. Responding in New York to claims that the draft law represents government overreach, he rejected the characterisation.

"It's not about giving government control," Albanese told reporters, according to the BBC. "It's about giving people back control over what they receive on their devices."

The gap between the two governments was visible elsewhere at the General Assembly. US President Donald Trump used his own speech to play down fears about AI, reject proposals for guardrails on the technology, and argue it should be renamed "super intelligence" because, in his words, "the use of the word artificial makes it sound fake".

Why it matters

The exchange is an unusual public intervention by one ally in another's domestic lawmaking, and it shows how contested platform design has become as a regulatory target. Australia's proposal does not ask platforms to remove content; it asks them to give users a choice about how content is ranked. Washington's argument that even that crosses into censorship previews the resistance other countries could face if they pursue similar rules.

The extraterritorial claim is also consequential. If national design mandates really do shape what users see worldwide, as the US asserts, then every such law becomes an international negotiation rather than a purely domestic matter. For platform operators, the outcome will help determine whether algorithmic feeds remain the default experience or whether user-controlled feeds become a legally mandated alternative in a major English-speaking market.